Last night I wrote a post about the 100-0 drubbing of the Dallas Academy girls high school basketball team by the Covenant School; the blow-out game has been national news for more than two weeks. But today, on Sirius NFL radio, I hear a more moving high school sports story from the Dallas area.
Kris Hogan, head football coach at Faith Cristian School was invited to the Super Bowl by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell because his team and his school set an example for aportsmanship that other coaches would do well to follow.
Faith Christian is a private high school which, according to Coach Hogan's interview on Sirius, had moved up to a higher division of play. One of their opponents, Gainesville State, a school for 250 juvenile offenders, is also in that division. According to a Kansas City Star story that I found after hearing the broadcast, Gainesville State allows only junior and senior boys to play football; it is considered a special privilege to visit other schools to play (See that story at: http://www.kansascity.com/187/story/1002690.html).
When Gainesvlle State plays a road game, they usually bring only 40 fans along with them, as well as a very small complement of players (between 13 and 28 according to the Star story. Opposing schools try to help by lending their junior varsity cheerleaders to cheer on Gainesville State, and put up small banners.
But Hogan and Faith Christian went much, much, further: They gave the visiting team a spirit line. Two rows of 100 people lined up for them, stretching about 40 yards. They were connected by a banner roughly 20 feet wide. As the game progressed, fans continued to beat on 5-gallon drums behind the Gainesville bench cheering for them. The Faith players offered a hand up to Gainesville players after a hard tackle.
Faith won the game 33-14; the score was much closer than it might have been had the home team not provided the visitors with a enthusiastic fan base. But Hogan explained that Gainesville State was not the typical opponent; there are few parents or friends who would come to their games to support their team, so they decided to give them fans, and also hope that would motivate their opponents to play harder.
Hogan says that, because of the conference both teams are assigned, the two teams will meet again. And Faith will continue to provide the cheering section for Gainesville State. The home team will likely win every game, but everyone who is in their stadium that day will learn much more. Maybe Hogan will extend an invite to the former Covenant girls basketball coach, so he can take some lessons from this experience too.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Texas Girl's Basketball Blow-Out Was Unwarranted
Tonight I tried to find the box score for the Covenant School-Dallas Academy girl's basketball game that was played more than two weeks ago. Covenant School won the game 100-0 over a team that had not won a game in four years. I live in New Jersey, so I obviously couldn't go to the game, but I wanted to read the story of the game through the box score. Except that I couldn't find it on the Dallas-Fort Worth high school sports site; the box score has been removed (see: http://www.hsgametime.com/dfw/schoolinfo.htm?propertyId=1&infoType=boxScore&schoolId=1113&sportId=7&eventId=173099)
The Dallas Morning News has already reported that Covenant's administration has decided to forfeit the game and apologized to the Dallas Academy administration for running up the score. Dallas Academy was not interested in accepting the forfeit, but the school has decided to end league play within their conference (including another game with Covenant) for the rest of the season. Covenant also tried to make amends by firing their coach after he publicly denounced his school's administration for their apology and decision to forfeit.
I am working on a novel around girl's high school basketball, so I was fascinated by this story. I have already read of three incidents in girl's high school basketball where a single playerlit up an opposing team for 100 points. The first was Cheryl Miller, an Olympian who played and coached at Southern Cal and is now a TV broadcaster, the second was Lisa Leslie, also an Olympian and Southern Cal star and today an all-star with the WNBA Los Angeles Sparks, the third was Epiphanny Prince, now a junior starter and an All-America candidate at Rutgers. I have seen Prince play many times, so I looked up the information on her 113 point game for Brooklyn's Murray Burgtraum High.
Prince's game was interesting in that she scored 113 of her team's 137 points, played the entire game, while her teammates constantly passed her the ball. Her coach told USA Today that he played 16 players and that Prince was on the court with four reserves--by the end of the game. (See that story at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/basketball/2006-02-02-prince_x.htm.) That seems awfully stupid on the coach's part; if you're running away with the game you can afford to give your best player most of the night off. Why take the chance she could get hurt? Prince was averaging 32 points a game going into that contest. It was not like she would have gained anything but bad publicity for her and her team if she scored much more.
There are some lessons to take away from the past.
First, if your stars are on-fire and there's no way the other team can catch up, you give them a rest at half-time. If I lost to a team by 100 points, the most embarrassing way to lose would be for one player to beat me.
Second, let everyone play. The bench players who get the fewest minutes during the season play the entire second half. The only way they will get better is to play against an opponent they do not know as well as their own teammates. There's no reason why the hot hand must receive all of the passes in a rout.
And third, when a high school game has no shot clock, a team can pass all they need from inside the three-point line. There's no reason to take outside shots from behind the three-point line when your team is up 59-0.
Maybe time has come for a shot clock in all high school games across the country. There are not many players as dominant as Epiphanny Prince or Lisa Leslie in girl's high school basketball, but there are enough scorers in both the boys and girls games who need to be taught to play against the clock. They might as well learn now. They will be expected to play against a clock in college.
The Dallas Morning News has already reported that Covenant's administration has decided to forfeit the game and apologized to the Dallas Academy administration for running up the score. Dallas Academy was not interested in accepting the forfeit, but the school has decided to end league play within their conference (including another game with Covenant) for the rest of the season. Covenant also tried to make amends by firing their coach after he publicly denounced his school's administration for their apology and decision to forfeit.
I am working on a novel around girl's high school basketball, so I was fascinated by this story. I have already read of three incidents in girl's high school basketball where a single playerlit up an opposing team for 100 points. The first was Cheryl Miller, an Olympian who played and coached at Southern Cal and is now a TV broadcaster, the second was Lisa Leslie, also an Olympian and Southern Cal star and today an all-star with the WNBA Los Angeles Sparks, the third was Epiphanny Prince, now a junior starter and an All-America candidate at Rutgers. I have seen Prince play many times, so I looked up the information on her 113 point game for Brooklyn's Murray Burgtraum High.
Prince's game was interesting in that she scored 113 of her team's 137 points, played the entire game, while her teammates constantly passed her the ball. Her coach told USA Today that he played 16 players and that Prince was on the court with four reserves--by the end of the game. (See that story at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/basketball/2006-02-02-prince_x.htm.) That seems awfully stupid on the coach's part; if you're running away with the game you can afford to give your best player most of the night off. Why take the chance she could get hurt? Prince was averaging 32 points a game going into that contest. It was not like she would have gained anything but bad publicity for her and her team if she scored much more.
There are some lessons to take away from the past.
First, if your stars are on-fire and there's no way the other team can catch up, you give them a rest at half-time. If I lost to a team by 100 points, the most embarrassing way to lose would be for one player to beat me.
Second, let everyone play. The bench players who get the fewest minutes during the season play the entire second half. The only way they will get better is to play against an opponent they do not know as well as their own teammates. There's no reason why the hot hand must receive all of the passes in a rout.
And third, when a high school game has no shot clock, a team can pass all they need from inside the three-point line. There's no reason to take outside shots from behind the three-point line when your team is up 59-0.
Maybe time has come for a shot clock in all high school games across the country. There are not many players as dominant as Epiphanny Prince or Lisa Leslie in girl's high school basketball, but there are enough scorers in both the boys and girls games who need to be taught to play against the clock. They might as well learn now. They will be expected to play against a clock in college.
Book Review: The Associate by John Grisham
I was a political science major in college, one of the few I knew who decided not to go to law school. And every time I read a John Grisham novel I have no regrets about passing up a career in the law. The Associate is Grisham's first novel that deals with corporate law practice Wall Street style.
The story line for The Associate is not much different from The Firm, Grisham's first best-seller. A young Ivy League law school graduate accepts a position as an associate with a corporate mega-firm and he becomes a marked man, even among the partners.
But while The Firmdealt with a young lawyer who exposed the financial misdeeds and mob ties of the partners, The Associate has the hero, Kyle McAvoy, forced to accept a Wall Street job that he does not want in order to prevent a video of a past incident, the supposed rape of a freshman girl, from going public. He is co-opted not only to accept the job, at $200,000 a year, but also to aide in the theft of confidential documents in a major law suit. If you have already read The Firm, you'll recognize how this story becomes wrapped up so tidily.
Grisham developed Kyle's character nicely; aside from the supposed rape, he is a bright young man from a blue collar town, not the usual place that sends its young to Yale Law. However, Kyle is also the son of a small-town lawyer; he has worked in his father's office since he was 12 and knows the practical nature of the law better than most newly minted attorneys.
The novel also covers the first year associate life in the big firm quite accurately, at least from what my lawyer friends have told me. Associates work twenty hour days, often sleeping in their cubicles or the library and they are used and abused by the millionaire partners. They are asked to produce memos that are not needed, and the classic to create binders of documents that are merely used as doorstops. The first year associate is essentially an over-paid and over-priced clerk; the partners consider the abuse a rite-of-passage for new partners. And no one in the big firm seems to love the law; they admit that they're mainly in it for the money, and the opportunity to earn it at the corporate client's expense. This is one of the few novels that actually made me feel sorry for the corporations that hired these firms; they're getting a lot of nothing for big bucks.
The descriptions of the work life are better than the story line. If I were pre-law in college, they would make me want to reconsider the law, or aim for my first legal position to be in a government agency or a judicial clerkship. At least I would get to see the workings of the court every day and work saner hours. I recommend this story to pre-law students and their parents, not so much for the literary value, but for its thorough portrayal of the law, as practiced on Wall Street.
The story line for The Associate is not much different from The Firm, Grisham's first best-seller. A young Ivy League law school graduate accepts a position as an associate with a corporate mega-firm and he becomes a marked man, even among the partners.
But while The Firmdealt with a young lawyer who exposed the financial misdeeds and mob ties of the partners, The Associate has the hero, Kyle McAvoy, forced to accept a Wall Street job that he does not want in order to prevent a video of a past incident, the supposed rape of a freshman girl, from going public. He is co-opted not only to accept the job, at $200,000 a year, but also to aide in the theft of confidential documents in a major law suit. If you have already read The Firm, you'll recognize how this story becomes wrapped up so tidily.
Grisham developed Kyle's character nicely; aside from the supposed rape, he is a bright young man from a blue collar town, not the usual place that sends its young to Yale Law. However, Kyle is also the son of a small-town lawyer; he has worked in his father's office since he was 12 and knows the practical nature of the law better than most newly minted attorneys.
The novel also covers the first year associate life in the big firm quite accurately, at least from what my lawyer friends have told me. Associates work twenty hour days, often sleeping in their cubicles or the library and they are used and abused by the millionaire partners. They are asked to produce memos that are not needed, and the classic to create binders of documents that are merely used as doorstops. The first year associate is essentially an over-paid and over-priced clerk; the partners consider the abuse a rite-of-passage for new partners. And no one in the big firm seems to love the law; they admit that they're mainly in it for the money, and the opportunity to earn it at the corporate client's expense. This is one of the few novels that actually made me feel sorry for the corporations that hired these firms; they're getting a lot of nothing for big bucks.
The descriptions of the work life are better than the story line. If I were pre-law in college, they would make me want to reconsider the law, or aim for my first legal position to be in a government agency or a judicial clerkship. At least I would get to see the workings of the court every day and work saner hours. I recommend this story to pre-law students and their parents, not so much for the literary value, but for its thorough portrayal of the law, as practiced on Wall Street.
Congressional Republicans Need Lessons in American History and Politics
Today I read the news about President Obama's economic stimulus package and I have to wonder if Congressional Republicans ever took courses in twentieth century American history or state and local government and politics.
The Republicans didn't even need to take academic classes. They could have rented a copy of Deep Impact or any other natural disaster movie, or they could watch an alien attack flick such as Independence Day or War of the Worlds (the Tom Cruise version, not the 30s radio broadcast) to see why they should have done more than simply propose an alternative plan with only tax cuts.
They'd see people who have a difficult time evacuating from the disaster, and that emergency management is perceived to be a federal (and often a military) responsibility. If nothing else, the defense hawks in the party should support increased manpower for the National Guard to aide in emergency management at home and fill-in for their comrades who have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. While the president is Commander-In-Chief of the full-time armed forces, the National Guard can be activated by a state governors in the event of emergency. I would see this as a win-win for the states and the military. The manpower at home can be trained to be deployed, if necessary, and those already deployed can have shorter deployments.
In addition to job creation, President Obama's main selling point for the stimulus, there are other pragmatic reasons that the House and Senate need to pass a bill that includes public investment as well as tax credits and incentives.
+ First, the capacity of state and local governments to borrow is far less than the federal government, and the federal government can't allow a state or major city to fail. Approximately $49 billion of the stimulus legislation that passed the House subsidizes bonds for other levels of government to pay for infrastructure and schools. Those governments work with financial institutions (aka: investment banks) to sell those bonds, which are now higher rated, thanks to the federal government. Similar financial firms buy these bonds and resell them. So, it's possible this one aspect of the stimulus may help, not hurt, the financial markets.
+ Second, the president cannot allow transit agencies to fail, especially in a transit-dependent city such as New York. Highway authorities can sell assets and collect tolls which are unsubsidized by any government agency. Transit fares must always be subsidized; the ridership never pays the full cost of their commute, just as parents who send their children to state-supported colleges never pay the full cost of tuition.
There has been considerable talk about potential job losses from the collapse of the Big Three automakers. But last year, the subway system averaged more than 5 million trips every weekday (see: http://www.nylcv.org/ecopoliticsdaily/20080207_subway_ridership_at_highest_level_since_1951.) Then suppose the agency went belly-up. How would those passengers get to work, shop or visit family and friends? It's easy to see why there are no Republicans in the city's Congressional delegation; they would be cutting their throats if they voted against a stimulus package that included mass transit.
