
Starbucks to Provide Free College Education to Thousands of Workers - e15ctr0n
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/starbucks-to-provide-free-college-education-to-thousands-of-workers.html?_r=0
======
danso
> _Starbucks is, in effect, inviting its workers, from the day they join the
> company, to study whatever they like, and then leave whenever they like —
> knowing that many of them, degrees in hand, will leave for better-paying
> jobs._

> _Even if they did, their experience “would be accreted to our brand, our
> reputation and our business,” Howard D. Schultz, the company’s chairman and
> chief executive, said in an interview. “I believe it will lower attrition,
> it’ll increase performance, it’ll attract and retain better people.”_

This is pretty good long-term thinking on Starbucks' part...On one-hand,
there's the obvious cost...on the other, I imagine that a significant number
of the best, too-qualified-to-be-just-a-barista baristas leave after two or so
years, anyway. Now that there's an extra benefit to joining Starbucks, SB
could conceivably attract a higher number of higher-quality non-careerists
without a substantially greater attrition in workforce loss.

Besides the cost, another downside for Starbucks is that, OK, maybe your part-
time studying baristas won't be so on-task...Maybe, but I doubt it. High-
achievers stuck in mundane jobs may not perform to their potential...but these
aren't people "stuck" as being bariatas. They purportedly _agreed_ to become
baristas with the expectation of getting a degree and then a "real" job...when
you have that kind of open path in front of you, you're not as susceptible to
low morale on the job. At least that's been in my experience, where I loved
doing labor jobs in the summer between school years.

~~~
gedrap
People are a big asset for Starbucks. They are trying to make a visit to SB a
personal, warm experience. And the staff is key to that, they don't want
grumpy and hate-this-job-a-lot people.

Once when I was in SB, the doors to the personnel room were open and I saw
bunch of hand drawn things, hand written colourful weekly goals (rather than
just printed), etc. That shows their, management people, approach and goals.

So I think this decision fits in pretty well in their long term mission.

~~~
l33tbro
Nothing fuzzy here. It is an extremely well-calculated ROI move from
corporate. Win hearts and minds of the bean-proles on the front lines, and you
get increasesed productivity via an enhanced sense of belongining.

~~~
qq66
Culture isn't that easy to fabricate without some level of sincerity
throughout the organization. And even if it was, who loses if everyone is
happier to belong in the organization?

~~~
l33tbro
Starbucks didn't crawl to the cushier half of the Fortune 500 on a corporate
mission statement of "chill vibes". Would of made them has-beans (had-beans?)
long ago.

You're right in that all parties win. But we would be all joshing ourselves if
we didn't acknowledge that the muse beckoning to the boardroom here was the
profit-motive.

I'm not doubting their were some well-intentioned individuals involved in this
initiative - hats off to them. Just saying let's be realistic about why this
is happening.

~~~
mseebach
You seem to suggest that "all parties winning" is a random, unintended by-
product of the process being ultimately profit-driven (which apparently is
nefarious).

This is false. While there may well exist exploitation, the vast majority of
successful businesses, especially those that are successful on the longer
term, were and are successful because their profit/employee/customer value
proposition is one of win/win/win.

~~~
moe
_vast majority ... win /win/win_

Vast majority, really?

Call me a cynic but win/lose/win seems a lot more common to me.

~~~
mseebach
It's important to get terminology right: It's "win" as in "win/win" situation,
not "victorious forever". It means "better than the best alternative", not
"best".

Is spending $8 on a milky Starbucks coffee a better value for the customer
than the immediate alternatives to spending it, including not spending it? In
that case, he "wins".

Is keeping the capital invested in the assets that make up Starbucks a better
value for the investors than not? Then the owners "win".

And is taking a job at Starbucks a better deal than taking any alternative job
available? It seems a whole lot more pleasant to me than most other low-paid,
low-skilled jobs I can think of. If so, the employee "wins".

This education effort will likely make a Starbucks job even more attractive
than the alternatives, for rather little money, making working at Starbucks a
"win" for more people.

------
nwenzel
While many universities strive for exclusivity, ASU is finding ways to be more
inclusive. It probably hurts us in the rankings, but it's the right thing to
do.

Proud to be a Sun Devil.

From the AZ Constitution: Article 11, Section 6
[http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/11/6.ht...](http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/11/6.htm#)
Section 6. The university and all other state educational institutions shall
be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as
nearly free as possible. The legislature shall provide for a system of common
schools by which a free school shall be established and maintained in every
school district for at least six months in each year, which school shall be
open to all pupils between the ages of six and twenty-one years.

