Today's New York Times has a story that covers how state governments are pulling back on commitments to loan forgiveness programs which are designed to encourage college students to enter high-demand, low entry level salary fields such as nursing, teaching or public interest law.
But the story is an unfortunate one for the future of these programs, as it prominently features a young Kentucky couple, both 26 year old special education teachers, who had just purchased a house despite having over $100,000 in student loan debts.
Unlike the people who commented on the story, I could see how they might have gotten over their heads in debt. It's quite possible that they chose their school, a private university, before they considered their major. I'll leave you to make your own judgment call about their decision to buy a house (see the photo in the story). I don't know what their home cost in Kentucky, but a similar house would have gone for about $400,000 in central New Jersey.
The intentions behind loan forgiveness programs are good. Basically, if you agree to work in a targeted profession for at least five years, a portion of your student loan debt is forgiven. But these programs leave the decisions on which programs to fund to the political process. And I could argue that many public service fields are an honorable calling, so many, in fact, that expenses for a loan forgiveness program could only spiral upwards over time.
But every field wants to attract the best entry level talent. So, I would like to offer an alternative: have state industry associations and/or foundations partner with schools to offer a scholarship program for students who have completed the practicum years of their degrees.
For teacher candidates, for example, this would be the junior year when they do student teaching. The scholarship would work like this: if the student aces the practicum, maintains a high grade point average in the rest of his courses, and agrees to accept an offer of employment in the field after graduation, then he gets a check for his junior year tuition, less any other scholarships received.
So, the best students who make a commitment to the field get a check. They can use that money to pay down their loans or settle near their place of work after they accept a job offer. Scholarship recipients would have an obligation to stay in that field for a minimum amount of time, but it does not need to be as long as five years. If they leave the field early, then they must make arrangements to repay the check.
Why this approach instead of loan forgiveness? For one thing, state government would not be forgiving the monies that a student borrowed before they made a commitment to a particular field. And, for another thing, this would be a financial assistance tool that would be directed at the students who have made the strongest academic commitment.
This approach is far from unusual. It is the way that military ROTC scholarship programs work. Typically, college students who are interested in ROTC take military science courses in their freshman and sophomore years, but there is no scholarship money attached, but no military obligation. The scholarship kicks in during the junior year, and there is an obligation for an officer candidate to repay it if he does not accept a commission at graduation.
As I stated before, I consider public service in various forms to be an honorable calling. But as a voter and a taxpayer, I prefer to see people rewarded for their demonstrated commitment to a field, not merely to a choice of major.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Book Review: Tap and Gown, An Ivy League Novel by Diana Peterfreund
Shop Indie Bookstores
I write about education practically every day and when I am not writing I am reading education books by others. Sometimes they are non-fiction works about schools or politics, which are within my comfort zone. So are most thrillers with murder and intrigue on a college campus.
But this time I decided to do what writers should do: take a step out of my comfort zone, and read something that I would not usually read. So, I picked up Tap and Gown, which I can best describe as "Ivy League chick-lit." The writing style was not for me. I would have preferred more intrigue and less "inner thought" conversation, but I can understand why the author has become successful.
Tap and Gown is the third of a series of books about young men and women in a secret society called Rose and Grave. Unlike most secret societies in this fictional (and I'll guess the real) Ivy League world, Rose and Grave has recently decided to tap women as members. The two prior stories, from what I gathered from the author's Web site, elude that such change did not come easily to the current members or to the past members, now called patriarchs.
Based on the writing, I was not sure if this was a young adult book or a romance story for college age women, but my guess is that the author is trying to reach both audiences. But I have no doubt that she has gotten hundreds, maybe thousands, of young women interested in the some of the unique opportunities of an Ivy League education, secret societies among them. You see that there is a social life too, if you are willing to look for it, but sometimes it happens at your peril.
And, after all, every college has classrooms where learning goes on, and libraries where studying goes on. But alumni remember their friendships and social activities far more clearly than anything they learned from classes and books. As much as some adults, especially politicians, want to think about college as a serious place, those who are about to go to college are looking for fun. My bet is that books like Tap and Gown go farther at selling a college lifestyle than the college marketing materials do.
While I have not conducted a scientific study, I invite you to look at the 63 comments on the author's most recent blog post about Tap and Gown. This is a writer who has done what good writers are supposed to do: find an audience and resonate strongly with it.
Book Review: Spirit of Adventure, Eagle Scouts and the Making of America's Future by Alvin Townley
Shop Indie Bookstores
I was a Cub Scout and a Webelos, but I was never much for Scouting. I was uncomfortable wearing a uniform and being schlepped off to meetings led by a Den Mother or Den Dad who I didn't know, and other Scouts I barely knew. And I've never, even to this day, been much of a camping or fishing enthusiast. I can do it, if I have to, but it's not my thing.
But many people have benefited from their exposure to Scouting, and there is much good to it. Scouting is a young man's first exposure to taking an oath and a law of character. It is an early chance be take part in organized leadership activities, as well as learn skills that are not usually taught in school. Scouts do not have the luxury of excluding the least athletic kids from organized work and play. Scouting's emphasis on ethics, fitness and leadership is an asset to those who stick with it. Adults who come out of this system successful have tools that are quite valued in most professions.
And many Scouts like the structure and rewards systems in Scouting; they are somewhat like the military in that there are individual merit awards as well as team awards. The Eagle Scout badge is the highest honor, and it is earned through leading a team-focused project. According to the book, a Scout needs to earn only 21 individual merit badges to attempt to earn Eagle, but it is his leadership skills that must shine when he executes his project.
Spirit of Adventure is a collection of interviews with former Eagle Scouts who have gone on to numerous careers ranging from business to education to military service to the National Football League. At present, 50,000 Scouts worldwide become Eagle Scouts each year, the highest total in the century-long history of the Boy Scouts. This is partly because scouting has,like many businesses, gone global. According to this book, nearly two million Scouts have earned Eagle since 1910, and they regularly comprise between 12 and 16 percent of the student bodies at the U.S. military service academies.
This is a good book, if you are a former Eagle Scout, or wish to become one, because the subjects all discuss what scouting and the honor has meant to them within the context of their jobs. But it devotes too much attention to their present day activities. As someone who passed on the Boy Scouts, I would have liked to know more about the projects led by these former Eagle Scouts. In this book, I learned of only two, though they were remarkable undertakings for teenagers. In fact, they would be remarkable for persons of any age. I would have appreciated learning about more of these past accomplishments, as opposed to reading similar testimonies about Scouting.
One former Scout who is now in business organized a foundation called China Care, which raises funds for Chinese orphanages and foster care. His project was the business plan, and to raise the first $50,000. He elected to continue China Care into college, starting a China Care club at Harvard. China Care clubs have spread to thirty college campuses in the U.S. and Canada.
Another former Scout, an African, developed a proposal for an organization called Aqua-Africa. The project's mission was to bring safe water to rural Africa by drilling wells and establishing continuing programs for maintenance. The Scout, who had been a member of a troop in Omaha, Nebraska, contacted well-drilling companies in Ethiopia and the Sudan and curried the favor of villagers, politicians and businessmen, among others. The first well, to be drilled in a Sudanese village, was to serve nearly three thousand villagers.
As for me, I learned enough to become willing to help a Scout earn this honor. Two of my college friends, now husband and wife, have a son who has taken on an Eagle Scout project. He is leading a drive to bring 1,000 new books into a Philadelphia elementary school that is located within an impoverished neighborhood. I'll give him some books, but I'd also like to add my voice to help. Drop me a line if you're interested in contributing to his book drive and I'll get his flier to you.
Book Review: The New Global Student, Skip the SAT, Save Thousands on Tuition, and Get a Truly International Education by Maya Frost
Shop Indie Bookstores
The New Global Studentis a guide to a different kind of parental empowerment in school choice that helps parents consider options that are rarely presented to them. One such option is global exchange student programs, while another is early entry into community colleges by way of the GED.
The author, Maya Frost, is uniquely qualified to write this book having raised four daughters who chose such alternatives to a traditional high school and college experience. And four years ago, Frost and her husband decided to exchange their suburban lifestyle in the U.S. to have their own adventures abroad. Once settled, the family discovered that the costs of living abroad in such cities as Buenos Aires were far lower than they were in their previous home in Oregon.
Throughout this book, Frost makes contrasts between "old school" and "bold school" thinking. She challenges traditional approaches to tried and true concepts such as Advanced Placement examinations and college-sponsored study abroad. She also presents lower cost options.
For example, she strongly recommends programs run under the auspices of Rotary International because of their history, international connections, extensive U.S. chapter network and the potential for scholarship aid. But she also cautions that students and families who go this route must do more of the preparation work on their own. And she adds that colleges that run similar partnerships charge a premium for these extra services, even though other programs may be less expensive and more effective in facilitating foreign language skills. Such students are also highly desired by colleges and employers, Frost says.
Frost's most interesting aspects of "bold school" thinking are the use of the GED towards an early graduation from high school, and an early entry into college through the community colleges. The ability to utilize both the GED and community college credits to advantage depends on state education policies.
For example, a student in Oregon, according to Frost, can earn a GED at 16, while the minimum age in Maine is 18. She also adds that some community colleges offer shared service agreements with area high schools; advanced students begin their college education through the community college instead of enrolling in Advanced Placement classes in the high school.
This way, the student is taking actual college courses without the need for an Advanced Placement exam (the fee is paid at the student's expense) or standardized tests once the student has gathered a sufficient number of credits to transfer into a four-year school.
This is an interesting approach where a public partnership between the public schools and community colleges are already in place, or in an urban setting, such as New York, where community colleges are accessible by mass transit. Community college tuition in most states is less than the state and local costs per high school student; some states and locales might be wise to consider subsidizing their best and brightest students in this manner rather than keeping them in high school.
If you're a bright student, or the parent of a bright student, and you want to consider some alternatives to the "tried and true" approaches to high school and college education, The New Global Student is worth your expense and time.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
JROTC Restored Without Academic Credit in San Francisco, and It Has Costs Elsewhere
On May 12, the San Francisco Board of Education reversed its earlier decision to end Junior ROTC (JROTC) in area high schools by a vote of 4 to 3.
While the controversial military education program will soldier on, the issue of granting physical education credit for JROTC remains outstanding. That debate began this week, according to a story in the San Francisco Examiner.
According to the story, California state law requires high school students to complete two years of physical education in order to receive a diploma. San Francisco schools, like other communities in the Golden State, had granted physical education credit for JROTC until last year, when it was believed that the program would be closed. Enrollment quickly dropped from roughly 1,600 students in the seven high schools that offered JROTC to around 500.
Also, according to this story, a bill pending in the state Assembly would require P.E. credit be given for the program. The bill, AB 351, was introduced by Mary Salas, D-Chula Vista, in January and was approved by the Education Committee in April. It awaits a vote by the full Assembly. However, the bill only permits school boards to grant credit; it does not make it mandatory.
I have written past posts in support of JROTC and I have no reason to deviate from my position. However, I believe some past practices need to change, specifically that the military should pay one hundred percent of the costs to administer the program on high school campuses, excluding facilities maintenance, which the schools do anyway. Military instructors are required to have military credentials, but not teaching credentials as physical education instructors do.
While I do not question a drill instructor's ability to keep a JROTC class fit, I am concerned that the wages to pay these instructors for an elective activity might be considerably higher than they are for teachers with the same number of years of experience.