+ Third, the lower the household income, the less tax cuts matter. The $500 individual cut is going to be offset by something: an increase in property taxes, a health insurance policy, the cost of commuting to work. I know that President Obama promised a tax cut, but maybe he should have waited until unemployment went down. He could have implemented a tax cut in a stronger economy, which is a better time to cut government spending.
+ Fourth, if college students were forced to withdraw from college because of aid or loan cuts, they would have to compete against working men and women with families for jobs. They could not collect unemployment and, if I were to believe the stimulus math, the cost of keeping students in college full-time is less than the cost of creating a job to help them save to finish college later or pay to go part-time.
Obama's $819 billion bill is more than just old-fashioned, pump-priming government spending. To signal out costs of sodding the national Mall or family planning as reasons to oppose the bill are simply lame. Maybe we should send the Republicans back to college to catch up on those classes they missed. I'm sure they can afford to go to Harvard for refresher courses in history and politics at their own expense.
The Republicans didn't even need to take academic classes. They could have rented a copy of Deep Impact or any other natural disaster movie, or they could watch an alien attack flick such as Independence Day or War of the Worlds (the Tom Cruise version, not the 30s radio broadcast) to see why they should have done more than simply propose an alternative plan with only tax cuts.
They'd see people who have a difficult time evacuating from the disaster, and that emergency management is perceived to be a federal (and often a military) responsibility. If nothing else, the defense hawks in the party should support increased manpower for the National Guard to aide in emergency management at home and fill-in for their comrades who have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. While the president is Commander-In-Chief of the full-time armed forces, the National Guard can be activated by a state governors in the event of emergency. I would see this as a win-win for the states and the military. The manpower at home can be trained to be deployed, if necessary, and those already deployed can have shorter deployments.
In addition to job creation, President Obama's main selling point for the stimulus, there are other pragmatic reasons that the House and Senate need to pass a bill that includes public investment as well as tax credits and incentives.
+ First, the capacity of state and local governments to borrow is far less than the federal government, and the federal government can't allow a state or major city to fail. Approximately $49 billion of the stimulus legislation that passed the House subsidizes bonds for other levels of government to pay for infrastructure and schools. Those governments work with financial institutions (aka: investment banks) to sell those bonds, which are now higher rated, thanks to the federal government. Similar financial firms buy these bonds and resell them. So, it's possible this one aspect of the stimulus may help, not hurt, the financial markets.
+ Second, the president cannot allow transit agencies to fail, especially in a transit-dependent city such as New York. Highway authorities can sell assets and collect tolls which are unsubsidized by any government agency. Transit fares must always be subsidized; the ridership never pays the full cost of their commute, just as parents who send their children to state-supported colleges never pay the full cost of tuition.
There has been considerable talk about potential job losses from the collapse of the Big Three automakers. But last year, the subway system averaged more than 5 million trips every weekday (see: http://www.nylcv.org/ecopoliticsdaily/20080207_subway_ridership_at_highest_level_since_1951.) Then suppose the agency went belly-up. How would those passengers get to work, shop or visit family and friends? It's easy to see why there are no Republicans in the city's Congressional delegation; they would be cutting their throats if they voted against a stimulus package that included mass transit.
+ Third, the lower the household income, the less tax cuts matter. The $500 individual cut is going to be offset by something: an increase in property taxes, a health insurance policy, the cost of commuting to work. I know that President Obama promised a tax cut, but maybe he should have waited until unemployment went down. He could have implemented a tax cut in a stronger economy, which is a better time to cut government spending.
+ Fourth, if college students were forced to withdraw from college because of aid or loan cuts, they would have to compete against working men and women with families for jobs. They could not collect unemployment and, if I were to believe the stimulus math, the cost of keeping students in college full-time is less than the cost of creating a job to help them save to finish college later or pay to go part-time.
Obama's $819 billion bill is more than just old-fashioned, pump-priming government spending. To signal out costs of sodding the national Mall or family planning as reasons to oppose the bill are simply lame. Maybe we should send the Republicans back to college to catch up on those classes they missed. I'm sure they can afford to go to Harvard for refresher courses in history and politics at their own expense.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Berkeley Takes a Tip from the Pros to Finance Athletics
The current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education has an interesting story about the University of California-Berkeley and its plan to boost its athletic department endowment to more than $1 billion by 2030, in part by selling the rights to 3,000 premium seats in its renovated football stadium at a cost of $225,000 per seat. Fans who purchase these seats may purchase these seats up-front and hold onto them for a period of 30 to 50 years, or they may make annual payments with interest.
This is a huge risk for Cal-Berkeley, but give them credit for trying to keep the funding for their endowment private. Publicly funded sports facilities, college or pro, are as unpopular as they are popular, and in this economy the idea of public money for a privileged few to watch football is not going to fly in California. Or anyplace else for that matter.
Berkeley is unique among large public universities in that it has the location, the alumni base and some recent success in football to pull this off. They also have other places to play while their stadium would be renovated. They can share the Forty Niners stadium for a season or two, or share with the Raiders if the baseball A's get the stadium they want in Santa Clara.
Berkeley has over 430,000 living alumni, a large contact base for sure, as well as connections into the Northern California (including Silicon Valley) business community. This is a high-income, high quality of life area that graduates do not want to leave after they finish college. But the big question is: do they want to invest in a football team?
This is the pig-chicken conflict. The pig and the chicken are asked to give up something for the alumni breakfast. The chicken is asked to give up some eggs. No problem: there's plenty more where her donation comes from. The pig is asked to, well, put his life on the line. That's not a contribution; that's a serious commitment. And $225,000 or more, in exchange for football tickets for life is quite a commitment indeed.
As I said before, Cal has has recent success on the gridiron, but it is not bowl championship success. Cal last won a national championship in 1937; it is doubtful many well-to-do alumni from that team, or their fans, are still living. Cal has not played in a Rose Bowl, the traditional game for the conference champion, for 50 years. During the 1960s, the time of turmoil in the campus community, the football team had only one winning season.
But in the past seven years of the Jeff Tedford era, Cal has won 59 games, including four consecutive bowl victories. So, no one can blame the athletic department fundraisers for being optimistic. If Cal manages to beat USC every now and then, you're likely to see alumni come out of the woodwork. Maybe they'll ante up for premium seating. There's always a chance those well-to-do fans will want access to the coach (quite possible), but also some say in the make-up of the team (though NCAA rules are quite strict about that).
Cal's Memorial Stadium seats approximately 74,000 fans, and I have seen televised games where fans sit in a tree grove overlooking the field to cheer on a winning team. From this perspective, covering the costs of stadium renovations and the athletic endowment from the sale of 3,000 seats seems fair, except to those who pay far less to sit in those seats now. But someone has to sacrifice.
Consider this. Cal could have taken the lessons from the NFL and ask each and every non-student fan to make a large per-seat contribution to the stadium fund, in addition to higher ticket prices. Passing the burden onto every fan is much worse. Soon you start to hear comments like: "I'm paying two hundred bucks to see a team that played in the Emerald Bowl? What the bleep is an Emerald Bowl?" And those flippant comments, from the so-called average fan, will make the news and they would hurt Cal's image and reputation more than the sale of premium seating.
Beginning this spring, when the campaign to sell premium seats begins, other schools will be watching Cal's progress. But they should be cautious to emulate this effort unless they have the regional economy, the alumni base and the athletic success to make it work. For instance, Northwestern and Stanford have the economic base and alumni base to increase their athletic endowments. But these two schools have played in a combined six bowl games since 2000 and they have lost every single one of them.
It also comes down to the words of Al Davis (who, ironically, worked for Wayne Valley, the late former Raiders owner and home builder who became a major contributor to Berkeley): Just Win Baby.
This is a huge risk for Cal-Berkeley, but give them credit for trying to keep the funding for their endowment private. Publicly funded sports facilities, college or pro, are as unpopular as they are popular, and in this economy the idea of public money for a privileged few to watch football is not going to fly in California. Or anyplace else for that matter.
Berkeley is unique among large public universities in that it has the location, the alumni base and some recent success in football to pull this off. They also have other places to play while their stadium would be renovated. They can share the Forty Niners stadium for a season or two, or share with the Raiders if the baseball A's get the stadium they want in Santa Clara.
Berkeley has over 430,000 living alumni, a large contact base for sure, as well as connections into the Northern California (including Silicon Valley) business community. This is a high-income, high quality of life area that graduates do not want to leave after they finish college. But the big question is: do they want to invest in a football team?
This is the pig-chicken conflict. The pig and the chicken are asked to give up something for the alumni breakfast. The chicken is asked to give up some eggs. No problem: there's plenty more where her donation comes from. The pig is asked to, well, put his life on the line. That's not a contribution; that's a serious commitment. And $225,000 or more, in exchange for football tickets for life is quite a commitment indeed.
As I said before, Cal has has recent success on the gridiron, but it is not bowl championship success. Cal last won a national championship in 1937; it is doubtful many well-to-do alumni from that team, or their fans, are still living. Cal has not played in a Rose Bowl, the traditional game for the conference champion, for 50 years. During the 1960s, the time of turmoil in the campus community, the football team had only one winning season.
But in the past seven years of the Jeff Tedford era, Cal has won 59 games, including four consecutive bowl victories. So, no one can blame the athletic department fundraisers for being optimistic. If Cal manages to beat USC every now and then, you're likely to see alumni come out of the woodwork. Maybe they'll ante up for premium seating. There's always a chance those well-to-do fans will want access to the coach (quite possible), but also some say in the make-up of the team (though NCAA rules are quite strict about that).
Cal's Memorial Stadium seats approximately 74,000 fans, and I have seen televised games where fans sit in a tree grove overlooking the field to cheer on a winning team. From this perspective, covering the costs of stadium renovations and the athletic endowment from the sale of 3,000 seats seems fair, except to those who pay far less to sit in those seats now. But someone has to sacrifice.
Consider this. Cal could have taken the lessons from the NFL and ask each and every non-student fan to make a large per-seat contribution to the stadium fund, in addition to higher ticket prices. Passing the burden onto every fan is much worse. Soon you start to hear comments like: "I'm paying two hundred bucks to see a team that played in the Emerald Bowl? What the bleep is an Emerald Bowl?" And those flippant comments, from the so-called average fan, will make the news and they would hurt Cal's image and reputation more than the sale of premium seating.
Beginning this spring, when the campaign to sell premium seats begins, other schools will be watching Cal's progress. But they should be cautious to emulate this effort unless they have the regional economy, the alumni base and the athletic success to make it work. For instance, Northwestern and Stanford have the economic base and alumni base to increase their athletic endowments. But these two schools have played in a combined six bowl games since 2000 and they have lost every single one of them.
It also comes down to the words of Al Davis (who, ironically, worked for Wayne Valley, the late former Raiders owner and home builder who became a major contributor to Berkeley): Just Win Baby.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Two Books by Aaron Glantz: The War Comes Home and Winter Soldier, Afghanistan and Iraq
Aaron Glantz might be the closest voice America has today on the state of military veteran's affairs. Anyone who is concerned about the economic and health situations of U.S. troops should read both of his books: The War Comes Home and Winter Soldier, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The War Comes Home primarily addresses the medical treatment that veterans have received, based on interviews with over one hundred soldiers as well as physicians and medical administrators. Winter Soldier is a series of eyewitness accounts of war as reported in testimony at a series of Winter Soldier hearings organized through Iraq Veterans Against the War that took place in March of last year, and in front of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in May. Complete video archives are available at www.ivaw.org.
I read these stories because of an upcoming novel that deals with some of the issues of military recruiting and the contrasts between the anti-war movements of the Sixties and Seventies. The movements are very different; while yesterday's anti-war veterans called for the end of a war and for better medical treatment, just as today's do, there are different concerns.
Unlike the late Sixties and early Seventies there is no draft; high school and college age men are not forced to go to war, or subject to a lottery. And unlike those times, women serve in the military alongside men in combat; they are not only placed in medical units. Also, unlike those times, the activists want active duty soldiers--officers and enlisted--to become involved in their movement. That has to give military leaders pause; a successful anti-war movement of active duty soldiers would not be much unlike a modern labor union. The fear among leadership is that well-organized soldiers would ultimately decide which battles and wars they wanted to fight, and which orders they were willing to follow.
Based on reading these books, among others. I would agree that active duty activists deserve their voice on non-military matters, such as health and educational benefits, just as veterans have today. And I also agree, in turn, that active duty soldiers should be better prepared to fight the wars they are asked to fight. Further, I have to question recruiting policies that allow convicted felons to serve while we still have sexual assaults and "don't-ask, don't tell." So should the active duty warriors who have to work in that workplace; the war is dangerous enough.
I realize that a soldier loses certain rights as an individual for the benefit of a unit. These are part of the values in the Soldier's Creed (see: http://www.army.mil/soldierscreed/flash_version/index.html). But soldiers should not abuse their conrades, nor should they be taken advantage with respect to their care. If a modern anti-war movement recognizes this as the mission, then I wish it only success.
The War Comes Home primarily addresses the medical treatment that veterans have received, based on interviews with over one hundred soldiers as well as physicians and medical administrators. Winter Soldier is a series of eyewitness accounts of war as reported in testimony at a series of Winter Soldier hearings organized through Iraq Veterans Against the War that took place in March of last year, and in front of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in May. Complete video archives are available at www.ivaw.org.