~~~
Chronic28
And yet I don't see Arizona contributing much to the US economy, social
welfare, and/or higher education. They are contributing some, but below your
average state.

Edit: Made the point more clear.

~~~
zghst
ASU is the largest university in the US, that must make some type of impact in
the US economy. Also ASU has a lot of cool research

~~~
xcrunner529
Based on what? It has been a few years since I've followed the rankings, but
Ohio State and Texas were always battling for first in enrollment numbers.

~~~
imgabe
So only the university that's #1 in enrollment contributes anything?

~~~
xcrunner529
Absolutely not, I was just curious what was being used for that statement.

------
michaelq
Starbucks is using ASU's famously developed online course infrastructure and
its own massive headcount to educate all of its employees in a way that will
add little marginal cost for either entity. Thought the normal ASU cost per
credit is ~$500, I would be amazed if Starbucks ended up spending even a third
of that.

ASU president Michael Crow is profiled positively as one of the more
progressive thinkers in higher ed the 2013 book College Unbound:
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544027078/ref=as_li_tf_tl?...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544027078/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8=1789=9325=0544027078)
I wouldn't be surprised if ASU went on to work out a deal with other big
retailers that employ a lot of people who haven't finished college yet. ASU's
marginal costs will continue to fall as they get more students into the pipes.
Walmart, McDonalds and other large employers could be next to partner with
them.

~~~
avz
> ...to educate all of its employees in a way that will add little marginal
> cost for either entity.

Is it somehow evil to boost education cost-effectively?

~~~
dkokelley
I don't think that's the connotation of the OP's sentence.

------
seancoleman
Here is the email I received from ASU President Michael Crow today making the
announcement:

I write to share an update on our evolution as a 21st century public research
university. As you know, ASU is a New American University uniquely committed
to the simultaneous achievement of excellence, access and impact. As we move
forward, we will continue to balance scholarship, discovery and the
development of real world solutions on a grand scale, while remaining true to
our vision of inclusion and student success. Institutions of higher learning
have a responsibility to go beyond imagining change and instead bring workable
answers to fruition. ASU has demonstrated its ability to do so successfully
and we will maintain that trajectory. On Monday, June 16, we introduce the
world to the Starbucks College Achievement Plan.

The Starbucks College Achievement Plan is the combined vision of Arizona State
University and one of the world’s most trusted, innovative and socially
conscious companies. Together, we will offer leading education delivered
online with world class faculty and personalized instruction to students who
would like to continue their journey in higher education. This model is a
unique partnership designed to increase access for more students to earn and
finish a college degree, and is based on Starbucks’ and ASU’s shared values.

On June 16, we will join Starbucks as they host their first ever Partner
Family Forum in the U.S. to announce the Starbucks College Achievement Plan
with hundreds of their partners and family members in New York at the Times
Center. Watch the webcast on June 16 beginning at 7:45 a.m. PT, 10:45 a.m. ET
by visiting starbucks.com/collegeplan. I also encourage you to watch the video
of what this means to Starbucks partners by visiting starbucks.asu.edu.

The Starbucks College Achievement Plan is supportive of our vision to be
measured not by who we exclude, but rather by who we include and how they
succeed and moves toward our goal of enrolling 100,000 online and distance
education degree seeking students.

This is a program we can all be proud of, and I look forward to your support
as together we continue to increase access to world class higher education.

Michael M. Crow President Arizona State University
[http://president.asu.edu](http://president.asu.edu)

~~~
judk
Wow that's a quintessential college essay, padded to 3x size to reach a target
word count.