For example, today I am reading about an advertised position a for JROTC instructor in the Fort Worth (TX) public school system.The job requirements for one position, for a Senior Army Instructor in a Fort Worth Texas area high school, included rank as a retired Army commissioned officer (up to Colonel O-6); Warrant Officer W-3,4; or Senior Non Commissioned Officer (NCO)/E8 or E9) with a minimum of 20 years military service. Candidates for this position could not be retired from military service longer than 3 years.
And Fox 13 from Memphis reported last week that JROTC instructors in area high schools receive salaries that range from $65,529 to $81,120. According to the same source, the average salary for a Memphis public school teacher is approximately $51,000. I would not doubt that the job requirements for a JROTC instructor in Memphis are similar to those for the same position in Fort Worth.
I would hope that a state or local board of education that makes the investment in military education would at least grant students credit for the effort. But at the same time, I would like to see the military pay one hundred percent of the salaries of the instructors as well as the costs of military equipment.
It has not been unusual for the military to spend millions of dollars for such recruiting tools as interactive video games and NASCAR sponsorships. And, through the National Guard Youth Foundation, the military runs a Youth Challenge Program that provides military-style training to over 85,000 at-risk youth. The Foundation sponsors a race car in the Indy Championship Series.
If the military has been willing to pay the costs of recruitment advertising, video games and race car sponsorships, as well as training for at-risk youths, then they should pay the full salaries of all of their JROTC instructors.
The JROTC program is probably the most important recruitment tool the military has to find candidates in the high schools. But the school districts should not get stuck with part of the bill.
While the controversial military education program will soldier on, the issue of granting physical education credit for JROTC remains outstanding. That debate began this week, according to a story in the San Francisco Examiner.
According to the story, California state law requires high school students to complete two years of physical education in order to receive a diploma. San Francisco schools, like other communities in the Golden State, had granted physical education credit for JROTC until last year, when it was believed that the program would be closed. Enrollment quickly dropped from roughly 1,600 students in the seven high schools that offered JROTC to around 500.
Also, according to this story, a bill pending in the state Assembly would require P.E. credit be given for the program. The bill, AB 351, was introduced by Mary Salas, D-Chula Vista, in January and was approved by the Education Committee in April. It awaits a vote by the full Assembly. However, the bill only permits school boards to grant credit; it does not make it mandatory.
I have written past posts in support of JROTC and I have no reason to deviate from my position. However, I believe some past practices need to change, specifically that the military should pay one hundred percent of the costs to administer the program on high school campuses, excluding facilities maintenance, which the schools do anyway. Military instructors are required to have military credentials, but not teaching credentials as physical education instructors do.
While I do not question a drill instructor's ability to keep a JROTC class fit, I am concerned that the wages to pay these instructors for an elective activity might be considerably higher than they are for teachers with the same number of years of experience.
For example, today I am reading about an advertised position a for JROTC instructor in the Fort Worth (TX) public school system.The job requirements for one position, for a Senior Army Instructor in a Fort Worth Texas area high school, included rank as a retired Army commissioned officer (up to Colonel O-6); Warrant Officer W-3,4; or Senior Non Commissioned Officer (NCO)/E8 or E9) with a minimum of 20 years military service. Candidates for this position could not be retired from military service longer than 3 years.
And Fox 13 from Memphis reported last week that JROTC instructors in area high schools receive salaries that range from $65,529 to $81,120. According to the same source, the average salary for a Memphis public school teacher is approximately $51,000. I would not doubt that the job requirements for a JROTC instructor in Memphis are similar to those for the same position in Fort Worth.
I would hope that a state or local board of education that makes the investment in military education would at least grant students credit for the effort. But at the same time, I would like to see the military pay one hundred percent of the salaries of the instructors as well as the costs of military equipment.
It has not been unusual for the military to spend millions of dollars for such recruiting tools as interactive video games and NASCAR sponsorships. And, through the National Guard Youth Foundation, the military runs a Youth Challenge Program that provides military-style training to over 85,000 at-risk youth. The Foundation sponsors a race car in the Indy Championship Series.
If the military has been willing to pay the costs of recruitment advertising, video games and race car sponsorships, as well as training for at-risk youths, then they should pay the full salaries of all of their JROTC instructors.
The JROTC program is probably the most important recruitment tool the military has to find candidates in the high schools. But the school districts should not get stuck with part of the bill.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Dumb School Board Appointments Don't Get Any Bigger Than They Do in Texas
Today, as I get ready to start the holiday weekend, I am reading a story in the Houston Chronicle about the Texas State Board of Education.
Few things, including school board budgets, get much bigger than they do in Texas. The state board manages a Permanent School Fund of $18 billion, and all of its members are political appointees. And, as we have seen from the past three presidential elections, there are probably no states further to the political right than Texas.
I know many conservative Republicans, even call some my friends. But their conservatism is more economic than social. They believe in low taxes, limited government and the freedom of the individual. Such conservatives, for instance, will abhor social discrimination--government should not use prejudice as a barrier to economic success--and they will not challenge science. Unfortunately, these were not the conservatives who ran the federal government for eight years, nor are they the conservatives who run the Lone Star State.
Texas governor Rick Perry has re-nominated Bryan dentist Don McLeroy, a self-noted right wing conservative as board chairman. McLeroy has rejected the advice of scientific experts on textbook decisions and has promised new debates on politically volatile subjects as culture, history, and religion. It is interesting, that according to this story, McLeroy, has famously said that, “Education is too important not to be politicized.”
The Chronicle also reported that already, far-right board members are assembling a panel of so-called experts, some of whom have no academic qualifications but plenty of extremist religious views, such as the idea held by one that Katrina was God’s revenge against gays.
It is interesting that people who hold these views get appointed by state legislatures to make policy and spending decisions for millions of schoolchildren. If these people were to present these views inside the walls of corporate America, or as a teacher in the corridors of a public school building, they would be looking for work the next day.
I was raised to believe that our nation is partly based on the FDR's Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. At the very least, citizens should expect their government to protect those freedoms, and to reinforce them through the school systems.
Appointing board members who would oppose critical thinking, and use a school board seat as a springboard for their personal nonsensical views goes against those freedoms. Take a moment to think about that, as we enter into one of those national weekends where we celebrate people who protect and defend our freedom.
Have a nice weekend!
Few things, including school board budgets, get much bigger than they do in Texas. The state board manages a Permanent School Fund of $18 billion, and all of its members are political appointees. And, as we have seen from the past three presidential elections, there are probably no states further to the political right than Texas.
I know many conservative Republicans, even call some my friends. But their conservatism is more economic than social. They believe in low taxes, limited government and the freedom of the individual. Such conservatives, for instance, will abhor social discrimination--government should not use prejudice as a barrier to economic success--and they will not challenge science. Unfortunately, these were not the conservatives who ran the federal government for eight years, nor are they the conservatives who run the Lone Star State.
Texas governor Rick Perry has re-nominated Bryan dentist Don McLeroy, a self-noted right wing conservative as board chairman. McLeroy has rejected the advice of scientific experts on textbook decisions and has promised new debates on politically volatile subjects as culture, history, and religion. It is interesting, that according to this story, McLeroy, has famously said that, “Education is too important not to be politicized.”
The Chronicle also reported that already, far-right board members are assembling a panel of so-called experts, some of whom have no academic qualifications but plenty of extremist religious views, such as the idea held by one that Katrina was God’s revenge against gays.
It is interesting that people who hold these views get appointed by state legislatures to make policy and spending decisions for millions of schoolchildren. If these people were to present these views inside the walls of corporate America, or as a teacher in the corridors of a public school building, they would be looking for work the next day.
I was raised to believe that our nation is partly based on the FDR's Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. At the very least, citizens should expect their government to protect those freedoms, and to reinforce them through the school systems.
Appointing board members who would oppose critical thinking, and use a school board seat as a springboard for their personal nonsensical views goes against those freedoms. Take a moment to think about that, as we enter into one of those national weekends where we celebrate people who protect and defend our freedom.
Have a nice weekend!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
False Doubles of College Presidents Vent Frustrations on Twitter
Today, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that false doubles for the presidents of Georgetown University and the University of Texas at Austin have been "tweeting" their frustrations with their ersatz jobs on Twitter, which is probably the top gossip site on the Internet. While contacted by the real institutions, Twitter has not revoked the accounts of the fake presidents.
You're reading this right. Two persons, one a Georgetown student who runs a campus humor magazine, are impersonating the leadership of their schools on Twitter. And Twitter has thus far done nothing about it. I realize that people can run aliases on the Internet, but this is extreme. The Georgetown student, Jack Stuef, came "clean," but also had choice comments about the accessibility of the university president. However, this blogger believes Mr. Stuef went too far.
It would be one thing for Mr. Steuf to mock the president in his magazine; he would know it was a humor magazine, and it was all in fun. The same if the magazine was a blog where his fellow students could comment. But there, Mr. Steuf would be acting as himself. He is stealing nothing, other than his reader's time. If the university tried to shut that site down, I would support his right to maintain it, as long as it had no derogatory or hurtful remarks about the Georgetown community.
But in this case, Mr. Steuf stole a man's good name. He might have misled people into thinking that he was the president of Georgetown, He might have embarrassed and disgraced his school. And in doing so, he might have disgraced his own Georgetown degree.
Since Twitter will not close the account, then it is first up to the real president and Mr. Steuf to have a heart-to-heart; the outcome being that the humorist closes the account himself, and re-registers under a pseudonym that does no harm. If he had made his tweets as the Hoya Honka or the Hoya Saxa Stinkah, or whatever biting false name that he chose, then the university would have little reason to care. But the school has every right to be upset with identity theft.
You're reading this right. Two persons, one a Georgetown student who runs a campus humor magazine, are impersonating the leadership of their schools on Twitter. And Twitter has thus far done nothing about it. I realize that people can run aliases on the Internet, but this is extreme. The Georgetown student, Jack Stuef, came "clean," but also had choice comments about the accessibility of the university president. However, this blogger believes Mr. Stuef went too far.
It would be one thing for Mr. Steuf to mock the president in his magazine; he would know it was a humor magazine, and it was all in fun. The same if the magazine was a blog where his fellow students could comment. But there, Mr. Steuf would be acting as himself. He is stealing nothing, other than his reader's time. If the university tried to shut that site down, I would support his right to maintain it, as long as it had no derogatory or hurtful remarks about the Georgetown community.
But in this case, Mr. Steuf stole a man's good name. He might have misled people into thinking that he was the president of Georgetown, He might have embarrassed and disgraced his school. And in doing so, he might have disgraced his own Georgetown degree.
Since Twitter will not close the account, then it is first up to the real president and Mr. Steuf to have a heart-to-heart; the outcome being that the humorist closes the account himself, and re-registers under a pseudonym that does no harm. If he had made his tweets as the Hoya Honka or the Hoya Saxa Stinkah, or whatever biting false name that he chose, then the university would have little reason to care. But the school has every right to be upset with identity theft.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Is College a Bargain? Challenging a Notion
Today, I read a piece in the Denver Post written by a senior administrator at Augustana College that is headlined: Higher Education Remains a Bargain.
The piece lists several benefits of a college education for a student living on-campus and places their average cost, assuming a 200 day school year, at $171 per day for a private college and $72 per day at a public university.