I read these stories because of an upcoming novel that deals with some of the issues of military recruiting and the contrasts between the anti-war movements of the Sixties and Seventies. The movements are very different; while yesterday's anti-war veterans called for the end of a war and for better medical treatment, just as today's do, there are different concerns.
Unlike the late Sixties and early Seventies there is no draft; high school and college age men are not forced to go to war, or subject to a lottery. And unlike those times, women serve in the military alongside men in combat; they are not only placed in medical units. Also, unlike those times, the activists want active duty soldiers--officers and enlisted--to become involved in their movement. That has to give military leaders pause; a successful anti-war movement of active duty soldiers would not be much unlike a modern labor union. The fear among leadership is that well-organized soldiers would ultimately decide which battles and wars they wanted to fight, and which orders they were willing to follow.
Based on reading these books, among others. I would agree that active duty activists deserve their voice on non-military matters, such as health and educational benefits, just as veterans have today. And I also agree, in turn, that active duty soldiers should be better prepared to fight the wars they are asked to fight. Further, I have to question recruiting policies that allow convicted felons to serve while we still have sexual assaults and "don't-ask, don't tell." So should the active duty warriors who have to work in that workplace; the war is dangerous enough.
I realize that a soldier loses certain rights as an individual for the benefit of a unit. These are part of the values in the Soldier's Creed (see: http://www.army.mil/soldierscreed/flash_version/index.html). But soldiers should not abuse their conrades, nor should they be taken advantage with respect to their care. If a modern anti-war movement recognizes this as the mission, then I wish it only success.
Forbes' Take on Student Loans
This past week, Forbes magazine had a interesting piece on students who had become overly leveraged with student loan debt. In addition to presenting anecdotal examples of law, medical and for-profit college graduates who had gotten themselves over their heads in debt, the story discussed how the idea that college graduates can earn $1 million or more over their working lives than high school graduates is merely a fallacy. See the story online at http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0202/060.html.
The Forbes story makes several valid points; the cost of paying down debt lowers the income advantage between college and high school graduates, and that interest rates charged by private lenders are excessively high. The story adds that educational loans will not be subject to the same Truth-In-Lending standards as home mortgages or auto loans until 2010.
I wondered why it took Forbes so long to catch on to these issues. I would have though the magazine would be more in line with the bank's positions on educational lending: students have little to no collateral and there is always the risk that students will not complete their degree. I would not have faulted the magazine for taking those stands; it is a business magazine directed at a high-income audience.
Yet the story does not recommend the more obvious solutions, at least for college bound students, or those already enrolled in college: direct lending, lower interest rates and a longer grace period for student loans. A more reader-friendly package that explains the payments better would help as well. I get that every time I take out a car loan. Instead, the author takes the position that college doesn't always pay.
The other obvious solution is for borrowers to go to the least expensive school that admits them. This story did not tell prospective students that they had that choice. It should have.
The Forbes story makes several valid points; the cost of paying down debt lowers the income advantage between college and high school graduates, and that interest rates charged by private lenders are excessively high. The story adds that educational loans will not be subject to the same Truth-In-Lending standards as home mortgages or auto loans until 2010.
I wondered why it took Forbes so long to catch on to these issues. I would have though the magazine would be more in line with the bank's positions on educational lending: students have little to no collateral and there is always the risk that students will not complete their degree. I would not have faulted the magazine for taking those stands; it is a business magazine directed at a high-income audience.
Yet the story does not recommend the more obvious solutions, at least for college bound students, or those already enrolled in college: direct lending, lower interest rates and a longer grace period for student loans. A more reader-friendly package that explains the payments better would help as well. I get that every time I take out a car loan. Instead, the author takes the position that college doesn't always pay.
The other obvious solution is for borrowers to go to the least expensive school that admits them. This story did not tell prospective students that they had that choice. It should have.
Book Review: Little Pink House by Jeff Benedict
Little Pink House is the story of one woman's fight against the practice of eminent domain, in this case the taking of her private home for economic development purposes in New London, Connecticut.But this is as much a story about a college president who risked the reputation of her institution, and in the end her job, in the name of local economic development.
Claire Gaudiani, former president of Connecticut College, is an important character because of the leadership role that she took in the city's efforts to re-establish the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) as the designated public agency to use state money to redevelop the deteriorated Fort Trumbull neighborhood as a corporate campus for Pfizer, one of the nation's leading pharmaceutical companies. Noted as a charismatic fund-raising president, Guadiani was appointed as NLDC president by former Connecticut governor John Rowland.
Gaudiani brought strong ties to Pfizer into the redevelopment process, as well as a desire to turn New London, a blue collar and military town, into in her words "a hip little community." However, she put herself in the middle of the conflicts between homeowners and the NLDC during the property acquisition process and stood idly by while the meeting hall of a politically connected Italian Dramatic Club was spared from the wrecking ball. She also pledged financial support from her trustees.
Aside from brokering meetings between government agencies and Pfizer, Gaudiani's involvement in New London's economic development was highly unusual for a college president, especially when her school has no stake in the project. In the end, Gaudiani paid for controversial leadership in urban redevelopment and the college's worsening financial picture. The Connecticut College faculty pressured her to resign.
I was involved in urban economic development projects for a decade, mostly in cities larger than New London. A college president did not become overly involved unless her school received some direct benefit that could be considered a public purpose. During my time on the job, it was mainly transportation services, public safety and parking, though the universities also constructed student housing and academic buildings. College presidents did not take on the role of spokesperson for anything beyond their campus.
Reading about Claire Gaudiani's role in this failed redevelopment effort made me scratch my head. But it was a story well worth reading.
Claire Gaudiani, former president of Connecticut College, is an important character because of the leadership role that she took in the city's efforts to re-establish the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) as the designated public agency to use state money to redevelop the deteriorated Fort Trumbull neighborhood as a corporate campus for Pfizer, one of the nation's leading pharmaceutical companies. Noted as a charismatic fund-raising president, Guadiani was appointed as NLDC president by former Connecticut governor John Rowland.
Gaudiani brought strong ties to Pfizer into the redevelopment process, as well as a desire to turn New London, a blue collar and military town, into in her words "a hip little community." However, she put herself in the middle of the conflicts between homeowners and the NLDC during the property acquisition process and stood idly by while the meeting hall of a politically connected Italian Dramatic Club was spared from the wrecking ball. She also pledged financial support from her trustees.
Aside from brokering meetings between government agencies and Pfizer, Gaudiani's involvement in New London's economic development was highly unusual for a college president, especially when her school has no stake in the project. In the end, Gaudiani paid for controversial leadership in urban redevelopment and the college's worsening financial picture. The Connecticut College faculty pressured her to resign.
I was involved in urban economic development projects for a decade, mostly in cities larger than New London. A college president did not become overly involved unless her school received some direct benefit that could be considered a public purpose. During my time on the job, it was mainly transportation services, public safety and parking, though the universities also constructed student housing and academic buildings. College presidents did not take on the role of spokesperson for anything beyond their campus.
Reading about Claire Gaudiani's role in this failed redevelopment effort made me scratch my head. But it was a story well worth reading.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Football Schools That Recruit Close to Home Will Be Bigger Winners In a Weak Economy
Even the wealthiest of college football programs has to be looking for places to cut their budgets in these difficult economic times. With coaching salaries breaking the millions of dollars, rising tuition, health care and room and board costs for scholarship athletes and the construction costs of building or modernizing stadiums, the travel budget is a logical place to cut, especially if your school can find recruits close to home.
Last week's Sports Illustrated ran a feature story that brought up this point, and embellished further online (see: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/01/20/recruiting/index.html). The online analysis by school includes cleverly designed color maps with push-pins that show where they have found their talent base. Pay careful attention to clusters of push-pins; those are the places where the school has had the most success.
The story features a table of the top football schools ranked in order of the number of wins over the past five seasons: 2004 through 2008. This table also shows the average distance a school must travel to find players, the percentage of players recruited from within 200 miles of campus and, the percentage of players from in-state. Reading this table took me to some conclusions:
+ Football powers in large states, such as California, Florida and Texas get the vast majority of their talent from in-state. For example, seventy two percent of Southern Cal's recruits come from California, ninety three percent of Texas' recruits hail from the Lone Star State, and sixty two percent of Florida's Gators come from Florida. Joe Paterno's reputation must help him close to home; nearly sixty five percent of Penn State's players come from Pennsylvania.
+ Football teams in geographically small states, like New Jersey can become better if they can recruit well in adjacent states. For example, while forty two percent of Rutgers' recruits come from New Jersey, about sixty eight percent come from within 200 miles of the New Brunswick campus. That's great pay-back for the "which exit" jokes, as the Scarlet Knights have been able to siphon off some of the best talent from the New York and Philadelphia suburbs. Then again, they have little competition; only Army and Temple play football at the highest levels within this region, and Rutgers has enjoyed considerably more success than either team. However, New Jersey has historically been a fertile ground for college football programs more than 200 miles from the Garden State, so Rutgers coach Greg Schiano also relies on his contacts in Florida, a state with an over-supply of talent.
+ Those schools in small states with small local talent bases must break the bank to find talent. Traditional powers such as Oklahoma, Nebraska and West Virginia have recruited less than half of their players from within 200 miles of campus and from in-state. You have to be impressed by their ability to find the money and be competitive.
But I guess that I was more impressed by another Rutgers tidbit. Rutgers has won 38 games over the past five seasons. That's one win better than Miami, two more than Nebraska and three more than Notre Dame. Greg Schiano must not only recruit well; he must be putting some serious mojo in his player's heads. Coaching will get you wins, and recruiting close to home will keep them coming.
Last week's Sports Illustrated ran a feature story that brought up this point, and embellished further online (see: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/01/20/recruiting/index.html). The online analysis by school includes cleverly designed color maps with push-pins that show where they have found their talent base. Pay careful attention to clusters of push-pins; those are the places where the school has had the most success.
The story features a table of the top football schools ranked in order of the number of wins over the past five seasons: 2004 through 2008. This table also shows the average distance a school must travel to find players, the percentage of players recruited from within 200 miles of campus and, the percentage of players from in-state. Reading this table took me to some conclusions:
+ Football powers in large states, such as California, Florida and Texas get the vast majority of their talent from in-state. For example, seventy two percent of Southern Cal's recruits come from California, ninety three percent of Texas' recruits hail from the Lone Star State, and sixty two percent of Florida's Gators come from Florida. Joe Paterno's reputation must help him close to home; nearly sixty five percent of Penn State's players come from Pennsylvania.
+ Football teams in geographically small states, like New Jersey can become better if they can recruit well in adjacent states. For example, while forty two percent of Rutgers' recruits come from New Jersey, about sixty eight percent come from within 200 miles of the New Brunswick campus. That's great pay-back for the "which exit" jokes, as the Scarlet Knights have been able to siphon off some of the best talent from the New York and Philadelphia suburbs. Then again, they have little competition; only Army and Temple play football at the highest levels within this region, and Rutgers has enjoyed considerably more success than either team. However, New Jersey has historically been a fertile ground for college football programs more than 200 miles from the Garden State, so Rutgers coach Greg Schiano also relies on his contacts in Florida, a state with an over-supply of talent.
+ Those schools in small states with small local talent bases must break the bank to find talent. Traditional powers such as Oklahoma, Nebraska and West Virginia have recruited less than half of their players from within 200 miles of campus and from in-state. You have to be impressed by their ability to find the money and be competitive.
But I guess that I was more impressed by another Rutgers tidbit. Rutgers has won 38 games over the past five seasons. That's one win better than Miami, two more than Nebraska and three more than Notre Dame. Greg Schiano must not only recruit well; he must be putting some serious mojo in his player's heads. Coaching will get you wins, and recruiting close to home will keep them coming.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Army Recruiters to Stand Down for One Day in February
Today's Houston Chronicle reports that U.S. Army recruiting will stand down for one day next month, as the result of the findings in an investigation into a string of suicides of Houston-based army recruiters. The investigation found that poor leadership, medical problems, personal issues and job-related stress all contributed to the deaths. Pete Geran, Secretary of the Army has ordered a one-day stand-down to focus on suicide prevention, leadership training and recruiter wellness. See the story at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6223087.html .
According to the Brig. Gen. Dell Turner, the lead investigator quoted in the story, the Houston battalion had lost four recruiters to suicide since 2005, including two who hanged themselves within weeks of each other last year. All four had served in Iraq or Afghanistan before being reassigned to recruiting duty, a job considered one of the most stressful in the Army, especially in wartime. A sidebar of the story is a photograph of Sgt. Nils “Aron” Andersson who shot himself in 2007. He had served two combat tours in Iraq before being reassigned to recruiting duty in Houston.
Turner's investigation did not reveal a single cause of death among the recruiters, but the story covers the army's attempts to reorganize the command structure within the Houston battalion as well as the selection criteria for military personnel to be placed in recruiting assignments. Eligible sergeants and officers, once assigned to recruiting duty, typically serve in their assignments for three years.
Secretary Geran's actions deserve to be lauded, and their impact is about to reach the floor of Congress. Senator John Cornyn, (R.Texas), one of the more conservative voices on the Senate floor, has said that he wants to hold hearings to determine if similar problems extend to the other 37 recruiting battalions. I realize that suicides reported in Houston have occurred in Cornyn's home state, but I appreciate that he wants to take a leadership role to resolve the problems, rather than attempt to minimize them or keep them out of the press, as has been past practice in the Bush Administration. This Chronicle story mentions that there have been 17 recruiter suicides since 2001; it is doubtful this information is known to most Americans.
I have a novel upcoming which is based around the murder of an army recruiter, so I follow military recruiting stories quite closely. I read about recruiter lies and promises unkept to enlistees, over-aggressive advertising campaigns (including battle video games) and I read about abuses up the chain of command to pressure recruiters to meet quotas.