~~~
seizethecheese
Changing font size doesn't effect word count.

~~~
vidarh
No, but padding with superfluous words and sentences does.

------
dclowd9901
One thing that infuriates me whenever a company decides to do this is that
we'll see politicians from both sides of the aisle laud this as an important
and meaningful step, all the while oblivious to the irony that at one point,
it was the federal government's mandate and responsibility to provide exactly
this for its citizenship. So now we're supposed to just rely on the random
benevolence of companies to provide investment into social infrastructure?
Let's hope that never stands in the way of their profits -_-

~~~
gmu3
It's not the government's mandate nor responsibility to provide higher
education in the United States. It infuriates me when citizens are so
conceited they think the government should provide everything for them as if
they have no agency themselves.

~~~
efuquen
It infuriates me when citizens are so conceited that having the money to
afford a higher education is equivalent to the merit of pursuing one. A
government footing the bill for higher education isn't and wouldn't be the
same as simply giving it to someone on a silver platter. You still have to
_earn_ that degree based on work and merit and it certainly isn't the same
thing as a handout. The idea that money is always related to agency is
idiotic. There are plenty of people who have the agency to obtain a college
degree but don't have the resources, monetary or societal support, to do so.

~~~
zaroth
I think gmu3 is referring specifically to the 10th amendment; "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Pretty straight forward and to the point, right? So simply point to the
article in the Constitution where the _Fed_ is supposed to fund education, and
we'll be on the same page.

Otherwise, it's completely up to each state to tax and spend how they see fit.
Any state that wants can make the choice, and I think it's a great system
where we can freely move to any state which taxes and spends to our individual
liking. If only the Fed could ease up a little bit, rather than still running
a deficit while collecting more money than they _ever have before_ even in
inflation adjusted dollars [1]...

Aside from the technical considerations of the Constitution, if you take a
quick look at the New York Fed published slide deck [2] on trends in college
loans, you can learn a lot about how much the Fed is already subsidizing the
college industry and "footing the bill" indeed since a large percentage of
these loans will never be repaid. They can't ever be repaid, because too many
recipients of these loans don't actually gain anywhere near the marketable
skills necessary to cover the cost of tuition.

[1] -
[http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/lightb...](http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/lightbox/images/RECORD%20TAX%20REVENUES%20THROUGH%20MAY-
CHART-PHOTO-1.jpg)

[2] -
[http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/mediaadvisory/2013/Lee0...](http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/mediaadvisory/2013/Lee022813.pdf)

~~~
ewoodrich
>Pretty straight forward and to the point, right? So simply point to the
article in the Constitution where the Fed is supposed to fund education, and
we'll be on the same page.

I don't know about "supposed" to, but the federal government is certainly
"able to" fund education.

There is the General Welfare Clause that affords powers to tax and approriate
revenue:

 _to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of
the United States;_

And of course, the Necessary and Proper clause:

 _The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or
in any Department or Officer thereof._

Ultimately, however, the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, not
lay-persons, so you really can't just say that it's "straight forward and to
the point" without addressing any case law on the subject.

------
drpgq
Is the answer really everyone having a degree? People think more people going
to college is the answer to the current economic malaise, but I think it just
leads to more and more people fighting over the same sized piece of pie.

~~~
epoxyhockey
Focus on the part about having a more educated population. Educated persons
tend to vote for candidates aligned with their best interests, spend money
more wisely, and commit less crime. More educated peers and neighbors will
make _your_ life better.

~~~
ryanfreeborn
Yup. Couldn't agree more with this response.

There is this growing contrarian sentiment—particularly in the HN and Reddit
communities—that "college isn't for everyone". The college industrial complex
aside, I cannot see how further education—particularly through programs like
this one—could ever be a bad thing. After all, education is the silver bullet.

~~~
Chronic28
People are not actually learning. They are simply "along for the ride" while
memorizing for tests so they can land a job and forget most of the things
they've learned. Perhaps we should improve our secondary education as we are
lacking on that front in America instead of encouraging everyone to take 4
more years out of their working lives.

~~~
jimmaswell
I've witnessed this, myself. It shows itself as a lot of questions about
what's going to be on a test instead of trying to understand the material.

------
karmicthreat
So at what point are we going to just going to accept that people need the
equivalent of an associates coming out of high school. I don't think less
education is the answer but as a bachelors equivalent becomes necessary for
even a modest living, it might be worth looking at expanding what secondary
education covers.