I guess when the cost of college is put in those terms, it is less than the daily cost of a hospital stay, a resort vacation, or a sleep-away camp. But interestingly enough, the average daily cost of a state university education is less than twenty dollars higher than the average cost per day to incarcerate a prison inmate in Florida.
The state corrections commissioner has to justify his budget to the legislature, and he has to come armed to the teeth with facts and figures. It's in the legislature's best interests to keep the cost of incarceration as low as possible, but prisons have many legitimate expenses that cannot be avoided, such as security, meals and medical care.
These expenses may not always be popular with the public, but we don't want to be perceived as an inhumane society. The benefits of incarcerating the guilty are also quite clear.
I don't know anyone who questions the various benefits of a college education, but the greater concern is why the costs go up faster than inflation. If a corrections commissioner can explain his costs to the public, then why can't the president of a university explain his to parents?
Some cost increases can be explained: health care premiums, pensions, utilities (especially on campuses with older buildings that are still in active use) and ambitious building programs. But, with the exception of health care, which also relies on payments from government agencies, practically no other industry raises its prices faster than buyers can afford to plan.
I know, if I were a father with a student in college, that I would not appreciate the unanticipated notice of a tuition increase, especially if it is in double digits.
I would be as angry at the school, just as I would be angry at the insurer who jacks up my rates for no reason. In addition, I would appreciate the college's decision to raise tuition higher than inflation if the school had just announced a banner year for fundraising. In fact, I would be quite insulted.
That does not mean that I would pull my son or daughter out of the school, but I would be quite hesitant to have a relationship with their development officers after their graduation.
I expect colleges to charge more each year. An increase equal to inflation is reasonable; the school has costs just as my family has them. But if a school wants to raise prices higher than inflation, I want their administration to be transparent in their dealings with parents. If they are transparent with parents, then politicians and the media will not go looking for stories of spending gone amok.
The piece lists several benefits of a college education for a student living on-campus and places their average cost, assuming a 200 day school year, at $171 per day for a private college and $72 per day at a public university.
I guess when the cost of college is put in those terms, it is less than the daily cost of a hospital stay, a resort vacation, or a sleep-away camp. But interestingly enough, the average daily cost of a state university education is less than twenty dollars higher than the average cost per day to incarcerate a prison inmate in Florida.
The state corrections commissioner has to justify his budget to the legislature, and he has to come armed to the teeth with facts and figures. It's in the legislature's best interests to keep the cost of incarceration as low as possible, but prisons have many legitimate expenses that cannot be avoided, such as security, meals and medical care.
These expenses may not always be popular with the public, but we don't want to be perceived as an inhumane society. The benefits of incarcerating the guilty are also quite clear.
I don't know anyone who questions the various benefits of a college education, but the greater concern is why the costs go up faster than inflation. If a corrections commissioner can explain his costs to the public, then why can't the president of a university explain his to parents?
Some cost increases can be explained: health care premiums, pensions, utilities (especially on campuses with older buildings that are still in active use) and ambitious building programs. But, with the exception of health care, which also relies on payments from government agencies, practically no other industry raises its prices faster than buyers can afford to plan.
I know, if I were a father with a student in college, that I would not appreciate the unanticipated notice of a tuition increase, especially if it is in double digits.
I would be as angry at the school, just as I would be angry at the insurer who jacks up my rates for no reason. In addition, I would appreciate the college's decision to raise tuition higher than inflation if the school had just announced a banner year for fundraising. In fact, I would be quite insulted.
That does not mean that I would pull my son or daughter out of the school, but I would be quite hesitant to have a relationship with their development officers after their graduation.
I expect colleges to charge more each year. An increase equal to inflation is reasonable; the school has costs just as my family has them. But if a school wants to raise prices higher than inflation, I want their administration to be transparent in their dealings with parents. If they are transparent with parents, then politicians and the media will not go looking for stories of spending gone amok.
Does Test Prep Pay? Three Answers By Experts
It's been more than thirty years since I took my last SAT--I took it three times during my junior and senior years in high school--but I remember that I needed help to prepare for the test.
I did not go to a private tutor, but I did sign up for a math review course at my high school. It cost me nothing and it forced me to practice much of the algebra and geometry that I had forgotten. I took the verbal sections essentially cold because I did not believe that I could bulk up on my vocabulary in a such a short time that it would have made much difference on the test. But from the first time I took the test to the last time, my scores went up more than 100 points. I attribute this to the fact that I became more familiar with the test, and that I had advanced my math skills through my regular classes.
Today, I am reading a report by the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) that offers some conclusions about the effectiveness of test preparation classes for the SAT and the ACT. NACAC's membership is comprised of high school and college admissions counselors, many of whom place some importance on test results to make admissions decisions.
This report started by summarizing past claims that private tutoring and test-prep services offered high school students the potential to raise their SAT scores by a hundred or more points, although past research had found that the average gains were more like 30 points.
This NACAC report drew three conclusions about test prep effectiveness:
1) All students should be encouraged to prepare before admissions tests, but the potential benefits of test preparation must be weighed against the financial cost and the opportunity cost. A twenty to thirty point jump in SAT scores might not be worth a thousand bucks if the rest of a student's credentials (like high school grades)are marginal.
2)Expensive test preparation methods should be avoided, if possible, It pays to buy the practice books, or take an in-school course, but not to hire a private test prep service. But I have to expand on this outside the study for a moment: what if the test taker is not a traditional college-bound student, most likely, he is not in high school at the time. Is the test prep course a substitute for school?
3)For students interested in the more selective schools, with no financial barriers to pay for private instruction, test preparation might pay. However, this report stated that such students already had above-average admissions scores in the first place. In other words, if a bright student with excellent grades first tests to the median SATs of the applicant pool of a highly selective school, then later tests in the upper third or the upper quarter of the pool, then he has improved his chances for admissions.
After reading this report, I wonder if I was ahead of my time merely by taking the test a third time. By then, I had completed Algebra II and was a third of the way through Pre-Calculus math. And I had simply read more science and humanities for the classes I was taking.
Which takes me back to a point that I have always believed about these tests: the more well-rounded a student you are, the higher you will score. A test prep class will help you take a test, but it will not teach you enough humanities or science to get through the reading passages that make you uncomfortable. You might learn to write better, to reach a college-level standard, but you will never learn to become the great writer the top schools want, unless you were a great writer to begin with.
I did not go to a private tutor, but I did sign up for a math review course at my high school. It cost me nothing and it forced me to practice much of the algebra and geometry that I had forgotten. I took the verbal sections essentially cold because I did not believe that I could bulk up on my vocabulary in a such a short time that it would have made much difference on the test. But from the first time I took the test to the last time, my scores went up more than 100 points. I attribute this to the fact that I became more familiar with the test, and that I had advanced my math skills through my regular classes.
Today, I am reading a report by the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) that offers some conclusions about the effectiveness of test preparation classes for the SAT and the ACT. NACAC's membership is comprised of high school and college admissions counselors, many of whom place some importance on test results to make admissions decisions.
This report started by summarizing past claims that private tutoring and test-prep services offered high school students the potential to raise their SAT scores by a hundred or more points, although past research had found that the average gains were more like 30 points.
This NACAC report drew three conclusions about test prep effectiveness:
1) All students should be encouraged to prepare before admissions tests, but the potential benefits of test preparation must be weighed against the financial cost and the opportunity cost. A twenty to thirty point jump in SAT scores might not be worth a thousand bucks if the rest of a student's credentials (like high school grades)are marginal.
2)Expensive test preparation methods should be avoided, if possible, It pays to buy the practice books, or take an in-school course, but not to hire a private test prep service. But I have to expand on this outside the study for a moment: what if the test taker is not a traditional college-bound student, most likely, he is not in high school at the time. Is the test prep course a substitute for school?
3)For students interested in the more selective schools, with no financial barriers to pay for private instruction, test preparation might pay. However, this report stated that such students already had above-average admissions scores in the first place. In other words, if a bright student with excellent grades first tests to the median SATs of the applicant pool of a highly selective school, then later tests in the upper third or the upper quarter of the pool, then he has improved his chances for admissions.
After reading this report, I wonder if I was ahead of my time merely by taking the test a third time. By then, I had completed Algebra II and was a third of the way through Pre-Calculus math. And I had simply read more science and humanities for the classes I was taking.
Which takes me back to a point that I have always believed about these tests: the more well-rounded a student you are, the higher you will score. A test prep class will help you take a test, but it will not teach you enough humanities or science to get through the reading passages that make you uncomfortable. You might learn to write better, to reach a college-level standard, but you will never learn to become the great writer the top schools want, unless you were a great writer to begin with.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Book Review: You Majored in What? Mapping Your Path from Chaos to Career by Katharine Brooks, Ed.D
Shop Indie Bookstores
You Majored in What? is one of those college-focused career books that you would hope to see a college send with every new student registration packet. Unlike most career books, You Majored in What? does not get bogged in statistics about the job market or counseling jargon to help liberal arts students choose their major, then later a career objective.
Brooks, who is the director of liberal arts career services at the University of Texas-Austin, as well as the former director at Dickinson College (PA), a highly regarded liberal arts school, uses tools such as Wandering Maps, to help students write down the thoughts that might lead them into choosing college courses, or towards seeking internships or entry-level employment.
Brooks challenges the idea that the relationship between a college major and the positions a student may seek is linear; not all economics majors, for example, work in banking or finance and not all religion majors become clergy. (Full disclosure: I am briefly acquainted with Dr. Brooks, though we have not talked in more than a decade).
This is a very well designed book, and the exercises are quite easy for students to do, or for students and sincere parents to do together. It can also serve as a user-friendly text for a career development course, though I am not aware of any such course that would take advantage of the content over an entire semester.
Having worked with college career centers for ten years, I remain convinced that students prefer to be led by the hand with respect to their career searches, though Brooks et al. are right in trying to bring students out of linear thinking. Too often college graduates are pushed into positions based on past, and other outdated information, which is often based on their parent's perceptions of various professions. However, it is wrong for a parent to guide their child's future on their experience in their working past.
The jacket of this book mentions that Brooks also runs intensive counseling and coaching sessions for career counselors, no doubt to help them master the principles in this book, among other concepts. A package of out-of-the book exercises might help filter Brooks' messages from counselor to student as well as the book itself.
Book Review: The Purity Myth, How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women by Jessica Valenti
Shop Indie Bookstores
Three and a half years ago, I took on a challenge to write a novel based on the politics surrounding sex education during the 1980s.
One of the materials that I used to research the story was a 1970 manual published by the National Education Association; it instructed teachers on how to deal with "right-wing extremists" who opposed sex education in the public schools. Back then, there were concerned parents, but the leading national force for change was the John Birch Society. They linked sex education to the spread of communism; the Society believed that population control would make our enemies stronger.
Flash forward to the late 1990's and the early 21st century where some form of sex education is taught in every school, depending on state and local politics, as well as expressed community values. As Jessica Valenti points out in this book, The Purity Myth, this includes not only the advocacy of abstinence-until-marriage, but also the celebration of female virginity.
While Valenti does not criticize educators for presenting abstinence as a choice, she provides considerable details as to how abstinence education relies on fear tactics and misleads children. Valenti also presents the problems with the myth of a virgin ideal.