Army recruiting is a sales job unlike any other; it is hard enough to perform the duties well without mental abuse. It is one thing to conduct a performance review and have the authority to request that a poor performing recruiter be assigned to another duty, maybe one more related to their Military Operational Specialty (MOS) or to send them to school to get another MOS. It is another thing to be a high pressure sales manager such as the characters portrayed by Ben Affleck and Vin Diesel in Boiler Room.
I can only imagine what it is like for a man or woman in uniform to try to convince slightly younger men and women that they should join up, and take the risks of going to war. I can also imagine the job of the recruiter who walks into one of the poorer Houston high schools and how he of she is perceived by parents and teachers alike. The schools must cooperate, but cooperation is not always comfortable.
I know that Secretary Geran and Senator Cornyn will do their jobs, but Congress, the President and the military may need to go a step further, to investigate the impact of the length of deployments on mental well-being and morale. Deployments have been extended and stop-loss orders have been issued during the war in Iraq. A soldier returning from a 12 to 18 month deployment might be better helped with a less stressful stateside assignment than a recruiting station, especially a station in a large city such as Houston.
According to the Brig. Gen. Dell Turner, the lead investigator quoted in the story, the Houston battalion had lost four recruiters to suicide since 2005, including two who hanged themselves within weeks of each other last year. All four had served in Iraq or Afghanistan before being reassigned to recruiting duty, a job considered one of the most stressful in the Army, especially in wartime. A sidebar of the story is a photograph of Sgt. Nils “Aron” Andersson who shot himself in 2007. He had served two combat tours in Iraq before being reassigned to recruiting duty in Houston.
Turner's investigation did not reveal a single cause of death among the recruiters, but the story covers the army's attempts to reorganize the command structure within the Houston battalion as well as the selection criteria for military personnel to be placed in recruiting assignments. Eligible sergeants and officers, once assigned to recruiting duty, typically serve in their assignments for three years.
Secretary Geran's actions deserve to be lauded, and their impact is about to reach the floor of Congress. Senator John Cornyn, (R.Texas), one of the more conservative voices on the Senate floor, has said that he wants to hold hearings to determine if similar problems extend to the other 37 recruiting battalions. I realize that suicides reported in Houston have occurred in Cornyn's home state, but I appreciate that he wants to take a leadership role to resolve the problems, rather than attempt to minimize them or keep them out of the press, as has been past practice in the Bush Administration. This Chronicle story mentions that there have been 17 recruiter suicides since 2001; it is doubtful this information is known to most Americans.
I have a novel upcoming which is based around the murder of an army recruiter, so I follow military recruiting stories quite closely. I read about recruiter lies and promises unkept to enlistees, over-aggressive advertising campaigns (including battle video games) and I read about abuses up the chain of command to pressure recruiters to meet quotas.
Army recruiting is a sales job unlike any other; it is hard enough to perform the duties well without mental abuse. It is one thing to conduct a performance review and have the authority to request that a poor performing recruiter be assigned to another duty, maybe one more related to their Military Operational Specialty (MOS) or to send them to school to get another MOS. It is another thing to be a high pressure sales manager such as the characters portrayed by Ben Affleck and Vin Diesel in Boiler Room.
I can only imagine what it is like for a man or woman in uniform to try to convince slightly younger men and women that they should join up, and take the risks of going to war. I can also imagine the job of the recruiter who walks into one of the poorer Houston high schools and how he of she is perceived by parents and teachers alike. The schools must cooperate, but cooperation is not always comfortable.
I know that Secretary Geran and Senator Cornyn will do their jobs, but Congress, the President and the military may need to go a step further, to investigate the impact of the length of deployments on mental well-being and morale. Deployments have been extended and stop-loss orders have been issued during the war in Iraq. A soldier returning from a 12 to 18 month deployment might be better helped with a less stressful stateside assignment than a recruiting station, especially a station in a large city such as Houston.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
College Board Score Choice Nothing More Than Marketing Tactic
Last month, The College Board announced that college-bound juniors will be offered the option to submit only their highest scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) to colleges and universities, unless the college(s) of their choice request a complete set of scores.
The College Board announced this policy as an act to relive test-anxiety among SAT test takers; if a student is not confident that their score will be high enough they can hide it from admissions officers eyes. But this policy will also lead students to hide the number of times that they took the test to get the scores they got. The American College Testing Program, which administers the competing test, the ACT, already has a score choice option. The College Board's decision was meant to regain market share, and discourage admissions officers from considering scores from both tests. In the end, it does nothing for students or their families.
Test anxiety, the thought that one's life is on the line during a three-hour exam, is a legitimate concern of parents and students alike. Nearly eight hundred colleges across the country have helped to address that concern by not requiring the SAT for admissions purposes (though they may still use the test scores to place entering freshmen into language arts and math classes).
If a student with good, but not elite, SAT scores is from a well-to-do family, there is a reasonable selection of quality private colleges that do not require the SAT. And that student and their family should keep in mind that five or six shots at the SAT will not guarantee admission into the best of the best schools.
And if I were an admissions director at an Ivy League school or a top liberal arts college, I would be concerned about test anxiety from a different standpoint--as an indication of a student's academic fitness to earn a degree from my school. Every college has in-class examination courses, and opportunities for multiple do-overs or options to hide scores are few. I'm likely to look more favorably at the applicant who got the high score on the very first try; the test didn't faze them.
The problem with the SATs is that students must go backwards to prepare for them. They go for tutoring to re-learn algebra and geometry as well as the language arts rules they learned in the eighth grade, and summarily forgot. So here's a thought: drop the PSAT and administer the SAT to students at the start of their junior year. They take the test only once. Then they take subject area tests as finals in select junior and senior year subjects.
The SAT score would serve as a starting point, an indicator of what the student knew going into their junior year. The subject area tests would provide more detailed information about reading comprehension, writing and mathematical skills (most colleges require Algebra II) post-SAT. And each student takes them only once.
Then the student selects subject areas of their choice and takes them senior year as part of building their admissions portfolio. According to the College Board, there are thirty one examinations in six subject areas: English, arts, history and social sciences, mathematics and computer science, sciences and world languages. Let students pick the subjects they are most likely to continue in college and use those scores to build their case. A student is more likely to prepare enthusiastically for exams in the subjects of interest to them-and prepare on their own instead of seeking tutoring.
High schools have the responsibility for not only helping their college-bound students get into college; they also have the responsibility of encouraging them to develop intellectual interests that might later turn into professional interests. My proposed solution would move them further into that direction. It would also provide some relief from test anxiety, while giving all students a fairer shot at the schools of their choice.
The College Board announced this policy as an act to relive test-anxiety among SAT test takers; if a student is not confident that their score will be high enough they can hide it from admissions officers eyes. But this policy will also lead students to hide the number of times that they took the test to get the scores they got. The American College Testing Program, which administers the competing test, the ACT, already has a score choice option. The College Board's decision was meant to regain market share, and discourage admissions officers from considering scores from both tests. In the end, it does nothing for students or their families.
Test anxiety, the thought that one's life is on the line during a three-hour exam, is a legitimate concern of parents and students alike. Nearly eight hundred colleges across the country have helped to address that concern by not requiring the SAT for admissions purposes (though they may still use the test scores to place entering freshmen into language arts and math classes).
If a student with good, but not elite, SAT scores is from a well-to-do family, there is a reasonable selection of quality private colleges that do not require the SAT. And that student and their family should keep in mind that five or six shots at the SAT will not guarantee admission into the best of the best schools.
And if I were an admissions director at an Ivy League school or a top liberal arts college, I would be concerned about test anxiety from a different standpoint--as an indication of a student's academic fitness to earn a degree from my school. Every college has in-class examination courses, and opportunities for multiple do-overs or options to hide scores are few. I'm likely to look more favorably at the applicant who got the high score on the very first try; the test didn't faze them.
The problem with the SATs is that students must go backwards to prepare for them. They go for tutoring to re-learn algebra and geometry as well as the language arts rules they learned in the eighth grade, and summarily forgot. So here's a thought: drop the PSAT and administer the SAT to students at the start of their junior year. They take the test only once. Then they take subject area tests as finals in select junior and senior year subjects.
The SAT score would serve as a starting point, an indicator of what the student knew going into their junior year. The subject area tests would provide more detailed information about reading comprehension, writing and mathematical skills (most colleges require Algebra II) post-SAT. And each student takes them only once.
Then the student selects subject areas of their choice and takes them senior year as part of building their admissions portfolio. According to the College Board, there are thirty one examinations in six subject areas: English, arts, history and social sciences, mathematics and computer science, sciences and world languages. Let students pick the subjects they are most likely to continue in college and use those scores to build their case. A student is more likely to prepare enthusiastically for exams in the subjects of interest to them-and prepare on their own instead of seeking tutoring.
High schools have the responsibility for not only helping their college-bound students get into college; they also have the responsibility of encouraging them to develop intellectual interests that might later turn into professional interests. My proposed solution would move them further into that direction. It would also provide some relief from test anxiety, while giving all students a fairer shot at the schools of their choice.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Review: Harry, a History by Melissa Anelli
Melissa Anelli has a bibliophile's dream job. She is the webmistress of The Leaky Cauldron, which is probably the leading fan site for anything Harry Potter. She not only followed rumored plots as each book was launched; she also followed trends in fan fiction and the lives of the actors in the movies. Anelli and her web team covered release parties and invited fan speculation on the stories. They also earned the respect of JK Rowling, and she's referred to as "Jo" throughout this book.
Anelli begins Harry,a History by telling the history of the launch of The Sorcerer's Stone, the book that introduced all of the characters as well as the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. She interviewed Rowling's agent and first publisher who told her that a book like this was a reach and a risk. Children's books were not long on fantasy, and they were shorter in length and longer in moral messages. Harry Potter stories succeed not only because of their appeal to children, but adults as well. This too, Anelli's story tells, is also especially rare in the publishing world.
The Harry Potter tales have succeeded almost to biblical proportions, but there have been some bumps in the road. The traditional publishing world did not know what to make of fan fiction about Harry and friends; at first, it was considered a threat to copyrights, then later it was realized that fans only wanted to share stories and not profit from them. Even Rowling was taken aback by this level of fan interest.
Anelli also discusses the challenges to the stories that have been brought to the American Library Association; adult library patrons wanted libraries to ban these books or keep them out of the hands of young children. They feared that children would either become too scared or that they would become interested in witchcraft. But Anelli covered both sides of this story, even citing a member of the priesthood who believed those thoughts were foolish.
I bought Harry,a History not only because I liked the Harry Potter stories, but also because fan sites are the greatest complement to a writer. The closest I have seen to Harry Potter fans are Trekkies (or Trekers depending on your group). The most serious Star Trek fans not only attend conventions and dress in character; they also write fiction and make independent Internet movies for enjoyment.
Few cultural icons have such staying power, and that's one reason why a new Star Trek "pre-quil" from the early years of Captain Kirk's Enterprise will be released by Paramount in May. I have no doubt Harry Potter will have at least an equally long life span, even as JK Rowling moves on to new projects.
Anelli begins Harry,a History by telling the history of the launch of The Sorcerer's Stone, the book that introduced all of the characters as well as the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. She interviewed Rowling's agent and first publisher who told her that a book like this was a reach and a risk. Children's books were not long on fantasy, and they were shorter in length and longer in moral messages. Harry Potter stories succeed not only because of their appeal to children, but adults as well. This too, Anelli's story tells, is also especially rare in the publishing world.
The Harry Potter tales have succeeded almost to biblical proportions, but there have been some bumps in the road. The traditional publishing world did not know what to make of fan fiction about Harry and friends; at first, it was considered a threat to copyrights, then later it was realized that fans only wanted to share stories and not profit from them. Even Rowling was taken aback by this level of fan interest.
Anelli also discusses the challenges to the stories that have been brought to the American Library Association; adult library patrons wanted libraries to ban these books or keep them out of the hands of young children. They feared that children would either become too scared or that they would become interested in witchcraft. But Anelli covered both sides of this story, even citing a member of the priesthood who believed those thoughts were foolish.
I bought Harry,a History not only because I liked the Harry Potter stories, but also because fan sites are the greatest complement to a writer. The closest I have seen to Harry Potter fans are Trekkies (or Trekers depending on your group). The most serious Star Trek fans not only attend conventions and dress in character; they also write fiction and make independent Internet movies for enjoyment.
Few cultural icons have such staying power, and that's one reason why a new Star Trek "pre-quil" from the early years of Captain Kirk's Enterprise will be released by Paramount in May. I have no doubt Harry Potter will have at least an equally long life span, even as JK Rowling moves on to new projects.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Review: Big Wheel at the Cracker Factory
Mickey Hess' Big Wheel at the Cracker Factory is a college professor's memoirs of his days as a juggler. Not a clown, though Hess has worked as a stand-up comic, but juggling part-time teaching assignments at two universities and a community college with work as an ice cream delivery man, religious crusader and cast member at a haunted house.
I found Big Wheel in the education section at my local Barnes and Noble. Hess is now a local author (he teaches at Rider University near my home in New Jersey) and I couldn't stop laughing as I skimmed the pages. Hess tried high school teaching and he discovered that it wasn't for him. So he tried the part-time route college faculty route for a short time before he pursued a PhD. His first full-time teaching position was at Indiana University-Southwest, near the Indiana-Kentucky border.