~~~
blahedo
The idea has come up:

[https://chronicle.com/article/Free-Community-
College-/144553...](https://chronicle.com/article/Free-Community-
College-/144553/)

~~~
karmicthreat
That is the thing, a free community college associates just means two more
years of school. I think we need to make some progress on getting some of this
compressed into the 4 years of high school as well. Plenty of people don't
have the option of two additional years of school because they have no family.
Or the just have to work full time or numerous part time jobs.

Its a hard problem.

------
wallflower
Michael Gill wrote a personal memoir about going from Corporate America to
Coffee America.

A quick, good read that may show you how deep valuing the individual in
Starbucks goes.

[http://www.amazon.com/How-Starbucks-Saved-Life-
Privilege/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Starbucks-Saved-Life-
Privilege/dp/1592404049)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Starbucks_Saved_My_Life](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Starbucks_Saved_My_Life)

------
richcsmith
One of the longer term benefits for Starbucks that stands out to me the most
is the long-term brand loyalty these folks will have. They'll be walking,
talking advertisements for the greatness that is Starbucks for all the good
they've done for them. I wish more companies understood that treating your
people well is one of the best marketing tactics you can employ.

By and large, companies are only going to make decisions that positively
impact their bottom line, and _sometimes_ it just so happens that those
decisions align with the best interest of their employees. This is definitely
one of those moments. Not to say that Starbucks' intentions aren't genuine,
but it's hard to ignore the obvious positive impact this is going to have for
them. I always wonder about what matters more to these companies (employee
welfare or their bottom line), but I guess it doesn't much matter if the
employees are happier and better off for it in the end.

------
Goopplesoft
Interesting if this becomes widespread to other companies as well. Free
enterprise/big-corp solving the cost of education/college issue when our
government couldn't will be a big win for the laissez-faire folks.

Are there any existing tax benefits for educating your workers? That might be
the next govt involved step here.

~~~
zo1
" _Free enterprise /big-corp solving the cost of education/college issue when
our government couldn't will be a big win for the laissez-faire folks._" I'm
sure you'd find quite a few Libertarians that would like the idea, and see it
as a good "proof-of-concept".

On the other hand, you'll find Libertarians like me. We're pissed off because
the government is taking our tax-money on the pretense of fixing these issues,
and has nothing to show for it. These are all problems that we expect to be
fixed using our money, and yet it's not happening. It just get's dragged
along, year after year, election after election. Meanwhile, millions and
billions (or whichever amount) is spent on useless endeavors such as foreign
intervention/meddling, and wars.

~~~
mseebach
"Libertarians like you" will find it easier to argue that the government
should stop taking your money (or at least take less of it) to provide
education, the more private sector success stories there is to point to.

~~~
zo1
Are you sure about that? I find people are incredibly _hostile_ towards
Libertarian concepts and ideas. However, the idea of simply holding government
accountable for stuff that they already keep professing to want to fix seems
like something a whole lot more people would agree on.

------
jayantsethi
See, this is what I love about some nice corporations. Get big, then return
back to the society by giving them the most valuable gift : Education.

A very good initiative.

~~~
pizza234
Large business corporations today have a huge amount of power in their hands;
in the context of greedy shareholders and governments which are getting
proportionally weaker, there can certainly be "nice" corporation in the
traditional sense, but most of the times, their niceness is synonym of good
PR. In this specific case, it's important not to forget the massive amount of
taxes that Starbucks avoids.

------
dan_bk
So Starbucks is basically doing the government's job.

~~~
zghst
I've calculated free education, it would basically collapse our government's
finances. A College education is nice, but is not the sole step to ending to
our economic and societal problems.

~~~
gambiting
My country - Poland - has completely free education, on every level - primary,
middle,high school and every university are free. There are private ones which
are paid but they are not very good and a degree from any of them is not worth
much.

And yet despite free education(and free healthcare for everyone) we managed to
be the ONLY country in the entire European Union to not enter into recession -
while every other country was going into negative numbers,we managed to
maintain positive growth.

So, if free education in the US would collapse your finances, then there is
something seriously wrong with either the cost of the education(which is
seriously inflated and disproportionate for what it's offering) or your
government has wrong spending priorities.

~~~
xerophtye
Does the free education thing apply to international students? I know some EU
countries only have that for locals and some (like norway) extend that
privilege for international students. So where does Poland classify?