The virgin ideal is not only unrealistic, Valenti says, but it also places women in the position where they are subservient to men, first their fathers, but also violators and lovers. The Purity Myth discusses purity balls, where young women have decided to place their virginity in their father's care, but not their mother's. It also explains that the pro-abstinence movements believe that incidents of abuse or rape are more deserved than undeserved, which I found frightening.
Valenti also touched on a theme that President Obama had addressed during his recent speech at Notre Dame, which is that there is common ground between the extremes. Both the right and the left abhor sexual violence, especially abusive and underage pornography. Both sides oppose illegal trafficking in prostitution. Both sides also want to reduce underage pregnancy. Yet the two sides refuse to join forces where they agree. Valenti also adds that the right wing movements also use sexuality, whether it be ball gowns or tight tee shirts, to sell their messages. So, both sides are equally skilled to form a shared voice on the issues where they agree.
Valenti, who is an admitted feminist, says that the right wing blames sexual permissiveness on "the feminists," as if these were the only issues on a feminist agenda. But feminism, according to the author, has also fought for unrelated issues such as equal pay and the end of barriers to discrimination in the workplace. She sees the virginity movement as a call for a return to the past where virginity and traditional motherhood are the ideals.
And that may be the major problem with pro-abstinence movements. While they might lead young women to delay sex, young women also want to be free to pursue their own careers and personal interests. Not all of them want to have messages about motherhood continually, or even subtly, thrust upon them.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Fate of Major College Baseball
I have been a baseball fan for just over forty years, but strictly of the major league and minor league variety. I live within a train ride of Yankee Stadium and less than half-hour from Waterfront Park, home of the Trenton Thunder, the Yankee's Double-A farm team.
Being so close to my favorite team, as well as the Mets, Phillies and Orioles, I never developed much of an interest in the college game. Rutgers has had some good players; it's most famous baseball-playing alum is Jeff Torborg, a former Dodger and Angel who caught no-hitters for Sandy Koufax and Nolan Ryan, then later went on to become a major league manager.
Last week, the Chronicle of Higher Education had a front page story about the fiscal problems faced by the college game. While the NCAA's annual College World Series draws over 300,000 fans to Omaha, Nebraska every summer, baseball loses more money than any other big-time men's sport.
According to the Chronicle story, the NCAA reported that median loss for an upper-division college baseball program was approximately $700,000. And while approximately half of the major college baseball programs are based in cold weather cities, the NCAA still starts the season on February 1 with every team forced to play 56 games within three months. A team from a cold weather climate begins its season on the road, then typically returns home to play in front of less than a thousand fans. Only ten percent of college baseball programs draw more than 2,000 fans a game, and approximately half of the college baseball season overlaps with college basketball.
Worse yet, teams are allowed only 11.7 baseball scholarships to disburse across a 30 (and soon to be 27) man roster. The Chronicle story stated that some schools make do with less. And the colleges still contend with major league player drafts. The major league clubs draft students not only out of high school and community colleges; they also draft college juniors and seniors.
Men's baseball is the only major college sport where players may be drafted by professional teams before their college season has ended. While there has been no documented stories about college players "saving" themselves for the pro teams that drafted them, there is certainly the risk of having athletes with less character who are more "me" than "team."
If such character flaws are regularly found by professional football scouts who look at college talent, there is little reason to believe that there are baseball players who are equally flawed. And maybe, given major league baseball's financial woes, we should give the teams more time to separate the high-character players from the prima donnas.
It's clear from reading this story, as well as a new book called The Road to Omaha (cover below) by ESPN writer Ryan McGee, that college baseball is a sport that cold weather schools may drop in the future; it helps athletic departments cut costs while not jeopardizing compliance with Title IX mandates to fund men's and women's sports.
So, there is also one lesson for the top high school players. If you want to play in college, go to a school with warm weather and a winning tradition. If you are good enough to play for a winning warm-weather school, but not good enough to get a seven figure signing bonus from the major leagues, then the college program is worth the risk.
One successful college coach, Gene Stephenson at Wichita State University, has suggested that college baseball pull the start of its season back from February to April. He believes that would improve the competitive balance between cold-weather and warm-weather schools as well as increase the visibility of the sport.
Stevenson has not proposed that the number of baseball games be cut back, but maybe it should. The three major sports conferences: the ACC, the Big East and Southeastern Conference each have 12 baseball teams; the Big 10 and Big 12 have schools that have already dropped the sport. If each team plays a two-game home and two-game away series at each rival, that's forty four games for the regular season schedule. The shorter schedule, combined with roster cuts, should help make college baseball become more cost-effective. Smaller conferences could accomplish the same through interstate or regional rivalries.
These days, the distances between conference rivals make it unnecessary for many baseball schools to play out of conference games. Whoever devised baseball schedules during the 1980s did not expect the ACC to go as far northeast as Boston or as far southeast as Miami, or that the Big East would extend as far west as Louisville and as far south as Tampa.
But college baseball would also need to attract a different type of student-athlete if it adopted Stephenson's proposal. Since a college baseball schedule would mirror a major league baseball schedule, the top pro prospects would need to wait until the following February to play in a professional baseball camp.
The wait can be an advantage; the player has more time to decide his future and negotiate a major league contract. He can also use the fall semester to add credits or complete his degree. The major league clubs won't like this; the pressure to sign is to their advantage. But major league baseball needs to show the same respect for the college game that pro football shows for college football. The college game produces too much of their talent for nothing.
Shop Indie Bookstores
Being so close to my favorite team, as well as the Mets, Phillies and Orioles, I never developed much of an interest in the college game. Rutgers has had some good players; it's most famous baseball-playing alum is Jeff Torborg, a former Dodger and Angel who caught no-hitters for Sandy Koufax and Nolan Ryan, then later went on to become a major league manager.
Last week, the Chronicle of Higher Education had a front page story about the fiscal problems faced by the college game. While the NCAA's annual College World Series draws over 300,000 fans to Omaha, Nebraska every summer, baseball loses more money than any other big-time men's sport.
According to the Chronicle story, the NCAA reported that median loss for an upper-division college baseball program was approximately $700,000. And while approximately half of the major college baseball programs are based in cold weather cities, the NCAA still starts the season on February 1 with every team forced to play 56 games within three months. A team from a cold weather climate begins its season on the road, then typically returns home to play in front of less than a thousand fans. Only ten percent of college baseball programs draw more than 2,000 fans a game, and approximately half of the college baseball season overlaps with college basketball.
Worse yet, teams are allowed only 11.7 baseball scholarships to disburse across a 30 (and soon to be 27) man roster. The Chronicle story stated that some schools make do with less. And the colleges still contend with major league player drafts. The major league clubs draft students not only out of high school and community colleges; they also draft college juniors and seniors.
Men's baseball is the only major college sport where players may be drafted by professional teams before their college season has ended. While there has been no documented stories about college players "saving" themselves for the pro teams that drafted them, there is certainly the risk of having athletes with less character who are more "me" than "team."
If such character flaws are regularly found by professional football scouts who look at college talent, there is little reason to believe that there are baseball players who are equally flawed. And maybe, given major league baseball's financial woes, we should give the teams more time to separate the high-character players from the prima donnas.
It's clear from reading this story, as well as a new book called The Road to Omaha (cover below) by ESPN writer Ryan McGee, that college baseball is a sport that cold weather schools may drop in the future; it helps athletic departments cut costs while not jeopardizing compliance with Title IX mandates to fund men's and women's sports.
So, there is also one lesson for the top high school players. If you want to play in college, go to a school with warm weather and a winning tradition. If you are good enough to play for a winning warm-weather school, but not good enough to get a seven figure signing bonus from the major leagues, then the college program is worth the risk.
One successful college coach, Gene Stephenson at Wichita State University, has suggested that college baseball pull the start of its season back from February to April. He believes that would improve the competitive balance between cold-weather and warm-weather schools as well as increase the visibility of the sport.
Stevenson has not proposed that the number of baseball games be cut back, but maybe it should. The three major sports conferences: the ACC, the Big East and Southeastern Conference each have 12 baseball teams; the Big 10 and Big 12 have schools that have already dropped the sport. If each team plays a two-game home and two-game away series at each rival, that's forty four games for the regular season schedule. The shorter schedule, combined with roster cuts, should help make college baseball become more cost-effective. Smaller conferences could accomplish the same through interstate or regional rivalries.
These days, the distances between conference rivals make it unnecessary for many baseball schools to play out of conference games. Whoever devised baseball schedules during the 1980s did not expect the ACC to go as far northeast as Boston or as far southeast as Miami, or that the Big East would extend as far west as Louisville and as far south as Tampa.
But college baseball would also need to attract a different type of student-athlete if it adopted Stephenson's proposal. Since a college baseball schedule would mirror a major league baseball schedule, the top pro prospects would need to wait until the following February to play in a professional baseball camp.
The wait can be an advantage; the player has more time to decide his future and negotiate a major league contract. He can also use the fall semester to add credits or complete his degree. The major league clubs won't like this; the pressure to sign is to their advantage. But major league baseball needs to show the same respect for the college game that pro football shows for college football. The college game produces too much of their talent for nothing.
Shop Indie Bookstores
2010 Graduation to Mark Change in Rutgers History
This week, my alma mater, Rutgers University, will be conducting its commencement exercises. Next year's commencement in New Brunswick is a landmark event. It will be the last time the university will graduate separate bachelor's degree classes from four liberal arts college campuses: Cook, Douglass, Livingston and Rutgers College as well as the schools of engineering and pharmacy.
Until 2007, Rutgers-New Brunswick was unique in that you chose a liberal arts campus in which to begin your undergraduate education. Rutgers College, founded in 1766 with the gift of $5,000 and a bell from Henry Rutgers, a Revolutionary War colonel, was considered the "old school," or as my father once put it "Rutgers-Rutgers." Rutgers College was also an all-male school until 1972. Douglass College, founded in 1918 as the New Jersey College for Women became one of the largest women's colleges in the country. Cook College was formed from the former ag school, adding environmentally related majors, and Livingston College, founded in 1969, was formed out of the interests in new majors, ranging from African-American Studies to Computer Science to journalism, as well as a desire to increase minority enrollment.
Beginning last fall, the distinctions between the undergraduate schools were dissolved and all freshmen entered a university-wide College of Arts and Science, much like other state schools welcome new students. From here, students can move into the business, communications or education schools, or work on a liberal arts degree. Engineering and pharmacy continue on business as usual.
I know many alumni who lament the passing of the four liberal arts colleges. They identified with their college, and not with the university as a whole. This created strong loyalties, which are admirable, but also enrollment headaches.
While Rutgers College enrollment surpassed 10,000 students, Douglass and Livingston College struggled to fill their freshman classes in the summer. Douglass was a special case, being all-female. Within the mission of making Rutgers-New Brunswick one university, Douglass College was essentially closed, though it would remain an all-female residential community; it would be too expensive, and politically unwise, to convert all-female house and dorms into co-ed facilities.
Every one in a while, when I go to alumni meetings, I think about Douglass College. Until 2007, it was the last publicly supported woman's colleges in the country.
There were pleas from alumni and administrators to keep Douglass College open, and Governor Jon Corzine supported their position while he was running for office. As someone who did business with colleges for several years, I put on my marketing hat to see how Douglass College could be spared.
As an all-female school, Douglass had several advantages: it was the only such public institution in the Northeast; it offered opportunities to take courses elsewhere within a large state university; it was far less expensive than the privately supported women's colleges in the region, it was centrally located between New York and Philadelphia and within less than a half-day's drive from Washington, D.C.