Big Wheel is a very funny story, but it is also very sad. I would be afraid that college students would buy it and either a) decide that college teaching is not for them or b) show less respect to the graduate assistants who teach their classes. I knew high school teachers who worked second jobs as cashiers and waiters to help them pay their bills. I liked them as teachers, but I knew that I didn't want to be in the same position after I finished college.
College teaching is a very difficult job to do for peanuts, even though it requires a college degree. Hess was fortunate in that he teaches creative writing; instructors are more likely to have some latitude in that subject than they would in a introductory class with a standard text book. But with greater latitude comes greater responsibility. But Hess seemed willing to take it on; he even won a teaching award for his efforts at IU-Southwest.
If you're thinking of becoming a college professor, especially in a liberal arts field, read Big Wheel. It might make you want to study for the law boards, but at least you got advance warning sprinkled with humor for $13.95
I found Big Wheel in the education section at my local Barnes and Noble. Hess is now a local author (he teaches at Rider University near my home in New Jersey) and I couldn't stop laughing as I skimmed the pages. Hess tried high school teaching and he discovered that it wasn't for him. So he tried the part-time route college faculty route for a short time before he pursued a PhD. His first full-time teaching position was at Indiana University-Southwest, near the Indiana-Kentucky border.
Big Wheel is a very funny story, but it is also very sad. I would be afraid that college students would buy it and either a) decide that college teaching is not for them or b) show less respect to the graduate assistants who teach their classes. I knew high school teachers who worked second jobs as cashiers and waiters to help them pay their bills. I liked them as teachers, but I knew that I didn't want to be in the same position after I finished college.
College teaching is a very difficult job to do for peanuts, even though it requires a college degree. Hess was fortunate in that he teaches creative writing; instructors are more likely to have some latitude in that subject than they would in a introductory class with a standard text book. But with greater latitude comes greater responsibility. But Hess seemed willing to take it on; he even won a teaching award for his efforts at IU-Southwest.
If you're thinking of becoming a college professor, especially in a liberal arts field, read Big Wheel. It might make you want to study for the law boards, but at least you got advance warning sprinkled with humor for $13.95
Happy and Sad Schools
I was tempted by some people I follow on Twitter to take a look at the Princeton Review's Lists of colleges with the Happiest as well as the Least Happy Students. Both lists are the results of the answers to one survey question: Overall, are you happy? I don't know how many students from each of the 360+ schools answered the question, which made me wonder about the Least Happy List.
The happiest students, according to the survey, go to Clemson in South Carolina, which also ranks in their top ten for participation in intramural sports and career development services. Clemson also boasts that more than half of their classes have fewer than 20 students; that's an impressive claim for a large state university.
I was also surprised to see The College of New Jersey on the Happiest list. I live less than five minutes from the campus. TCNJ is trying to be to New Jersey what The College of William and Mary is to Virginia, a smaller public alternative to a large state university. Check out a U.S. News College Guide and you see that TCNJ's selectivity, retention and graduation rates are higher than Rutgers' flagship campus in New Brunswick. But I don't believe that will be for long. Rutgers has over 360,000 living alumni and a more successful football program that has attracted their attention. TCNJ was a teacher's college formerly known as Trenton State. It needs more history and money to become New Jersey's William and Mary, but it's headed in the right direction. Besides, the Garden State can't have too few good public colleges; we send a higher percentage of our college bound seniors out of state than any state in the Union.
Then I looked at the schools with the Least Happy students. Two of the top ten were federal service academies: The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. When the list expands to twenty, the other three military academies: Annapolis, West Point and The Air Force Academy are included. But I had to wonder: didn't the students who chose these academies know what they were getting into? I doubted that anyone would choose a service academy for anything but the service experience. Books have been written about Annapolis and West Point; there's plenty of information to read in advance and know just how demanding these schools are.
Also on the Least Happy list are three engineering/technical schools: New Jersey Institute of Technology, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and the Illinois Institute of Technology. The comments I read on the Princeton Review press release were complaints about the social life, uneven male/female student ratios and the demanding work load. But these are purely technical schools; there is no balance of liberal arts students who have more time on their hands. And just like military academies, I doubt people choose a technical school for the social life. They want to get a job after they're done. Two other Least Happy schools were private historically black schools: Fisk University and Tuskegee University, and they are also known as science/technology schools.
Then I saw a surprise among the Least Happy schools: two university campuses of the State University of New York system, Albany and Stony Brook. The Stony Brook comments were the same as the those of the technical school students; understandable, since the school is noted in the physical and mathematical sciences. But Albany took some serious blows to the chin. SUNY-Albany was also ranked as one of the Least Beautiful Campuses along with the Least Accessible Professors and Least Studious Students.
I don't know how many SUNY-Albany students answered the Princeton Review survey, but if I were the president of that school I would call up to ask. I would not want to see the reputation of my school to be sullied by a small number of malcontents. And that is the major problem with such a highly publicized survey of happiness and unhappiness. The malcontents get their day and their revenge.
The happiest students, according to the survey, go to Clemson in South Carolina, which also ranks in their top ten for participation in intramural sports and career development services. Clemson also boasts that more than half of their classes have fewer than 20 students; that's an impressive claim for a large state university.
I was also surprised to see The College of New Jersey on the Happiest list. I live less than five minutes from the campus. TCNJ is trying to be to New Jersey what The College of William and Mary is to Virginia, a smaller public alternative to a large state university. Check out a U.S. News College Guide and you see that TCNJ's selectivity, retention and graduation rates are higher than Rutgers' flagship campus in New Brunswick. But I don't believe that will be for long. Rutgers has over 360,000 living alumni and a more successful football program that has attracted their attention. TCNJ was a teacher's college formerly known as Trenton State. It needs more history and money to become New Jersey's William and Mary, but it's headed in the right direction. Besides, the Garden State can't have too few good public colleges; we send a higher percentage of our college bound seniors out of state than any state in the Union.
Then I looked at the schools with the Least Happy students. Two of the top ten were federal service academies: The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. When the list expands to twenty, the other three military academies: Annapolis, West Point and The Air Force Academy are included. But I had to wonder: didn't the students who chose these academies know what they were getting into? I doubted that anyone would choose a service academy for anything but the service experience. Books have been written about Annapolis and West Point; there's plenty of information to read in advance and know just how demanding these schools are.
Also on the Least Happy list are three engineering/technical schools: New Jersey Institute of Technology, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and the Illinois Institute of Technology. The comments I read on the Princeton Review press release were complaints about the social life, uneven male/female student ratios and the demanding work load. But these are purely technical schools; there is no balance of liberal arts students who have more time on their hands. And just like military academies, I doubt people choose a technical school for the social life. They want to get a job after they're done. Two other Least Happy schools were private historically black schools: Fisk University and Tuskegee University, and they are also known as science/technology schools.
Then I saw a surprise among the Least Happy schools: two university campuses of the State University of New York system, Albany and Stony Brook. The Stony Brook comments were the same as the those of the technical school students; understandable, since the school is noted in the physical and mathematical sciences. But Albany took some serious blows to the chin. SUNY-Albany was also ranked as one of the Least Beautiful Campuses along with the Least Accessible Professors and Least Studious Students.
I don't know how many SUNY-Albany students answered the Princeton Review survey, but if I were the president of that school I would call up to ask. I would not want to see the reputation of my school to be sullied by a small number of malcontents. And that is the major problem with such a highly publicized survey of happiness and unhappiness. The malcontents get their day and their revenge.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Are the Big Three a Good Starting Point for College Grads?
I have been a car buff since I was six years old, and I was six a very long time ago, when the Big Three: Chrysler, Ford and GM sold most of the cars in this country. I used to love to draw cars and I dreamed about designing them. I went on a tour of the GM Tech Center when I was 13, and imagined that I would have board space there one day. But at 14, I read an article in Car and Driver about getting a job in car design. This was 1974, the country was in a major recession, and the auto industry as I knew it back then was not hiring.
I found other ways to satisfy my interest in cars. I bought them and drove them, for one thing and tried to keep two old V-8 powered cars running through college and grad school. I studied politics and urban planning and became involved in design and transportation policy. I also had the chance to visit Art Center College of Design in southern California, the best known school for car design when I was in my early forties, and became familiar with another excellent car design school: the College for Creative Studies in Detroit.
But today, with the Big Three in financial trouble, I had to ask myself if these companies would be a good place to begin a career. CollegeGrad.com, a leading entry level employment site, showed that Chrysler and Ford had approximately 640 entry level jobs for college graduates last year. I don't know what the number will be for 2009, though I suspect it will be lower.
But these companies, more than most others, need to develop a young work force if they are to thrive long-term. For one thing, they know styling and fashion trends among young buyers, who will be working their way up a brand ladder. Those who are "gear-heads" like to personalize their cars and boost their performance. But I don't see the "in-house" ideas for marketing to them at GM and Chrysler that I see with a Ford Mustang or a Scion. I had to laugh, for instance, when Saturn offered colored roof rails as a customization package on their now decreased Ion. That car has been replaced by the Astra, a German Opel sourced three and five door hatchback. That's a good looking car, but GM has not given it a soul.
And this month's Automobile magazine had a short feature on the Kia Soul, a boxy vehicle with special youth-oriented interior trim packages including a glow-in-the-dark package called Alien. I'll be attending the Philly Auto Show in a couple of weeks and expect to see the Soul in a Scion-like display, side doors open, music blaring. You have to give the Koreans credit for listening and trying; aside from the Mustang the Americans aren't.
I wrote a previous post about Pontiac, because they had invested time and money in college football this past season. But Pontiac didn't run ads for their least expensive cars; they showed the G8 performance sedan. It was obvious: they were going for the adult viewer, and not trying to get college kids into Pontiacs. Which makes me scratch my head. Pontiac sells a G5 coupe; it looks like Chevy's Cobalt except for the front and rear ends, the wheels and the dashboard. But while Chevy sells an turbo-charged SS version of their car, Pontiac makes do with the more basic model. They don't even sell the four door, and you can go to Chevy for that. I don't know why Pontiac got the short end on a small car; the Cobalt and the G5 are built at the same plant in Lordstown, Ohio.
Cars are as much a part of youth culture and fashion as sneakers and technology. But if I were a graduating senior, I'd wonder about working for a car company that wasn't trying hard enough to pitch their brand to me.
I found other ways to satisfy my interest in cars. I bought them and drove them, for one thing and tried to keep two old V-8 powered cars running through college and grad school. I studied politics and urban planning and became involved in design and transportation policy. I also had the chance to visit Art Center College of Design in southern California, the best known school for car design when I was in my early forties, and became familiar with another excellent car design school: the College for Creative Studies in Detroit.
But today, with the Big Three in financial trouble, I had to ask myself if these companies would be a good place to begin a career. CollegeGrad.com, a leading entry level employment site, showed that Chrysler and Ford had approximately 640 entry level jobs for college graduates last year. I don't know what the number will be for 2009, though I suspect it will be lower.
But these companies, more than most others, need to develop a young work force if they are to thrive long-term. For one thing, they know styling and fashion trends among young buyers, who will be working their way up a brand ladder. Those who are "gear-heads" like to personalize their cars and boost their performance. But I don't see the "in-house" ideas for marketing to them at GM and Chrysler that I see with a Ford Mustang or a Scion. I had to laugh, for instance, when Saturn offered colored roof rails as a customization package on their now decreased Ion. That car has been replaced by the Astra, a German Opel sourced three and five door hatchback. That's a good looking car, but GM has not given it a soul.
And this month's Automobile magazine had a short feature on the Kia Soul, a boxy vehicle with special youth-oriented interior trim packages including a glow-in-the-dark package called Alien. I'll be attending the Philly Auto Show in a couple of weeks and expect to see the Soul in a Scion-like display, side doors open, music blaring. You have to give the Koreans credit for listening and trying; aside from the Mustang the Americans aren't.
I wrote a previous post about Pontiac, because they had invested time and money in college football this past season. But Pontiac didn't run ads for their least expensive cars; they showed the G8 performance sedan. It was obvious: they were going for the adult viewer, and not trying to get college kids into Pontiacs. Which makes me scratch my head. Pontiac sells a G5 coupe; it looks like Chevy's Cobalt except for the front and rear ends, the wheels and the dashboard. But while Chevy sells an turbo-charged SS version of their car, Pontiac makes do with the more basic model. They don't even sell the four door, and you can go to Chevy for that. I don't know why Pontiac got the short end on a small car; the Cobalt and the G5 are built at the same plant in Lordstown, Ohio.
Cars are as much a part of youth culture and fashion as sneakers and technology. But if I were a graduating senior, I'd wonder about working for a car company that wasn't trying hard enough to pitch their brand to me.
Review: College Girl by Patricia Weitz
College Girl is a beautifully written and very believable story about Natalie Bloom, a working class transfer student at the University of Connecticut. Bloom is in her senior year. She is earning excellent grades, but she wonders if she is missing out on the “college experience,” especially sex. At 22, Natalie is still a virgin. She knows that young men are attracted to her, but she appears to be in no hurry.
At the start of the novel, Friday night for Natalie is a quiet night at the library, while her dorm mates hit the bars and the parties. Then one study night she meets Patrick, a tall senior from a well-to-do family who likes to read classical literature. Natalie becomes attracted to him, but she also learns that, aside from his literary interests, he is “just another guy,” no different than any other fraternity brother seeking paradise on campus. She also meets Jack, who it is clearer to her, is “just another frat guy,” but he turns out to be a friend. And as she devotes more time to a love life, and the attention of women friends (they envy her for attracting good-looking guys), her grades suffer. Eventually, Natalie “rights herself” and puts her priorities back in order. She has made some women friends, gained more appreciation of the things she will miss after college, but she gives herself a new academic experience to look forward to.