Not criticizing, just curious.

~~~
tim333
Apparently the free education thing applies sometimes:

[http://iso.uni.lodz.pl/study-in-english/terms-of-studying-
in...](http://iso.uni.lodz.pl/study-in-english/terms-of-studying-in-poland)

~~~
xerophtye
Hmm... only EU residents (even if foreign to Poland)

------
e12e
By the way, if anyone else wondered about that parenthesis on union busting,
here's the union's home page:

[http://starbucksunion.org/](http://starbucksunion.org/)

~~~
justizin
"Right now, Starbucks baristas are on strike in Chile, where they make less
per hour than the price of a cup of coffee."

------
quadrangle
Good for them! Most folks today still think Capitalism has merit, so if a
corporation is working out ways to do things like this, way to go.

Sure, it will help Starbucks recruit college-oriented more ambitious
employees, and that's what they want. Fine.

This is no solution for society overall, but it's a good thing for what it is.

~~~
pizza234
Considering that Starbucks practices massive tax avoidance, the company is
essentially using taxpayers' money for a very clever PR stunt.

~~~
xerophtye
>using taxpayers' money for a very clever PR stunt.

Firstly i don't think "taxpayer's money" is an accurate description as they
aren't exactly using the money we pay as tax. Instead they are deciding how
_their_ tax money is used. Not that i support tax avoidance or anything, but
if a certain sum of money is being used to provide a large number of people
with free college education, I don't really see how the govt can make better
use of it. ok i guess there _are_ better uses but this isn't exactly a bad
spend is it?

------
VeejayRampay
This is going to be a conundrum for ultra-liberal coffee hipsters... On the
one hand, Starbucks is "The Man" and killing their precious neighbourhood
artisan roasters one after another, on the other hand they're offering a
chance to a good education to their workers and setting a new example for
other companies to follow. Hard choices.

~~~
Malarkey73
Theres no conundrum for me. I won't go there. 1. They make rubbish coffee. 2.
They pay no tax in my country.

When they pay no tax, they have an unfair anticompetitive advantage against
businesses that do. Other taxpayers have to make up the balance.

The fact they are now gifting a fraction back and looking of kudos just vexes
me more.

~~~
VeejayRampay
That is actually a good point you're raising. Starbucks is known for some
dodgy tax-evasion schemes, which really makes that whole education thing kind
of hypocritical.

~~~
cududa
I don't think hypocritical is the right word. If they paid in taxes an equal
amount that this program costs, would that still equal free education for
their employees?

------
dsplatonov
Nice thing. Now people will have less motivation to fire from Starbucks - i
believe in this case the employee will need to pay by himself. Additionally,
managers will be able to push employees to work harder and therefore the
amount workers, required to work in one place might be reduced. Genius!

------
joshferg
its a good start. good to see companies helping out their common man
employees.

------
vparikh
The more I read and hear about Howard Schultz the more of a hero is becoming
of mine. Pure genius. I will be drinking a lot more Starbucks coffee to
support this company.

------
phazmatis
Great. Now recruiters will be calling me offering ping-pong, beer fridays, and
college tuition.

~~~
aestra
>Now recruiters will be calling me offering ping-pong, beer fridays, and
college tuition.

College tuition is a very common perk in the cooperate world as long as you
maintain your grades and study something related to your work.

------
001sky
free <online> college...

~~~
ASneakyFox
Its not real education unless you sit through 45 minutes of an instrctor
reading you powerpoint slides from the book in person.

~~~
josefresco
Just like it's not real "startup school" unless you spend 3 months in Silicon
Valley?

------
differentView
I'll have one of those vanilla bullshit degrees.

------
grifpete
Terrific.

------
ninguem2
I thought they all had degrees in English already.

~~~
falsestprophet
Seventy percent of Starbucks employees don't have degrees, but want them. You
are not correct.

~~~
honksillet
The fact 1/3 of Starbucks employees have university degrees is amazing.

~~~
szatkus
In my country McDonald's employees with degree aren't uncommon.

~~~
VLM
Its highly location based. On the coasts in SV and Manhattan Island, I'm sure
McDonalds only hires high school dropouts and illegals, while anyone with a
college degree has a real job. Elsewhere, it varies, and plenty of McJobs are
staffed by people with degrees.

If the pie is continuously shrinking, and the supply of people with
credentials (and related massive debt) is continuously expanding, this outcome
seems fairly inevitable.

Most of the bartenders / waitresses I know have a degree in something. Maybe
not a STEM field, but a degree of some sort. It is uncontroversial that there
are unemployed people with degrees, so it should be no surprise there are
massively underemployed degree holders.