I surmised, however, that the Douglass College enrollment, as well as the admissions marketing, was too heavily skewed towards New Jersey. So my suggestion was: keep Douglass as a flagship liberal arts woman's college, but pursue out-of-state students. Raise the percentage of out-of-state, traditional (18-22), undergraduate students to as high as a third of the student body. The reason: the number of female high school seniors and junior transfers who lived in New Jersey, who would seriously consider a woman's college was too small to maintain Douglass as a separate school.
I shared this idea with a former Rutgers classmate who had become a university trustee. He told me that it would have been rejected as being too difficult to execute. And I agree; it would have been too different a direction for the university administration, and there would have been political arguments about the added expense of aggressively marketing to an out-of-state population.
I also do not doubt that a university president would prefer not to invest political capital to change an admissions mission of a school, over the option of folding it into something that is more familiar to the students who are interested in a large state university.
But I think Rutgers missed out on something big. It could have become the only public university in America to run a diverse, highly selective women's liberal arts college, practically an honors college unto itself. It would have competed quite closely with the private women's colleges such as Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mt. Hoyoke and Smith, that have shared academics, social events, and student services with co-ed or all-male schools, but have decided to remain all-female. The major legal issue would have been sex discrimination laws. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public institutions could not discriminate on the basis of sex. However, Douglass academics had mixed in so heavily with a co-educational state university.
Assuming the legalities were favorable, Rutgers would have had a competitive advantage that no other institution, especially a public one, could create on their own. Douglass College's history would have advanced instead of ended.
Until 2007, Rutgers-New Brunswick was unique in that you chose a liberal arts campus in which to begin your undergraduate education. Rutgers College, founded in 1766 with the gift of $5,000 and a bell from Henry Rutgers, a Revolutionary War colonel, was considered the "old school," or as my father once put it "Rutgers-Rutgers." Rutgers College was also an all-male school until 1972. Douglass College, founded in 1918 as the New Jersey College for Women became one of the largest women's colleges in the country. Cook College was formed from the former ag school, adding environmentally related majors, and Livingston College, founded in 1969, was formed out of the interests in new majors, ranging from African-American Studies to Computer Science to journalism, as well as a desire to increase minority enrollment.
Beginning last fall, the distinctions between the undergraduate schools were dissolved and all freshmen entered a university-wide College of Arts and Science, much like other state schools welcome new students. From here, students can move into the business, communications or education schools, or work on a liberal arts degree. Engineering and pharmacy continue on business as usual.
I know many alumni who lament the passing of the four liberal arts colleges. They identified with their college, and not with the university as a whole. This created strong loyalties, which are admirable, but also enrollment headaches.
While Rutgers College enrollment surpassed 10,000 students, Douglass and Livingston College struggled to fill their freshman classes in the summer. Douglass was a special case, being all-female. Within the mission of making Rutgers-New Brunswick one university, Douglass College was essentially closed, though it would remain an all-female residential community; it would be too expensive, and politically unwise, to convert all-female house and dorms into co-ed facilities.
Every one in a while, when I go to alumni meetings, I think about Douglass College. Until 2007, it was the last publicly supported woman's colleges in the country.
There were pleas from alumni and administrators to keep Douglass College open, and Governor Jon Corzine supported their position while he was running for office. As someone who did business with colleges for several years, I put on my marketing hat to see how Douglass College could be spared.
As an all-female school, Douglass had several advantages: it was the only such public institution in the Northeast; it offered opportunities to take courses elsewhere within a large state university; it was far less expensive than the privately supported women's colleges in the region, it was centrally located between New York and Philadelphia and within less than a half-day's drive from Washington, D.C.
I surmised, however, that the Douglass College enrollment, as well as the admissions marketing, was too heavily skewed towards New Jersey. So my suggestion was: keep Douglass as a flagship liberal arts woman's college, but pursue out-of-state students. Raise the percentage of out-of-state, traditional (18-22), undergraduate students to as high as a third of the student body. The reason: the number of female high school seniors and junior transfers who lived in New Jersey, who would seriously consider a woman's college was too small to maintain Douglass as a separate school.
I shared this idea with a former Rutgers classmate who had become a university trustee. He told me that it would have been rejected as being too difficult to execute. And I agree; it would have been too different a direction for the university administration, and there would have been political arguments about the added expense of aggressively marketing to an out-of-state population.
I also do not doubt that a university president would prefer not to invest political capital to change an admissions mission of a school, over the option of folding it into something that is more familiar to the students who are interested in a large state university.
But I think Rutgers missed out on something big. It could have become the only public university in America to run a diverse, highly selective women's liberal arts college, practically an honors college unto itself. It would have competed quite closely with the private women's colleges such as Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mt. Hoyoke and Smith, that have shared academics, social events, and student services with co-ed or all-male schools, but have decided to remain all-female. The major legal issue would have been sex discrimination laws. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public institutions could not discriminate on the basis of sex. However, Douglass academics had mixed in so heavily with a co-educational state university.
Assuming the legalities were favorable, Rutgers would have had a competitive advantage that no other institution, especially a public one, could create on their own. Douglass College's history would have advanced instead of ended.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Book Review: The Adventures of Johnny Bunko, the Last Career Guide You'll Ever Need by Daniel H. Pink
Shop Indie Bookstores
The Last Career Guide You'll Ever Need is a comic book? I had a puzzled expression on my face as I looked at the cover of this story. Written in Magma comic format, Johnny Bunko is a fictional, but typical, recent college graduate who is in the practical job that his parents told him to seek, in the major, accounting, that they told him to pursue. But Johnny knows that he is no accountant and, at the start of this story, he has proven that quite well to his boss and his closest friends at work.
Then, by hoarding six pairs of chopsticks, from a newly opened (in his mind, anyway), Chinese restaurant, he meets Diana, a career spirit guide. She tells Johnny to break a pair of chopsticks each time he wants her to return. The six pairs are meant to represent the six career secrets that the author says no one ever told you.
This was a short, friendly, and sometimes funny, read about career and life decision making. It is the type of book that I would give to a college-bound son or daughter who has no idea what they want to do in their life. It would get some giggles, but it would also get an undecided person to think; a more technical book would be far less effective. It is also a book that I would hope that a college, or a graduate business school, would send to their incoming students.
But the college crowd is not the only audience; this book is also attractive to the recent graduate who is underemployed, or believes that they have made the wrond decision. It will make them laugh at themselves, but also make them think. Making someone laugh at themselves is far less painful than forcing them to undertake a critical personal evaluation, or a battery of career-related tests that could point them to another type of job that they might not necessarily like.
There are only two things that could keep this book from reaching its sales potential. The first is the price; fifteen dollars for a comic book that is smaller than many paperbacks seems steep. But maybe the publisher has come bulk purchasing programs for classrooms.
The other issue is misplacement. This is the type of book that often ends up on a table with the inspirational graduation speeches, or "how I made it" stories by business people with more money, and I'd guess more time to write books, than you might expect. Job-seeking graduates are more likely to walk away from that table and make a run for the resume writing books and employer listings.
But everyone knows a Johnny Bunko among their acquaitances and friends, or can identify with him. They represented much of the Rutgers student body when I was in college, even through my senior year. Thankfully, this book has been written at a tenth grade level. It can grab kids before they get their first whiff of a college classroom.
Education for the Real World, and for Protection from Being Outsourced
Yesterday, I trekked to the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia to attend a program called the Wharton Evolution of Learning Symposium. The program was run by the information technology group at Wharton, though it's major focus was not about information technology; it was about the present, and the future, of K-12, college and executive education.
This program was kicked off and moderated by Daniel Pink, author of two best-selling business books: Free Agent Nation and A Whole New Mind. While Pink, formerly a speechwriter for former Vice President Al Gore, is neither an academic nor a K-12 educator, he has a talk-show style and research background that kept the morning lively.
While much of Pink's kick-off remarks came from material in A Whole New Mind (and I'll leave a link to the book and video below), there were some quotes/questions that he raised which forced me to think about education and employment. These were:
+ Left brain thinking--logic, analytics, spreadsheets, for example, is necessary for employment, but not sufficient for employment security.
+ English has become the world's linguistic operating system, but India is about the become the world's largest English-speaking country. The Indian workforce employed by multi-national corporation numbers 150 million people, which is equal to the size of the U.S. workforce. Not to mention that the Indian workers work for much lower salaries, while fearing competition from other nations (Malaysia was one example mentioned) for their jobs.
+ Routine paper transactions (accounting spreadsheets, billing, order fulfillment, even uncontested divorces) are the most likely to be outsourced to the least cost provider, even if it is a Web site or a software package.
+ And manufacturing, which had provided high employment through routine work, needs fewer people and is more complicated.
+ Yet, while routine work is increasingly outsourced, the U.S. is the most abundent nation in terms of material well-being. Technology, such as cell phones and iPods are more accessible and affordable, but have also become more disposable to us. For instance, Pink pointed out that Americans discard nearly 460,000 cell phones per day.
So here's what I get from this information: there will be fewer and fewer routine jobs in the country over time, but no diminished desire for more "stuff." So, people need to prepare for a different set of jobs that allow them to maintain the lifestyle they want. And hopefully, they take more time to find what they would like to do, as opposed to what their parents think they should do. Their past, to borrow from a comment by Pink, cannot be their children's future.
Most of the comments made by panelists on improving education focused on experiential educational opportunities, aka solving "real world problems," mainly in the classroom, to help students learn better at all levels: K-12, college and executive education, and provide direction, too.
As I listened to these comments, I thought: These real-world applications are already part of many classrooms. They did not need to be legislated, and they did not need to be forced upon teachers, they usually designed the applications on their own.
And while an experiential approach to education is often lauded by businesspeople and politicians, they are leading the country further into an education that is overly based upon standardized test results, face-to-face education becoming routine, just like any outsourced job.
I do believe that basic skills tests have their place, and that they have the potential to provide useful data on each student's progress within language arts or math. But wouldn't more real-world problem solving projects, where students use these skills, raise test scores higher than a "drill and kill" approach?
One panelist at this Wharton program, the founding principal the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, believes very strongly in experiential education; it is part of many of their classes. Yet he added that he feared that his students will be disappointed when they get to college, as long as higher education maintains the traditional large lecture approach. The large lecture would be less personal, and less real-world than the high school experience.
If you still believe that a drill and kill approach is the right way for your schools to go, and if you still believe that it is the best way to provide "employable skills," then take a couple of hours to see the new Star Trek.
There is one scene, on the planet Vulcan, where children stand in learning pods and all of the information is delivered via audio and virtual reality projections. Each student, in effect, has their own virtual instructors, and each student has all of the facts.
Yet Vulcan has an elite Science Academy, so not all of these podded children become scientific superstars. Somehow, they were motivated to learn more science to get into the Academy, or they pushed themselves towards doing something else with their lives. Drill and kill took them only part way.
Shop Indie Bookstores
Shop Indie Bookstores
This program was kicked off and moderated by Daniel Pink, author of two best-selling business books: Free Agent Nation and A Whole New Mind. While Pink, formerly a speechwriter for former Vice President Al Gore, is neither an academic nor a K-12 educator, he has a talk-show style and research background that kept the morning lively.