I liked College Girl. While the main character is a woman with “woman’s issues,” the story is not written like chick-lit. It is very true to college life at a large university where it is easy to either feel lost, or get caught up too much in the party and sports scene to the exclusion. Aside from sexual tensions and fashion, it is just as easy for men to get as lost or partied-out at a big school, as it is for women. What also made the story interesting is that Natalie has waited until the near-end of her college education to find her “community.” She forces herself to try to get along with women who are more socially conscious, as well as the fraternity scene, at a time when her peers have long lost their curiosity for college life; they’ve had their fun and now they want to get their degree and go.
I found myself able to relate to this story, not out of sympathy for a main character, but from experience. Like Natalie, I had decided to isolate myself to studies for a few semesters. I had never been a party person, and the people who lived on my dormitory floor with me did not expect me to be. The one or two occasions where we went to the pub as a floor together were ok; they were not shocking, but they were not fulfilling either. I had no desire to drink more than one or two beers, nor did I expect to wake up the next morning with an inebriated woman who had found me interesting. But I can’t deny that, near the end of college, I asked myself “what if?”
At the start of the novel, Friday night for Natalie is a quiet night at the library, while her dorm mates hit the bars and the parties. Then one study night she meets Patrick, a tall senior from a well-to-do family who likes to read classical literature. Natalie becomes attracted to him, but she also learns that, aside from his literary interests, he is “just another guy,” no different than any other fraternity brother seeking paradise on campus. She also meets Jack, who it is clearer to her, is “just another frat guy,” but he turns out to be a friend. And as she devotes more time to a love life, and the attention of women friends (they envy her for attracting good-looking guys), her grades suffer. Eventually, Natalie “rights herself” and puts her priorities back in order. She has made some women friends, gained more appreciation of the things she will miss after college, but she gives herself a new academic experience to look forward to.
I liked College Girl. While the main character is a woman with “woman’s issues,” the story is not written like chick-lit. It is very true to college life at a large university where it is easy to either feel lost, or get caught up too much in the party and sports scene to the exclusion. Aside from sexual tensions and fashion, it is just as easy for men to get as lost or partied-out at a big school, as it is for women. What also made the story interesting is that Natalie has waited until the near-end of her college education to find her “community.” She forces herself to try to get along with women who are more socially conscious, as well as the fraternity scene, at a time when her peers have long lost their curiosity for college life; they’ve had their fun and now they want to get their degree and go.
I found myself able to relate to this story, not out of sympathy for a main character, but from experience. Like Natalie, I had decided to isolate myself to studies for a few semesters. I had never been a party person, and the people who lived on my dormitory floor with me did not expect me to be. The one or two occasions where we went to the pub as a floor together were ok; they were not shocking, but they were not fulfilling either. I had no desire to drink more than one or two beers, nor did I expect to wake up the next morning with an inebriated woman who had found me interesting. But I can’t deny that, near the end of college, I asked myself “what if?”
Monday, January 12, 2009
Review: Work Hard. Be Nice
Work Hard.Be Nice is an account of the founding of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), a nationwide network of charter schools that was first founded in Houston, and first expanded in the Bronx, New York. The author, Washington Post education writer Jay Mathews, has written a largely supportive account of KIPP's progress; he writes about the founders, David Levin and Michael Feinberg with respect and awe.
Work Hard. Be Nice , combined with a personal visit to a non-KIPP charter school earlier this spring, raises thoughts as to who can succeed within a charter school environment. Charter schools are publicly supported, however they receive less funding per-pupil than more traditional public schools. The school days are longer; presumably students from disadvantaged backgrounds need more instructional time and teacher-student contact. And the teachers are presumably given more latitude in their teaching approach, including support materials, in exchange for giving up the protection of tenure. Charter school administrators are caught in the middle. Teacher's unions oppose them because money and staffing are taken away from traditional schools. Private and parochial school administrators claim that public support of charter schools is taking students, and money, away from them too.
But what I learned most from this book is that it takes a special type of teacher to succeed in this environment. While there may be many teachers who would like the freedom to manage their classrooms as they want, they might not have the high energy level or the human relations skills required to work with elementary school students who have never been pushed to learn. KIPP and similar charter school networks rely on Teach for America as a pipeline to find such teachers; they prefer an experienced hand to someone who has never worked in an urban public school.
The book states that the founders sought assistance from highly accomplished teachers such as Rafe Esquith, who introduces elementary school students to Shakespeare. Teachers such as Esquith not only have energy in the classroom; they also have the patience (or is it impatience?) to deal with a public school system bureaucracy, which does not always want them to succeed at the expense of the rest of the system. However, some of teachers do get tired of teaching. Levin and Feinberg received the guidance of one such teacher, Harriet Ball, who later decides to become an educational consultant.
In the end the success of networks such as KIPP depends on the quality of teachers they recruit. I hope that Mathews or another education report will one day write a story about the competition for such teachers as charter school networks grow in popularity and size, as well as the futures of these unique individuals. Some might go on to start new schools, as Levin and Feinberg did, but others might enter new fields. The school system I attended K through 12th grade had an enterprising theatre arts coordinator and teacher who left teaching to become a movie producer. I'd love to know what makes these unique individuals stay, and what makes them leave. Any superintendent of schools or school board member would want to know the same.
Work Hard. Be Nice , combined with a personal visit to a non-KIPP charter school earlier this spring, raises thoughts as to who can succeed within a charter school environment. Charter schools are publicly supported, however they receive less funding per-pupil than more traditional public schools. The school days are longer; presumably students from disadvantaged backgrounds need more instructional time and teacher-student contact. And the teachers are presumably given more latitude in their teaching approach, including support materials, in exchange for giving up the protection of tenure. Charter school administrators are caught in the middle. Teacher's unions oppose them because money and staffing are taken away from traditional schools. Private and parochial school administrators claim that public support of charter schools is taking students, and money, away from them too.
But what I learned most from this book is that it takes a special type of teacher to succeed in this environment. While there may be many teachers who would like the freedom to manage their classrooms as they want, they might not have the high energy level or the human relations skills required to work with elementary school students who have never been pushed to learn. KIPP and similar charter school networks rely on Teach for America as a pipeline to find such teachers; they prefer an experienced hand to someone who has never worked in an urban public school.
The book states that the founders sought assistance from highly accomplished teachers such as Rafe Esquith, who introduces elementary school students to Shakespeare. Teachers such as Esquith not only have energy in the classroom; they also have the patience (or is it impatience?) to deal with a public school system bureaucracy, which does not always want them to succeed at the expense of the rest of the system. However, some of teachers do get tired of teaching. Levin and Feinberg received the guidance of one such teacher, Harriet Ball, who later decides to become an educational consultant.
In the end the success of networks such as KIPP depends on the quality of teachers they recruit. I hope that Mathews or another education report will one day write a story about the competition for such teachers as charter school networks grow in popularity and size, as well as the futures of these unique individuals. Some might go on to start new schools, as Levin and Feinberg did, but others might enter new fields. The school system I attended K through 12th grade had an enterprising theatre arts coordinator and teacher who left teaching to become a movie producer. I'd love to know what makes these unique individuals stay, and what makes them leave. Any superintendent of schools or school board member would want to know the same.
This is Not Our Parent's Anti-War Movement
This morning, I read an interesting piece on Philly.com entitled: Why the anti-war movement is lost. It's a darn shame I never contacted the writer of this piece as I was doing research for Defending College Heights, my upcoming novel. See the story at http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/37429499.html .
The author, John Bruhn, makes an important point in advance of the impending inauguration of Barack Obama as president: that the activist anti-war movement is as irrelevent as the Iraq War itself. Bruhn adds that the movement interprets opposition to the war as the immediate withdrawal of American troops from not only Iraq, but also Afghaniztan. There is also the resurrection of a time-warn phrase: the military-industrial complex. That's an interesting choice of words, considering that the phrase is attributed to the last president that America elected for his military accomplishments: Dwight David Eisenhower.
Bruhn says that a major problem with the anti-war movement is not only unrealistic expectations at a time when Democrats and Republicans want to end the war in Iraq, but that the movement includes opposition to the war within a larger left-wing agenda that has little political support. That makes it less possible, for instance, for a military veteran or a parent who has lost a son or daughter to war, to participate in their protests.
It is unfair for activists to expect people more affected by war to buy into a larger, and unrelated, policy agenda. It is not like the campus protests of the Sixties and early Seventies where opposition to the war was blended with an agenda of student-focused issues. Campus activists, for instance, at Kent State and Columbia, not only opposed the war, but also ROTC on campus, which was a related issue. They opposed the university's reporting of student grades to the military, again a related issue. At Columbia, students opposed the relocation of black residents from the neighborhood surrounding the campus in favor of the construction of a physical education center. Since protests dealt with minority groups and the war, the displacement of black residents could be considered a related issue.
Students also asked for more say in the governance of their schools, and I believe, for the most part, that they got it. Students were given non-voting representation on boards of governors and state boards of education. I can also argue that colleges have become more consumer-oriented towards their students, since members of that protest generation now hold academic or administrative positions. Free speech and peaceful protest are taken more seriously; the more aggressive tactics of the past are frowned upon, even by students.
But a college community is a small and closed community, not a reflection of the country as a whole. If a nationwide anti-war movement is to succeed, it must include those who have experienced loss from war, regardless of their personal politics. And it should give the troops and the elected officials the proper time they need to end the war. They have to show President Obama they are on his side, and not opposed to efforts to keep his promises.
The author, John Bruhn, makes an important point in advance of the impending inauguration of Barack Obama as president: that the activist anti-war movement is as irrelevent as the Iraq War itself. Bruhn adds that the movement interprets opposition to the war as the immediate withdrawal of American troops from not only Iraq, but also Afghaniztan. There is also the resurrection of a time-warn phrase: the military-industrial complex. That's an interesting choice of words, considering that the phrase is attributed to the last president that America elected for his military accomplishments: Dwight David Eisenhower.
Bruhn says that a major problem with the anti-war movement is not only unrealistic expectations at a time when Democrats and Republicans want to end the war in Iraq, but that the movement includes opposition to the war within a larger left-wing agenda that has little political support. That makes it less possible, for instance, for a military veteran or a parent who has lost a son or daughter to war, to participate in their protests.
It is unfair for activists to expect people more affected by war to buy into a larger, and unrelated, policy agenda. It is not like the campus protests of the Sixties and early Seventies where opposition to the war was blended with an agenda of student-focused issues. Campus activists, for instance, at Kent State and Columbia, not only opposed the war, but also ROTC on campus, which was a related issue. They opposed the university's reporting of student grades to the military, again a related issue. At Columbia, students opposed the relocation of black residents from the neighborhood surrounding the campus in favor of the construction of a physical education center. Since protests dealt with minority groups and the war, the displacement of black residents could be considered a related issue.
Students also asked for more say in the governance of their schools, and I believe, for the most part, that they got it. Students were given non-voting representation on boards of governors and state boards of education. I can also argue that colleges have become more consumer-oriented towards their students, since members of that protest generation now hold academic or administrative positions. Free speech and peaceful protest are taken more seriously; the more aggressive tactics of the past are frowned upon, even by students.
But a college community is a small and closed community, not a reflection of the country as a whole. If a nationwide anti-war movement is to succeed, it must include those who have experienced loss from war, regardless of their personal politics. And it should give the troops and the elected officials the proper time they need to end the war. They have to show President Obama they are on his side, and not opposed to efforts to keep his promises.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
What About a Student-Focused Stimulus?
President-elect Barack Obama took to the airwaves to push Congress to have an economic stimulus package ready for him to sign after he takes office on January 20. The media and members of Congress say that's doubtful to happen; a stimulus package, including another tax rebate, is unlikely to pass until mid-February.
My wife and I got a stimulus check last summer, and we added it to our savings. We had no debts to pay down and we were in no hurry to go on a big shopping spree. I'm happy to do the same with the next check; the more savings we have, the better off we will be in a difficult year. However, I worry for the young job seeker who is graduating from college with $30,000 or more in student loan debt, with no job. This year, it is less likely to be the job seekers fault that he is in that predicament.
Back in the early 1980's the Reagan Administration made changes in student loan policies, one of them being a reduction in the grace period, the time between graduation and the due date of the first payment, from nine months to six. My guess was that Reagan's advisors believed that graduates would be more motivated to look for work and begin paying their loans if the grace period was shortened. But back then students did not build up student loan balances for their bachelor's degrees that might be higher than their first year's salaries. Had I gone to work after graduation, my debt was likely to be one-quarter to one-third of my starting salary.
Today, I believe we need a different policy, because students and parents are in more dire financial straits; at the very least we need a temporary measure to give graduating students more time to find employment and accumulate enough funds to begin paying their loans.
So, I would like to suggest that graduates in the Classes of 2009 and 2010, and their parents, be given a one year grace period before they have to make their first payment. This would apply to every graduate, regardless of their choice of field. If a graduate works in a public service program such as Teach for America they could begin to receive credit towards their loan balance during their second year of employment.
I realize that there is pressure to reform student loan programs and to collect balances as promptly as possible. We have the luxury of tough love in a good economy to get that money back as soon as possible, even if it means getting the parents to pay. However, these times will be much tougher for parents and graduates alike.
My wife and I got a stimulus check last summer, and we added it to our savings. We had no debts to pay down and we were in no hurry to go on a big shopping spree. I'm happy to do the same with the next check; the more savings we have, the better off we will be in a difficult year. However, I worry for the young job seeker who is graduating from college with $30,000 or more in student loan debt, with no job. This year, it is less likely to be the job seekers fault that he is in that predicament.
Back in the early 1980's the Reagan Administration made changes in student loan policies, one of them being a reduction in the grace period, the time between graduation and the due date of the first payment, from nine months to six. My guess was that Reagan's advisors believed that graduates would be more motivated to look for work and begin paying their loans if the grace period was shortened. But back then students did not build up student loan balances for their bachelor's degrees that might be higher than their first year's salaries. Had I gone to work after graduation, my debt was likely to be one-quarter to one-third of my starting salary.
Today, I believe we need a different policy, because students and parents are in more dire financial straits; at the very least we need a temporary measure to give graduating students more time to find employment and accumulate enough funds to begin paying their loans.
So, I would like to suggest that graduates in the Classes of 2009 and 2010, and their parents, be given a one year grace period before they have to make their first payment. This would apply to every graduate, regardless of their choice of field. If a graduate works in a public service program such as Teach for America they could begin to receive credit towards their loan balance during their second year of employment.
I realize that there is pressure to reform student loan programs and to collect balances as promptly as possible. We have the luxury of tough love in a good economy to get that money back as soon as possible, even if it means getting the parents to pay. However, these times will be much tougher for parents and graduates alike.
The Career Fair Courting Ritual Lives On
Yesterday I went to the New Jersey Collegiate Career Day, one of the largest college-focused job fairs in the country. Held twice each year, in January and May, at Rutgers University-New Brunswick, these fairs typically attract over 3,000 job seekers and as many as 250 to 275 employers. This year there were 190, though the volume of job seekers was no less impressive than it has been in better economic times. But unless there is divine intervention from Mother Nature during the January fair, every Career Day is a success.
The Rutgers events are unique in that they are held when colleges are typically out of session, and that you do not need to be a Rutgers student or alumnus to attend. These events are attractive not only to students/alumni of New Jersey colleges, but also Garden State residents who attended college out of state. Rutgers location, well-centered between New York and Philadelphia, also makes these events a draw for employers and job seekers alike.
I know that the Internet is an important job search tool, and it benefits entry-level job seekers more than any other group because companies have a cost-effective way to collect resumes from colleges all across the country. But nothing means more to job seekers than a personal touch from employers. A Web site might replace recruitment literature and e-mail might replace a phone call, but an entry level job seeker likes to believe that employers are interested in them, and they want employers to take the time to answer questions about life at work.
The college graduate who hits the mark in the right corporate culture in the first job, whether it be government, the military, non-profit or a large global firm, is more likely to succeed long-term with a single employer than someone who is not. That's why the employer-candidate interaction at a job fair is a courting ritual; each side has to find the right partner and woo the other. It's more likely to happen in a face-to-face exchange on the floor of a job fair, even a crowded one like the Rutgers career day, than it is from an online resume screening.
My personal experiences with the courting ritual go back sixteen years ago, when I was finishing my MBA. I went to a MBA-only event in New York City with several of my classmates. At first, I did a lap around the floor screening for the right partners; the lines were simply too long to have the opportunity to speak with each and every firm. I left the fair with five or six interviews, including one company, since gobbled up by another, that went three rounds before I got the boot. But I did find a job before my graduation because I learned how to screen the companies, just as they screened me.
I'm glad the courting ritual hasn't disappeared in an era where it could have been replaced by technology. It not only gives young job seekers a fighting chance of making a good impression on their next employer. It also gives the employers a chance to let their future employees know that work is all about people.
The Rutgers events are unique in that they are held when colleges are typically out of session, and that you do not need to be a Rutgers student or alumnus to attend. These events are attractive not only to students/alumni of New Jersey colleges, but also Garden State residents who attended college out of state. Rutgers location, well-centered between New York and Philadelphia, also makes these events a draw for employers and job seekers alike.
I know that the Internet is an important job search tool, and it benefits entry-level job seekers more than any other group because companies have a cost-effective way to collect resumes from colleges all across the country. But nothing means more to job seekers than a personal touch from employers. A Web site might replace recruitment literature and e-mail might replace a phone call, but an entry level job seeker likes to believe that employers are interested in them, and they want employers to take the time to answer questions about life at work.
The college graduate who hits the mark in the right corporate culture in the first job, whether it be government, the military, non-profit or a large global firm, is more likely to succeed long-term with a single employer than someone who is not. That's why the employer-candidate interaction at a job fair is a courting ritual; each side has to find the right partner and woo the other. It's more likely to happen in a face-to-face exchange on the floor of a job fair, even a crowded one like the Rutgers career day, than it is from an online resume screening.
My personal experiences with the courting ritual go back sixteen years ago, when I was finishing my MBA. I went to a MBA-only event in New York City with several of my classmates. At first, I did a lap around the floor screening for the right partners; the lines were simply too long to have the opportunity to speak with each and every firm. I left the fair with five or six interviews, including one company, since gobbled up by another, that went three rounds before I got the boot. But I did find a job before my graduation because I learned how to screen the companies, just as they screened me.
I'm glad the courting ritual hasn't disappeared in an era where it could have been replaced by technology. It not only gives young job seekers a fighting chance of making a good impression on their next employer. It also gives the employers a chance to let their future employees know that work is all about people.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Disciples of George W. Bush Back Away From No Child Left Behind
President George W. Bush has not started to back his bags or book his flight back to Texas as Congressional conservative Republicans propose legislation to dismantle No Child Left Behind, the only significant domestic policy accomplishment of his two terms in office. See the story in Education Week at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/14/27hoekstra.h26.html?r=199548792.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan), the third-ranking Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee is the primary sponsor of this legislation. Hoekstra believes that the current act has led to a "federalization" of local public schools. His legislation shifts the burden of accountability and standards to state governments, in effect repealing federal requirements that students in grades 3-8 be tested annually in reading and mathematics and once in high school. However, I must add that some states, including my home state of New Jersey, already had testing requirements in place before George W. Bush took office.
Hoekstra's bill has 41 co-sponsors, but I don't see it passing Congress, nor do I see it as the magic bullet to revise a new No Child Left Behind Act. But I do see this legislation as an intent to cut federal spending in K-12 education.
There has been some good to No Child Left Behind. It has made the public and teachers more aware of the problems faced by economically disadvantaged students and provided quantifiable measures for policy makers. However, the act has been used to make higher standardized test scores to be a "be-all, end-all, for-all" for improved public education. That, and limited federal funding, are the true failures of No Child Left Behind.
I actually agree with Rep. Hoekstra and the co-sponsors in that there is no need for Congress to legislate standardized testing--unless it is prepared to fund it or collaborate with educators to develop the tests. I don't see any reason why there could not be a public-private partnership to develop a selection of K-12 tests that provide the measures all policy makers and educators need to help evaluate schools and make better investment decisions.
Right now, it seems that tests are being "dumbed down" to show results, or used to terminate teachers and cut school budgets. And the multiplicity of tests in the states is a joke. It goes against the freedom of mobility that Americans enjoy. A student who leaves the public schools in one state to attend school in another should be able to transfer seamlessly into a new classroom. So, if policy makers and educators are not serious about national tests, then Congress should not impose an unfunded mandate. Either fund a national testing program that can be taught to all teachers, or scrap the mandate in its entirety.
In addition, tests do not need to be mandated in the high schools. State governments are already raising high school graduation standards without prodding from the federal government. It would not be a reach for educators to develop a standard final examination in core subjects or use SAT II tests, already required by colleges, for the advanced courses.
But more relevant testing costs money, and state governments are not on the same financial footing. I would support federal funding to help schools put this type of testing in place in high schools. There is no need to impose an additional "graduation" examination on students who are already required to take college entrance examinations or pre-employment tests for life after high school.
Rep. Hoekstra has not presented a problem; he has presented an opportunity for serious discussion between partisans and educators. Either the federal government will facilitate and finance national elementary and middle school examinations that have some meaning, or they will leave this responsibility to the states. Either we have an adequately funded mandate with national tests or we get rid of an unfunded mandate for state-funded testing. The current act is a senseless compromise that must be corrected.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan), the third-ranking Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee is the primary sponsor of this legislation. Hoekstra believes that the current act has led to a "federalization" of local public schools. His legislation shifts the burden of accountability and standards to state governments, in effect repealing federal requirements that students in grades 3-8 be tested annually in reading and mathematics and once in high school. However, I must add that some states, including my home state of New Jersey, already had testing requirements in place before George W. Bush took office.
Hoekstra's bill has 41 co-sponsors, but I don't see it passing Congress, nor do I see it as the magic bullet to revise a new No Child Left Behind Act. But I do see this legislation as an intent to cut federal spending in K-12 education.
There has been some good to No Child Left Behind. It has made the public and teachers more aware of the problems faced by economically disadvantaged students and provided quantifiable measures for policy makers. However, the act has been used to make higher standardized test scores to be a "be-all, end-all, for-all" for improved public education. That, and limited federal funding, are the true failures of No Child Left Behind.
I actually agree with Rep. Hoekstra and the co-sponsors in that there is no need for Congress to legislate standardized testing--unless it is prepared to fund it or collaborate with educators to develop the tests. I don't see any reason why there could not be a public-private partnership to develop a selection of K-12 tests that provide the measures all policy makers and educators need to help evaluate schools and make better investment decisions.
Right now, it seems that tests are being "dumbed down" to show results, or used to terminate teachers and cut school budgets. And the multiplicity of tests in the states is a joke. It goes against the freedom of mobility that Americans enjoy. A student who leaves the public schools in one state to attend school in another should be able to transfer seamlessly into a new classroom. So, if policy makers and educators are not serious about national tests, then Congress should not impose an unfunded mandate. Either fund a national testing program that can be taught to all teachers, or scrap the mandate in its entirety.
In addition, tests do not need to be mandated in the high schools. State governments are already raising high school graduation standards without prodding from the federal government. It would not be a reach for educators to develop a standard final examination in core subjects or use SAT II tests, already required by colleges, for the advanced courses.
But more relevant testing costs money, and state governments are not on the same financial footing. I would support federal funding to help schools put this type of testing in place in high schools. There is no need to impose an additional "graduation" examination on students who are already required to take college entrance examinations or pre-employment tests for life after high school.
Rep. Hoekstra has not presented a problem; he has presented an opportunity for serious discussion between partisans and educators. Either the federal government will facilitate and finance national elementary and middle school examinations that have some meaning, or they will leave this responsibility to the states. Either we have an adequately funded mandate with national tests or we get rid of an unfunded mandate for state-funded testing. The current act is a senseless compromise that must be corrected.
Review: The Leader in Me, How Schools and Parents Around the World Are Inspiring Greatness One Child at a Time by Stephen R. Covey
If you work in a large organization you might have heard phrases bandied about such as “leadership training” or “team building.” Your employer might have invested in a customizable package of group exercises from consultants or distributed their books. One of the most prolific consultants is Utah-based Stephen Covey, a Harvard MBA who also holds a doctorate of religious education from Brigham Young. That is why your consulting program might be referred in the oversimplified moniker: Covey Training.
Dr. Covey’s leadership principles are divided into eight habits that have not only been applied to the workplace, but also to raising teenagers. His most famous title, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People has sold over 15 million copies for nearly twenty years. Covey’s seven habits are:
• Habit 1: Be Proactive: Principles of Personal Choice
• Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind: Principles of Personal Vision
• Habit 3: Put First Things First: Principles of Integrity & Execution
• Habit 4: Think Win/Win: Principles of Mutual Benefit
• Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood: Principles of Mutual Understanding
• Habit 6: Synergize: Principles of Creative Cooperation
• Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw: Principles of Balanced Self-Renewal
Four years ago, Covey published another book around an eighth habit: Find your voice and inspire others to find theirs. His latest book: The Leader in Me, How Schools and Parents Around the World Are Inspiring Greatness One Child at a Time talks about how these eight habits have been brought into public school classrooms in the United States and abroad.
Much of the content in The Leader in Me is devoted to the application of the eight habits in a single school, the A.B. Combs Elementary School in Forsythe County (near Winston Salem) North Carolina, over the past ten years. The school is in a district that is not extraordinarily advantaged in an economic way, and it was in danger of closing. Implementing the Covey habits was not easy, and it took considerable time. The principal did not get immediate buy-in from the faculty, so she started with a single pilot class in each grade. At first, the habits were taught to the teachers, but the real successes came when they were taught to the students.
The habits were used to instill leadership qualities in each and every student, something that was not done in the schools that I attended in my youth. Teachers were instructed to make the effort to find ways that each student, regardless of their academic or athletic strengths, or their boldness or shyness, could be leaders. As one example, students who were strong in one skill were asked to be tutors or to give presentations to the entire class. These habits were also used to encourage students to respect each other for their best qualities, and not mock them for their differences or disadvantages. The habit-based instruction is meant to build self-confidence as well as create a safe and secure school. When these three “s’s” are in place, test scores, the political measure of success, rise. And parents and potential employers appreciate not only the academic skills, but also the interpersonal communications skills.
But the difference between bringing the Covey habits into schools is that students do not usually stay at the same school from kindergarten through twelfth grade. They might be under the umbrella of the habits at the elementary school, but not the middle school or the secondary school. The gains from implementing these good habits in the earlier grades could be lost. Even Covey alludes to this point, and he discusses how the habits were first introduced and reinforced in kindergarten, by teachers who did not have the added burden of dealing with standardized tests.
I also learned that it takes a confident principal to make the habits succeed, especially when there is no direction from the superintendent’s office. And while parents and politicians appreciate a successful educator, she must also forget about the jealousy that is likely to be expressed by her colleagues. Principals are more mobile than teachers and they want to work in the schools that will give the largest budget or the most executive authority. So, the principal must not only be effective at habit forming among teachers and students; she must also be an effective organizational politician.