While much of Pink's kick-off remarks came from material in A Whole New Mind (and I'll leave a link to the book and video below), there were some quotes/questions that he raised which forced me to think about education and employment. These were:
+ Left brain thinking--logic, analytics, spreadsheets, for example, is necessary for employment, but not sufficient for employment security.
+ English has become the world's linguistic operating system, but India is about the become the world's largest English-speaking country. The Indian workforce employed by multi-national corporation numbers 150 million people, which is equal to the size of the U.S. workforce. Not to mention that the Indian workers work for much lower salaries, while fearing competition from other nations (Malaysia was one example mentioned) for their jobs.
+ Routine paper transactions (accounting spreadsheets, billing, order fulfillment, even uncontested divorces) are the most likely to be outsourced to the least cost provider, even if it is a Web site or a software package.
+ And manufacturing, which had provided high employment through routine work, needs fewer people and is more complicated.
+ Yet, while routine work is increasingly outsourced, the U.S. is the most abundent nation in terms of material well-being. Technology, such as cell phones and iPods are more accessible and affordable, but have also become more disposable to us. For instance, Pink pointed out that Americans discard nearly 460,000 cell phones per day.
So here's what I get from this information: there will be fewer and fewer routine jobs in the country over time, but no diminished desire for more "stuff." So, people need to prepare for a different set of jobs that allow them to maintain the lifestyle they want. And hopefully, they take more time to find what they would like to do, as opposed to what their parents think they should do. Their past, to borrow from a comment by Pink, cannot be their children's future.
Most of the comments made by panelists on improving education focused on experiential educational opportunities, aka solving "real world problems," mainly in the classroom, to help students learn better at all levels: K-12, college and executive education, and provide direction, too.
As I listened to these comments, I thought: These real-world applications are already part of many classrooms. They did not need to be legislated, and they did not need to be forced upon teachers, they usually designed the applications on their own.
And while an experiential approach to education is often lauded by businesspeople and politicians, they are leading the country further into an education that is overly based upon standardized test results, face-to-face education becoming routine, just like any outsourced job.
I do believe that basic skills tests have their place, and that they have the potential to provide useful data on each student's progress within language arts or math. But wouldn't more real-world problem solving projects, where students use these skills, raise test scores higher than a "drill and kill" approach?
One panelist at this Wharton program, the founding principal the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, believes very strongly in experiential education; it is part of many of their classes. Yet he added that he feared that his students will be disappointed when they get to college, as long as higher education maintains the traditional large lecture approach. The large lecture would be less personal, and less real-world than the high school experience.
If you still believe that a drill and kill approach is the right way for your schools to go, and if you still believe that it is the best way to provide "employable skills," then take a couple of hours to see the new Star Trek.
There is one scene, on the planet Vulcan, where children stand in learning pods and all of the information is delivered via audio and virtual reality projections. Each student, in effect, has their own virtual instructors, and each student has all of the facts.
Yet Vulcan has an elite Science Academy, so not all of these podded children become scientific superstars. Somehow, they were motivated to learn more science to get into the Academy, or they pushed themselves towards doing something else with their lives. Drill and kill took them only part way.
Shop Indie Bookstores
Shop Indie Bookstores
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Less Than Six Degrees from Footloose and Kevin Bacon
Today, I read a story about a teenage student, Ryan Frost, who has expected to be suspended and denied access to his graduation because he, a student at a conservative Christian school, went to a prom at a secular school. His stepfather has considered the possible actions by the school to be ridiculous.
As I read this story I thought about one of my nephews. I saw him in Footloose at his junior high school two months ago, and he played Renn, the lead. Renn and his mother move from Chicago to a small town in Oklahoma where the preacher has power over social activities, including school dances. He hold so much sway over the community that they are banned, until Renn and his daughter, who have become a couple, convince him to change his mind. Thanks to my nephew, I am less than six degrees from Kevin Bacon. That gives me some credibility to comment on Mr Frost's predicament.
This is a hard post to write. The school told Frost the rules, and he agreed to obey them. It's possible that he never expected to meet a girl he liked when he signed that paper, but still a deal was a deal, and the school had the ability to enforce it. I have to wonder about an honor code that encourages invasion into a student's private and non-academic life, however, I would not choose this school.
This was not an incident where a student committed a crime, or caused what believers and non-believers might believe to be a true moral outrage. I do not believe that I have to list the obvious moral outrages that might happen when a teenage boy and a teenage girl go to a prom. But there is nothing to indicate that anything improper happened. A young man wanted to go to a prom because he was curious.
Here is my proposal. Punish Ryan in a reasonable way; for example, ask him to perform some community service within the school or the church community. Don't hand him the diploma until he completes it. The school has already informed him that he may still take his finals.
So, he takes his finals, does his week of community service, and gets his diploma in the mail. I realize that singles him out, and might encourage some additional "extra-curricular dating." But if you are imposing a code, it has to mean something to the students.
Of course, Frost's stepfather could take legal action, but that has its costs. For one thing, he will need time and money; both might not be on his side, unless he is a lawyer, or finds a foundation that is friendly to his cause. And for another, he will be trying to end a policy that has made parents, and possibly students, interested becoming a part of that school.
Given the fact that Ryan Frost will graduate anyway, and the importance of this policy to a school's governance, a community service penalty will bring better results than a lawsuit. If Ryan, or any other students, want to experience a secular date, then they, like Renn in Footloose, should also take some risks.
I realize that some people will read this column and think that I'm crazy for my position. But then, do secular judges and juries have the legal right to impose code of conduct policies (at least those that do not involve corporal punishment) on students who attend private and parochial schools? If the school decides to rescind the policy and let Frost go unpunished, that's fine, too. Because the school will have come to that decision on their own.
As I read this story I thought about one of my nephews. I saw him in Footloose at his junior high school two months ago, and he played Renn, the lead. Renn and his mother move from Chicago to a small town in Oklahoma where the preacher has power over social activities, including school dances. He hold so much sway over the community that they are banned, until Renn and his daughter, who have become a couple, convince him to change his mind. Thanks to my nephew, I am less than six degrees from Kevin Bacon. That gives me some credibility to comment on Mr Frost's predicament.
This is a hard post to write. The school told Frost the rules, and he agreed to obey them. It's possible that he never expected to meet a girl he liked when he signed that paper, but still a deal was a deal, and the school had the ability to enforce it. I have to wonder about an honor code that encourages invasion into a student's private and non-academic life, however, I would not choose this school.
This was not an incident where a student committed a crime, or caused what believers and non-believers might believe to be a true moral outrage. I do not believe that I have to list the obvious moral outrages that might happen when a teenage boy and a teenage girl go to a prom. But there is nothing to indicate that anything improper happened. A young man wanted to go to a prom because he was curious.
Here is my proposal. Punish Ryan in a reasonable way; for example, ask him to perform some community service within the school or the church community. Don't hand him the diploma until he completes it. The school has already informed him that he may still take his finals.
So, he takes his finals, does his week of community service, and gets his diploma in the mail. I realize that singles him out, and might encourage some additional "extra-curricular dating." But if you are imposing a code, it has to mean something to the students.
Of course, Frost's stepfather could take legal action, but that has its costs. For one thing, he will need time and money; both might not be on his side, unless he is a lawyer, or finds a foundation that is friendly to his cause. And for another, he will be trying to end a policy that has made parents, and possibly students, interested becoming a part of that school.
Given the fact that Ryan Frost will graduate anyway, and the importance of this policy to a school's governance, a community service penalty will bring better results than a lawsuit. If Ryan, or any other students, want to experience a secular date, then they, like Renn in Footloose, should also take some risks.
I realize that some people will read this column and think that I'm crazy for my position. But then, do secular judges and juries have the legal right to impose code of conduct policies (at least those that do not involve corporal punishment) on students who attend private and parochial schools? If the school decides to rescind the policy and let Frost go unpunished, that's fine, too. Because the school will have come to that decision on their own.
A North Carolina Historically Black University Will Suspend Its Nursing Program
Today I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education that Fayetteville State University, a North Carolina-based and publicly funded Historically Black university will be suspending their undergraduate nursing degree program for at least two years. The chancellor of the university, James A. Anderson commented that: “Some folks over there lost their moral compass.We really need to re-establish academic integrity over there.”
Those are awfully harsh words for an administrator to say about faculty, as well as the students. But they apparently had some basis in fact. Morgonton.com, an area news Web site, reported that the program has been in turmoil since it became separated from an education consortium with the University of North Carolina-Pembroke in 2005.
When I went to the local news, this was a much scarier story than the Chronicle reported. The nursing school had the worst pass rates in the state on the 2008 licensing test, according to the State Board of Nursing. Of the 61 students who took the test for the first time, only 24 passed -- giving FSU a 39 percent pass rate, according to the board. The program has been on probation with the state Board of Nursing since 2007 for multiple violations of state rules. The board requires institutions to have an 83 percent pass rate over a two-year period. FSU's average was 46 percent.
Academic preparation was not the only issue. There have also been numerous disputes between students and faculty over grading disputes that have erupted into physical threats. More frightening, students found inaccurately graded answers in one instructor's courses.
I went to the department Web site. It stated that the Department of Nursing is accredited by the national Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. The department was given a ten year full-approval. I also learned that there were plans to construct a $10 million regional nursing education and research center. So, the program had a national accreditation and monies to build a new building. That's an unusual situation for a department that is about to be suspended, a department that offers a pre-professional major in high demand.
I can understand three reasons for suspending the program: student misconduct (a problem that is resolvable), faculty misconduct (resolvable, but only where there is documented proof) and the poor pass rate, which can be addressed by resolving the other two problems. But I believe that suspending the four-year degree is an over-reaction to the problem, unless faculty misconduct simply extends to too many people to keep the program from going forward. If that were the case, then the chancellor would need time to recruit a new faculty, while providing some developmental opportunities for the educators who remain.
But that was not reported in the news. Instead, people outside the university community were given the perception, by the chancellor, that a hero was going to sweep in and save the day (and the reputation of the degree among degree holders). Maybe he was trying to protect the academics from ridicule, but it would have been nice if he gave more reasons for the suspension, and possibly for delaying a $10 million nursing facility.
Documented misconduct is no joke, and the community would have agreed with the chancellor's decision. I just don't know what he can do; there are no plans to terminate faculty members, nor plans to investigate misconduct or administrative irregularities. I would have thought that such investigations would need to be completed before a program would be closed down.
Instead, the chancellor has given other academic departments reason to fear his wrath and there will be tenured nursing faculty paid to do essentially nothing, unless there is documented proof of professional misconduct. This might have been welcome from the outside, as the previous chancellor was forced to resign two years ago over the poor nursing pass rate. That Chancellor had increased enrollment by twenty percent over four years, a positive development for a historically black school, and took the business, education and nursing schools through their accreditation process. She also established an honors program.
The sad part of this story is not only the state of nursing program, but also its impact on alumni relations and development as well as the school's relationships with state government. Fayetteville State University has not been a failed institution by many measures beyond the nursing pass rate.
But I have to ask myself, why didn't the current Chancellor hire a new nursing department head soon after he settled into his appointment? The poor pass rate cost the previous chancellor her job. Does he hold the power to actually terminate a program, which includes friends in high places? Or is there a bigger cover-up that he wants to keep covered?
Those are awfully harsh words for an administrator to say about faculty, as well as the students. But they apparently had some basis in fact. Morgonton.com, an area news Web site, reported that the program has been in turmoil since it became separated from an education consortium with the University of North Carolina-Pembroke in 2005.