The Leader in Me is a great guide for such principals, or for teachers who aspire to be in a principal’s chair one day. It could also help the school district superintendent and human resources director write the job description for a highly effective principal. If you’re a parent who is concerned about your child’s education, and you want to send a message to your local schools, then buy your superintendent a copy of this book.
Dr. Covey’s leadership principles are divided into eight habits that have not only been applied to the workplace, but also to raising teenagers. His most famous title, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People has sold over 15 million copies for nearly twenty years. Covey’s seven habits are:
• Habit 1: Be Proactive: Principles of Personal Choice
• Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind: Principles of Personal Vision
• Habit 3: Put First Things First: Principles of Integrity & Execution
• Habit 4: Think Win/Win: Principles of Mutual Benefit
• Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood: Principles of Mutual Understanding
• Habit 6: Synergize: Principles of Creative Cooperation
• Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw: Principles of Balanced Self-Renewal
Four years ago, Covey published another book around an eighth habit: Find your voice and inspire others to find theirs. His latest book: The Leader in Me, How Schools and Parents Around the World Are Inspiring Greatness One Child at a Time talks about how these eight habits have been brought into public school classrooms in the United States and abroad.
Much of the content in The Leader in Me is devoted to the application of the eight habits in a single school, the A.B. Combs Elementary School in Forsythe County (near Winston Salem) North Carolina, over the past ten years. The school is in a district that is not extraordinarily advantaged in an economic way, and it was in danger of closing. Implementing the Covey habits was not easy, and it took considerable time. The principal did not get immediate buy-in from the faculty, so she started with a single pilot class in each grade. At first, the habits were taught to the teachers, but the real successes came when they were taught to the students.
The habits were used to instill leadership qualities in each and every student, something that was not done in the schools that I attended in my youth. Teachers were instructed to make the effort to find ways that each student, regardless of their academic or athletic strengths, or their boldness or shyness, could be leaders. As one example, students who were strong in one skill were asked to be tutors or to give presentations to the entire class. These habits were also used to encourage students to respect each other for their best qualities, and not mock them for their differences or disadvantages. The habit-based instruction is meant to build self-confidence as well as create a safe and secure school. When these three “s’s” are in place, test scores, the political measure of success, rise. And parents and potential employers appreciate not only the academic skills, but also the interpersonal communications skills.
But the difference between bringing the Covey habits into schools is that students do not usually stay at the same school from kindergarten through twelfth grade. They might be under the umbrella of the habits at the elementary school, but not the middle school or the secondary school. The gains from implementing these good habits in the earlier grades could be lost. Even Covey alludes to this point, and he discusses how the habits were first introduced and reinforced in kindergarten, by teachers who did not have the added burden of dealing with standardized tests.
I also learned that it takes a confident principal to make the habits succeed, especially when there is no direction from the superintendent’s office. And while parents and politicians appreciate a successful educator, she must also forget about the jealousy that is likely to be expressed by her colleagues. Principals are more mobile than teachers and they want to work in the schools that will give the largest budget or the most executive authority. So, the principal must not only be effective at habit forming among teachers and students; she must also be an effective organizational politician.
The Leader in Me is a great guide for such principals, or for teachers who aspire to be in a principal’s chair one day. It could also help the school district superintendent and human resources director write the job description for a highly effective principal. If you’re a parent who is concerned about your child’s education, and you want to send a message to your local schools, then buy your superintendent a copy of this book.
Utah Football: Unbeaten, Untied, Uninvited, but Not Unloved
The University of Utah football team, as serious college football fans know, concluded an undefeated season on New Year’s Day. The Runnin’ Utes scored a knockout blow over an Alabama team that had been ranked first in coaches and writers polls until they lost their conference title game. The bowl game was the Sugar Bowl, one of the four oldest, so somewhat traditional college bowl games, a game that had previously decided national champions. Only this time the Sugar Bowl was a consolation prize for a team that deserved to be crowned national champions.
I find it silly that an unbeaten team that defeated six bowl teams, including one, Oregon State, that beat Southern Cal and another, Texas Christian, that hung the first loss on Boise State in a bowl game, cannot end their season as national champions. However, the coach’s poll cannot declare a national champion; it can only decide the teams that rank second through twenty fifth.
So, I’d like to offer two solutions that will recognize Utah’s achievement, send a message that a playoff system is in order, but don’t rock the boat.
Solution Number One: A Presidential Proclamation. On January 21st, President-elect Barack Obama declares Utah co-champions, by vote of the Obama Poll, a presidential proclamation. The Utah team gets an invitation to the White House along with the winner of the Oklahoma-Florida game. The President-elect gets his chance to call for a playoff while recognizing the teams that are considered the best in the country.
I’d doubt that any college president will challenge the President of the United States; they need his help in this economy a lot more than he needs them. And I can’t imagine that Florida coach Urban Meyer would mind sharing the stage with Utah coach Kyle Wittingham, should Florida prevail in the so-called national title game. Before coming to Florida, Meyer was the Utah coach and Wittingham was his defensive coordinator. A presidential portrait of teacher and student would be great publicity for college football, and the sport needs all of the positive press it can get.
If Richard Nixon took it upon himself to choose Texas over Penn State as national champions in 1969-the President had seen the Texas-Arkansas game, a battle of unbeaten rivals earlier that season-then Barack Obama can certainly convince the Oklahoma-Florida winner to share the stage with Utah. Not to mention, Obama can use the power of the presidency to declare future co-champions until the college presidents finally sit down to discuss a playoff.
Solution Number Two: A Magnanimous Gesture by the Monied. The president of Notre Dame calls the president of the University of Utah and offers the Utes the first available home-and-away date on their football schedule. A true national champion deserves a higher profile and a chance to test their mettle in front of a college football’s largest national television audience and most rabid fan base. Not to forget, a Utah-Notre Dame series would not only enhance the reputation of Utah’s football program, but also the rebuilding of Notre Dame’s.
Neither of these solutions requires anything more than phone calls and a photo-op at the White House. They are inexpensive resolutions to an embarrassing image problem for a sport that has more than enough embarrassing image problems.
I find it silly that an unbeaten team that defeated six bowl teams, including one, Oregon State, that beat Southern Cal and another, Texas Christian, that hung the first loss on Boise State in a bowl game, cannot end their season as national champions. However, the coach’s poll cannot declare a national champion; it can only decide the teams that rank second through twenty fifth.
So, I’d like to offer two solutions that will recognize Utah’s achievement, send a message that a playoff system is in order, but don’t rock the boat.
Solution Number One: A Presidential Proclamation. On January 21st, President-elect Barack Obama declares Utah co-champions, by vote of the Obama Poll, a presidential proclamation. The Utah team gets an invitation to the White House along with the winner of the Oklahoma-Florida game. The President-elect gets his chance to call for a playoff while recognizing the teams that are considered the best in the country.
I’d doubt that any college president will challenge the President of the United States; they need his help in this economy a lot more than he needs them. And I can’t imagine that Florida coach Urban Meyer would mind sharing the stage with Utah coach Kyle Wittingham, should Florida prevail in the so-called national title game. Before coming to Florida, Meyer was the Utah coach and Wittingham was his defensive coordinator. A presidential portrait of teacher and student would be great publicity for college football, and the sport needs all of the positive press it can get.
If Richard Nixon took it upon himself to choose Texas over Penn State as national champions in 1969-the President had seen the Texas-Arkansas game, a battle of unbeaten rivals earlier that season-then Barack Obama can certainly convince the Oklahoma-Florida winner to share the stage with Utah. Not to mention, Obama can use the power of the presidency to declare future co-champions until the college presidents finally sit down to discuss a playoff.
Solution Number Two: A Magnanimous Gesture by the Monied. The president of Notre Dame calls the president of the University of Utah and offers the Utes the first available home-and-away date on their football schedule. A true national champion deserves a higher profile and a chance to test their mettle in front of a college football’s largest national television audience and most rabid fan base. Not to forget, a Utah-Notre Dame series would not only enhance the reputation of Utah’s football program, but also the rebuilding of Notre Dame’s.
Neither of these solutions requires anything more than phone calls and a photo-op at the White House. They are inexpensive resolutions to an embarrassing image problem for a sport that has more than enough embarrassing image problems.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Pontiac Sponsors College Football with Little Presence in the College Market
I began the New Year in remembrance of an old flame. Not an old girlfriend, but my first car, a 1971 Pontiac Grand Prix that I bought during my freshman year in college. It’s been thirty years since I bought that car, and I drove it to 120,000 miles.
I was reminded of my old Pontiac as I watched the various college bowl games. Pontiac is the official sponsor of these games; they are taking a poll of the biggest plays of the past season. But there is no Pontiac that is targeted to the college student, nor does it seem that the division is trying hard enough to market to them, as in developing a youthful looking small car. In fact, there has been speculation in the media that GM will close Pontiac down as management attempts to restructure the company.
During the Sixties and Seventies Pontiac was GM’s “performance division.” True, you could get a Chevy Camaro, Nova or Chevelle with a performance package, and those sold very well, but Pontiac was the division that brought out the GTO, America’s first muscle car and took the plunge into affordable two-seat sports cars, first with the Fiero and now with the Solstice. The Grand Prix, which made its debut in 1962, was GM’s first sports-luxury car. And then there was the Firebird, the dream car of my high school days. The Firebird was not the first small performance car- the Mustang came out three years earlier - but it was the best looking.
Back in those days a recent college grad could order up a Firebird from mild (a six cylinder engine with a three-speed automatic transmission) to wild (a huge V-8 and a four-speed stick). It was a car that looked good in all but the most basic models. There is no Pontiac like that today. Chevrolet plans to bring back the Camaro as a 2010 model, with mild to wild options, but there have been no announcements about a renewed Firebird. And that’s a shame; the Firebird was a great entry-level performance car from a performance division. A good experience with your first ‘Bird led you to take a look at a more powerful model, or check out a GTO or Grand Prix when it was time to shop again.
I live near four colleges, including an Ivy League school and a very large state university, and the small sport coupes I see most often are the Honda Civic and the Toyota-based Scion TC. Both have an attractive entry price and room to upgrade; the Scion takes personalization another step forward with dealer-installed options, including a supercharger to boost performance. A $20,000 Scion or Civic coupe looks more expensive than it is, and it’s quite possible to live with it for four or five years. And Honda makes a sporty Accord coupe while Toyota makes a Camry sports sedan and a V-6 powered RAV-4 that can be the next step up in the brand.
I don’t see how Pontiac will ever compete with Honda or Toyota in the youth market unless it builds a car that is more competitive with the Civic or the Scion. The division needs a small sporty car that looks expensive, has profitable option packages as well as performance upgrades. Pontiac has built performance cars for more than half a century. They sell a very nice G-8 sports sedan that’s competitive against Acura and BMW. That would be a nice step up from a Firebird, if Pontiac brought back the Firebird. And I doubt they’ll need a college graduate rebate to drive traffic to the door for that car. The next 21st century Firebird would sell itself.
I was reminded of my old Pontiac as I watched the various college bowl games. Pontiac is the official sponsor of these games; they are taking a poll of the biggest plays of the past season. But there is no Pontiac that is targeted to the college student, nor does it seem that the division is trying hard enough to market to them, as in developing a youthful looking small car. In fact, there has been speculation in the media that GM will close Pontiac down as management attempts to restructure the company.
During the Sixties and Seventies Pontiac was GM’s “performance division.” True, you could get a Chevy Camaro, Nova or Chevelle with a performance package, and those sold very well, but Pontiac was the division that brought out the GTO, America’s first muscle car and took the plunge into affordable two-seat sports cars, first with the Fiero and now with the Solstice. The Grand Prix, which made its debut in 1962, was GM’s first sports-luxury car. And then there was the Firebird, the dream car of my high school days. The Firebird was not the first small performance car- the Mustang came out three years earlier - but it was the best looking.
Back in those days a recent college grad could order up a Firebird from mild (a six cylinder engine with a three-speed automatic transmission) to wild (a huge V-8 and a four-speed stick). It was a car that looked good in all but the most basic models. There is no Pontiac like that today. Chevrolet plans to bring back the Camaro as a 2010 model, with mild to wild options, but there have been no announcements about a renewed Firebird. And that’s a shame; the Firebird was a great entry-level performance car from a performance division. A good experience with your first ‘Bird led you to take a look at a more powerful model, or check out a GTO or Grand Prix when it was time to shop again.
I live near four colleges, including an Ivy League school and a very large state university, and the small sport coupes I see most often are the Honda Civic and the Toyota-based Scion TC. Both have an attractive entry price and room to upgrade; the Scion takes personalization another step forward with dealer-installed options, including a supercharger to boost performance. A $20,000 Scion or Civic coupe looks more expensive than it is, and it’s quite possible to live with it for four or five years. And Honda makes a sporty Accord coupe while Toyota makes a Camry sports sedan and a V-6 powered RAV-4 that can be the next step up in the brand.
I don’t see how Pontiac will ever compete with Honda or Toyota in the youth market unless it builds a car that is more competitive with the Civic or the Scion. The division needs a small sporty car that looks expensive, has profitable option packages as well as performance upgrades. Pontiac has built performance cars for more than half a century. They sell a very nice G-8 sports sedan that’s competitive against Acura and BMW. That would be a nice step up from a Firebird, if Pontiac brought back the Firebird. And I doubt they’ll need a college graduate rebate to drive traffic to the door for that car. The next 21st century Firebird would sell itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)