When I went to the local news, this was a much scarier story than the Chronicle reported. The nursing school had the worst pass rates in the state on the 2008 licensing test, according to the State Board of Nursing. Of the 61 students who took the test for the first time, only 24 passed -- giving FSU a 39 percent pass rate, according to the board. The program has been on probation with the state Board of Nursing since 2007 for multiple violations of state rules. The board requires institutions to have an 83 percent pass rate over a two-year period. FSU's average was 46 percent.
Academic preparation was not the only issue. There have also been numerous disputes between students and faculty over grading disputes that have erupted into physical threats. More frightening, students found inaccurately graded answers in one instructor's courses.
I went to the department Web site. It stated that the Department of Nursing is accredited by the national Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. The department was given a ten year full-approval. I also learned that there were plans to construct a $10 million regional nursing education and research center. So, the program had a national accreditation and monies to build a new building. That's an unusual situation for a department that is about to be suspended, a department that offers a pre-professional major in high demand.
I can understand three reasons for suspending the program: student misconduct (a problem that is resolvable), faculty misconduct (resolvable, but only where there is documented proof) and the poor pass rate, which can be addressed by resolving the other two problems. But I believe that suspending the four-year degree is an over-reaction to the problem, unless faculty misconduct simply extends to too many people to keep the program from going forward. If that were the case, then the chancellor would need time to recruit a new faculty, while providing some developmental opportunities for the educators who remain.
But that was not reported in the news. Instead, people outside the university community were given the perception, by the chancellor, that a hero was going to sweep in and save the day (and the reputation of the degree among degree holders). Maybe he was trying to protect the academics from ridicule, but it would have been nice if he gave more reasons for the suspension, and possibly for delaying a $10 million nursing facility.
Documented misconduct is no joke, and the community would have agreed with the chancellor's decision. I just don't know what he can do; there are no plans to terminate faculty members, nor plans to investigate misconduct or administrative irregularities. I would have thought that such investigations would need to be completed before a program would be closed down.
Instead, the chancellor has given other academic departments reason to fear his wrath and there will be tenured nursing faculty paid to do essentially nothing, unless there is documented proof of professional misconduct. This might have been welcome from the outside, as the previous chancellor was forced to resign two years ago over the poor nursing pass rate. That Chancellor had increased enrollment by twenty percent over four years, a positive development for a historically black school, and took the business, education and nursing schools through their accreditation process. She also established an honors program.
The sad part of this story is not only the state of nursing program, but also its impact on alumni relations and development as well as the school's relationships with state government. Fayetteville State University has not been a failed institution by many measures beyond the nursing pass rate.
But I have to ask myself, why didn't the current Chancellor hire a new nursing department head soon after he settled into his appointment? The poor pass rate cost the previous chancellor her job. Does he hold the power to actually terminate a program, which includes friends in high places? Or is there a bigger cover-up that he wants to keep covered?
Obama Proposes to End Federal Funding for Abstinence-Only Education
Last week, President Obama announced that his proposed new budget will end funding for abstinence-only (also known as abstinence-until-marriage) sex education. The Obama Administration will shift funding into pregnancy prevention programs. According to the federal Office of Management and Budget, $1.3 billion has been spent on abstinence-only approaches to sex education since 2001.
The administration has been careful in this decision, in that they have not said that the funds will be shifted to a comprehensive approach, but the language in the proposed budget reads that community-based and faith-based efforts will be considered for funding, but they must be evidence-based as well, meaning that there must be some research from a credible (and likely academic) source that has ruled that they are effective.
However, there is also language about "promising approaches," that is likely to cause the neck hairs to rise among conservatives. The door has not been closed to abstinence-only sex education, but the administration has made it clear that teen pregnancy, and not instruction about sex, is the major problem that must be solved. Seventy five percent of the proposed funding is for programs proven to have delayed sex and increased contraceptive use, or reduced teen pregnancy.
This is a sensible approach, and it reminds me of the efforts that New Jersey educators made nearly three decades ago when they were considering sex education in the public schools. New Jersey has offered comprehensive sex education in all public schools longer than practically any state. Back then, the major reason for sex education, then called "Family Life Education" was to prevent teen pregnancies; the Garden State had the highest teen pregnancy rate at that time.
It is wise that the Obama Administration proposed to leave it up to state and local experts to present their programs, rather than try to legislate a "one size fits all" approach to sex education. Given varied religious and education beliefs, a national policy of comprehensive sex education would be impossible to implement. And given the state of the economy and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be a waste of political capital at this time.
Obama has proposed what I hoped: to send the decision back to the voters, and let them make up their minds about the sex education they want. And ask the experts to prove that it works. Nothing could be fairer than that.
The administration has been careful in this decision, in that they have not said that the funds will be shifted to a comprehensive approach, but the language in the proposed budget reads that community-based and faith-based efforts will be considered for funding, but they must be evidence-based as well, meaning that there must be some research from a credible (and likely academic) source that has ruled that they are effective.
However, there is also language about "promising approaches," that is likely to cause the neck hairs to rise among conservatives. The door has not been closed to abstinence-only sex education, but the administration has made it clear that teen pregnancy, and not instruction about sex, is the major problem that must be solved. Seventy five percent of the proposed funding is for programs proven to have delayed sex and increased contraceptive use, or reduced teen pregnancy.
This is a sensible approach, and it reminds me of the efforts that New Jersey educators made nearly three decades ago when they were considering sex education in the public schools. New Jersey has offered comprehensive sex education in all public schools longer than practically any state. Back then, the major reason for sex education, then called "Family Life Education" was to prevent teen pregnancies; the Garden State had the highest teen pregnancy rate at that time.
It is wise that the Obama Administration proposed to leave it up to state and local experts to present their programs, rather than try to legislate a "one size fits all" approach to sex education. Given varied religious and education beliefs, a national policy of comprehensive sex education would be impossible to implement. And given the state of the economy and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be a waste of political capital at this time.
Obama has proposed what I hoped: to send the decision back to the voters, and let them make up their minds about the sex education they want. And ask the experts to prove that it works. Nothing could be fairer than that.
Book Review: Columbine by Dave Cullen
It has now been more than ten years since the words Columbine and the Trench Coat Mafia first entered our lexicon of concerns about the quality of education, and the quality of life, within suburban high schools. It was quite realistic to expect that a book would be written about the Columbine shooting a decade later.
Journalist Dave Cullen, who has previous educational ties to the Boulder-Denver area, wrote a very comprehensive account of the shooting, starting with the profiles of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the young instigators of the crime. This was the most interesting part of the book. While Cullen does not have a background in psychology or psychiatry, he has consulted experts, as well as the community, about the motivations behind a mass murder. He helps you get to know these men as much as humanly possible.
The second most interesting aspect of Columbine, the book, are the accounts about the community and how it has tried to move on after the shooting. I followed the news about Columbine in only a cursory manner ten years ago, so I was less aware about lawsuits against the Harris and Klebold families and the harassment they experienced. There was as much tendency to blame parents as there was to blame a young woman for accompanying the young men to a gun show and buying guns on their behalf.
The conservative and liberal factions of Denver-area politics, as well as church-related factions within the community, come into play. As you read this story, you see more than one definition of moral outrage, and that sparks its own share of debates among the local clergy. This caught my eye, because it has been a personal political interest to me.
The least interesting, though not for the writing, part of this story is the account of the shooting itself. But I do not blame Cullen for that, as much as the fact that more detailed information has already been reported. The same with "copy cats," similar incidents at schools in other parts of the U.S.
This book has been deservedly well-received, and it is necessary to set the record straight. But it is first time that I hope that someone else will not write another account of this tragedy. Arguments over details after ten years seem unimportant when compared to the magnitude of the events.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Movie Review: Star Trek
The last of my posts about "do overs" is a review of what I believe to be the best Star Trek movie ever. The "do-overs" involve time travel, and like in previous television episodes (The Guardian of Forever) and movies (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home) with the original cast, Kirk and Spock mess with history and time travel.
But why am I posting a Star Trek review on an education site? Here's the answer: before I saw the movie I chatted with a high school friend on Facebook who reminded me of the sociological (as opposed to scientific) significance of Star Trek, in the original series. The original series, which ran from 1966 through 1968, addressed the Cold War, the civil rights movement, and even the drug culture, among other things, through Gene Roddenberry's perceptions of the 23rd century.
The Klingons were considered to be much like the Communists: cold, efficient, everything in life primed for battle, even as they evolved from interstellar Beatles wannabees into strong, but extremly agile, ridgeback figures. Planets were created to mirror civilizations of the past that had been long villified: Hitler's Germany, Ancient Rome, and mob-run Chicago as well as psychedelic ideals (remember Eden, where visiters were placed in a trance after being attacked by flower spores?). And then there was the first inter-racial kiss between Kirk and Uhura, forced on by alien intervention.
I was six when the original series came out, and I watched it more for the science fiction than the science (though my engineer father loved the gadgetry) or the sociology. I never gave either a thought until I watched the Next Generation series as a married adult. By then, the acting had gotten better, and there had been enough linkages between the original series and The Next Generation to actually form histories of over a hundred years of space travel in the 23rd and 24th centuries. But now, even the furnishings in Next Generation episodes would appear dated in this century.
I thought that the Trek franchise was dead after the ill-fated series Enterprise; that was a prequel to the days of Kirk and Spock. But I was glad I was wrong. A new director, cast and crew (except for Leonard Nimoy) has given Star Trek a second life.
Without giving away the movie, this Trek starts with a young Kirk (Christopher Pine), who stows away on his first mission aboard the Enterprise, and a young Spock (Zachary Quinto) who dislikes him very much. The Enterprise is "updated" with plenty of polished white and chrome to reflect that "past" in the earlier 23rd century.
Aside from the space battle effects, one of the main reasons you see a Trek movie, the dialogue among the crew makes this picture. The big surprises are the humorous quips and the feistiness of the young Lt. Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and the boyish over-enthusiasm of a young Pavel Checkov (Anton Yelchin).
The director, J.J. Abrams (of Lost fame) did not try to "update" timelines from the previous movie and television episodes, but he left enough character traits to remind Trekkers of them, while creating a fresh look for a new generation of fans. The movie is strong enough to take the Trek franchise past the half-century mark.
This is an awesome movie, but if you are expecting lessons in science or sociology you will not find them. If you see it, buckle up for the ride. And the fun.
But why am I posting a Star Trek review on an education site? Here's the answer: before I saw the movie I chatted with a high school friend on Facebook who reminded me of the sociological (as opposed to scientific) significance of Star Trek, in the original series. The original series, which ran from 1966 through 1968, addressed the Cold War, the civil rights movement, and even the drug culture, among other things, through Gene Roddenberry's perceptions of the 23rd century.
The Klingons were considered to be much like the Communists: cold, efficient, everything in life primed for battle, even as they evolved from interstellar Beatles wannabees into strong, but extremly agile, ridgeback figures. Planets were created to mirror civilizations of the past that had been long villified: Hitler's Germany, Ancient Rome, and mob-run Chicago as well as psychedelic ideals (remember Eden, where visiters were placed in a trance after being attacked by flower spores?). And then there was the first inter-racial kiss between Kirk and Uhura, forced on by alien intervention.
I was six when the original series came out, and I watched it more for the science fiction than the science (though my engineer father loved the gadgetry) or the sociology. I never gave either a thought until I watched the Next Generation series as a married adult. By then, the acting had gotten better, and there had been enough linkages between the original series and The Next Generation to actually form histories of over a hundred years of space travel in the 23rd and 24th centuries. But now, even the furnishings in Next Generation episodes would appear dated in this century.
I thought that the Trek franchise was dead after the ill-fated series Enterprise; that was a prequel to the days of Kirk and Spock. But I was glad I was wrong. A new director, cast and crew (except for Leonard Nimoy) has given Star Trek a second life.
Without giving away the movie, this Trek starts with a young Kirk (Christopher Pine), who stows away on his first mission aboard the Enterprise, and a young Spock (Zachary Quinto) who dislikes him very much. The Enterprise is "updated" with plenty of polished white and chrome to reflect that "past" in the earlier 23rd century.
Aside from the space battle effects, one of the main reasons you see a Trek movie, the dialogue among the crew makes this picture. The big surprises are the humorous quips and the feistiness of the young Lt. Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and the boyish over-enthusiasm of a young Pavel Checkov (Anton Yelchin).
The director, J.J. Abrams (of Lost fame) did not try to "update" timelines from the previous movie and television episodes, but he left enough character traits to remind Trekkers of them, while creating a fresh look for a new generation of fans. The movie is strong enough to take the Trek franchise past the half-century mark.
This is an awesome movie, but if you are expecting lessons in science or sociology you will not find them. If you see it, buckle up for the ride. And the fun.
Movie Review: 17 Again
After I read DO-OVER, I went to see the Zac Efron movie, 17 Again; I was tempted to take a look at a different interpretation of "do-over." I'm glad I had finished that book before I saw this movie, otherwise I would have had no reason to go. Efron is what I would call a pre-teen heart-throb; my niece is one of the many ten year olds who have loved him in High School Musical.
And there is one similarity between High School Musical and 17 Again, besides a high school setting, that cannot be ignored. Efron plays a high school basketball star in both movies. In 17 Again, he plays Mike O'Connell, a prospect about to play his most important high school game with a college coach watching in the stands. He is all ready to play when his girl friend, Scarlett (Alison Miller), walks over before gametime and, after some prodding, tells him that she's pregnant.
Mike walks away from the game, and his college basketball future, to marry her. He has expressed regret to his wife (Leslie Mann as the adult Scarlett) over that decision for twenty years; she is angry enough to ask him for divorce. Over those twenty years, the adult Mike (Matthew Perry) has become a middle-class family man, but he is lazy as well as regretful. He has two teenage children, but he doesn't know them very well.
After leaving his job and his family, Mike hooks up with Ned (Thomas Lennon), his best friend from high school, and a rich nerd with too much time, and too much cash for toys, on his hands. He gets settled, then he pays a visit to the glass trophy case from his glory days. Like most time travel movies, he meets a "spirit guide" (Brian Doyle Murray), masquerading as a janitor who makes him seventeen again, but in the present day. This time, Mike repeats the basketball thing, but he goes through school spouting off like the middle aged man he really is, even preaching abstinence in a senior sex ed class!
The real message of this movie was that people may wish for second chances, but they may not get the ones they really expected. Mike turns out to be a better dad as his seventeen year old self than he was as his adult self. That was the best twist to the story. Mike's old high school has the same cliques as it did when he was there, but he sees that his son (Sterling Knight) is more like the geek that everyone, including his older sister's boyfriend, wants to abuse. And he sees that his daughter (Michelle Trachtenberg) is smart, but pretending to be dumb.
This is not a great movie, but pre-teens who have had their fill of Zac Efron will not be disappointed. But maybe a parent or two will want to think twice about wanting to relive their so-called glory days. This was a movie that had a parent-child attendance, as opposed to groups of fawning kids.
And there is one similarity between High School Musical and 17 Again, besides a high school setting, that cannot be ignored. Efron plays a high school basketball star in both movies. In 17 Again, he plays Mike O'Connell, a prospect about to play his most important high school game with a college coach watching in the stands. He is all ready to play when his girl friend, Scarlett (Alison Miller), walks over before gametime and, after some prodding, tells him that she's pregnant.
Mike walks away from the game, and his college basketball future, to marry her. He has expressed regret to his wife (Leslie Mann as the adult Scarlett) over that decision for twenty years; she is angry enough to ask him for divorce. Over those twenty years, the adult Mike (Matthew Perry) has become a middle-class family man, but he is lazy as well as regretful. He has two teenage children, but he doesn't know them very well.
After leaving his job and his family, Mike hooks up with Ned (Thomas Lennon), his best friend from high school, and a rich nerd with too much time, and too much cash for toys, on his hands. He gets settled, then he pays a visit to the glass trophy case from his glory days. Like most time travel movies, he meets a "spirit guide" (Brian Doyle Murray), masquerading as a janitor who makes him seventeen again, but in the present day. This time, Mike repeats the basketball thing, but he goes through school spouting off like the middle aged man he really is, even preaching abstinence in a senior sex ed class!
The real message of this movie was that people may wish for second chances, but they may not get the ones they really expected. Mike turns out to be a better dad as his seventeen year old self than he was as his adult self. That was the best twist to the story. Mike's old high school has the same cliques as it did when he was there, but he sees that his son (Sterling Knight) is more like the geek that everyone, including his older sister's boyfriend, wants to abuse. And he sees that his daughter (Michelle Trachtenberg) is smart, but pretending to be dumb.
This is not a great movie, but pre-teens who have had their fill of Zac Efron will not be disappointed. But maybe a parent or two will want to think twice about wanting to relive their so-called glory days. This was a movie that had a parent-child attendance, as opposed to groups of fawning kids.
Book Review: DO-OVER! by Robin Hemley
Today's blog posts are about "do-overs," stories about people who sought, and received second chances at reliving events in their lives. The first, appropriately, is a review of a book called DO-OVER, written by Robin Hemley, who is currently the director of the creative non-fiction writing program at the University of Iowa.
In DO-OVER, Hemley has chosen several events that he wanted to relive from his childhood. Having traveled more extensively than most K-12 students, Hemley's "do-overs" include asking a national college fraternity to honor an "honorary member" agreement that a local chapter bestowed upon him in grade school, and reliving a week of the time he spent as an exchange student in Osaka, Japan.
But Hemley also wants to relive experiences that are more common to the rest of us: repeating kindergarten, confronting a sixth grade bully, replaying summer camp and re-appearing in a grade school play where he had once forgotten a line. He also catches up on the prom he missed in high school, attending with a teacher he had once had a crush on "back in the day."
I had to wonder why someone would want to do some of these things all over again, then I realized why: such things are considered "life-making" or "life shattering" events at the time they originally happened. It is quite tempting to relive them, when you can apply adult reasoning to resolve them.
In Hemley's case, he went through practically little embarassment outside of repeating kindergarten. He resolved differences with the bully calmly, and without resorting to a fight or pulling adult rank. He remembered lines from plays. He registered and took dreaded standardized tests that he had avoided to get into college. He had a sticky situation with the fraternity, but their national organization relented and honored his honorary membership. And he appeared to have had a great time reliving Japan.
I don't know what to call this story. It is not soppy or light-hearted, nor is there a desire to "get even." There is more an interest in retrying things that most people do not bother to retry, because they believe that they are past those events. After reading DO-OVER! I tried to think of any grade school "tragedy" that I wanted to make right. But I found none. Oh, I wished that I had had more friends; loneliness carried me well into high school. But there was no single moment in school or athletic competition that I cared to make right.
Hemley, like me, has had some real tragedies in his life. He was divorced when his children by his first wife were still very young and had a difficult time establishing himself in a teaching career. He has no desire to repeat either event, just as we try to avoid repeats of the tragedies that affect us for keeps when we become adults. But I also saw, from how he writes so lovlingly about his daughters through both marriages, that he becomes a better father for reliving his past.
In DO-OVER, Hemley has chosen several events that he wanted to relive from his childhood. Having traveled more extensively than most K-12 students, Hemley's "do-overs" include asking a national college fraternity to honor an "honorary member" agreement that a local chapter bestowed upon him in grade school, and reliving a week of the time he spent as an exchange student in Osaka, Japan.
But Hemley also wants to relive experiences that are more common to the rest of us: repeating kindergarten, confronting a sixth grade bully, replaying summer camp and re-appearing in a grade school play where he had once forgotten a line. He also catches up on the prom he missed in high school, attending with a teacher he had once had a crush on "back in the day."
I had to wonder why someone would want to do some of these things all over again, then I realized why: such things are considered "life-making" or "life shattering" events at the time they originally happened. It is quite tempting to relive them, when you can apply adult reasoning to resolve them.
In Hemley's case, he went through practically little embarassment outside of repeating kindergarten. He resolved differences with the bully calmly, and without resorting to a fight or pulling adult rank. He remembered lines from plays. He registered and took dreaded standardized tests that he had avoided to get into college. He had a sticky situation with the fraternity, but their national organization relented and honored his honorary membership. And he appeared to have had a great time reliving Japan.
I don't know what to call this story. It is not soppy or light-hearted, nor is there a desire to "get even." There is more an interest in retrying things that most people do not bother to retry, because they believe that they are past those events. After reading DO-OVER! I tried to think of any grade school "tragedy" that I wanted to make right. But I found none. Oh, I wished that I had had more friends; loneliness carried me well into high school. But there was no single moment in school or athletic competition that I cared to make right.
Hemley, like me, has had some real tragedies in his life. He was divorced when his children by his first wife were still very young and had a difficult time establishing himself in a teaching career. He has no desire to repeat either event, just as we try to avoid repeats of the tragedies that affect us for keeps when we become adults. But I also saw, from how he writes so lovlingly about his daughters through both marriages, that he becomes a better father for reliving his past.
Friday, May 8, 2009
529 is a Devilish and Deadly Number for Parents
Kevin Carey, policy director for the Washington D.C. based non-partisan think tank Education Sector has written an insightful piece about 529 plans, publicly sponsored parental savings plans for college. Carey writes that 529 plans are a bad gamble for parents, and that they have benefited high-income savers more than anyone else.
According to the story, 529 plans, named by Congress for the section of the tax code that defines them, were started as tax-deferred savings plans, much along the lines of the 401-K plans that parents make investments for their retirement. Their origins go back to the 1970s and 80s, when the price of higher education began to rise at historically unprecedented rates, settling into a steep upward trajectory that continues to this day. But, according to Carey, the savings invested in 529 plans have crashed, again much like 401-Ks. Carey goes into far more detail than I can summarize in a post, so I encourage you to read his piece for yourself.
I read financial planning magazines from time to time, and they often tout the 529 as an investment and savings vehicle. But after reading this piece, I wondered if they were necessary, especially plans that are meant to save for tuition and living expenses at a limited subset of schools, such as those in the saver's home state.
Carey makes many points, but one that stood out is that saving for college is not like saving for retirement. For one thing, the window towards college is shorter and the price of education is less predictable. In addition, parents should not want to restrict where their children go to school; they should allow for contingencies such as relocation. My brother, as one example, has moved many times in his career, so a state=sponsored 529 might have been impractical.
I agree with Carey, in that the time horizon is shorter, but the investment strategy for parents is not much different. Imagine a couple with a child on the way. They have, in theory, eighteen years to save for college for that child. If I put myself in that position, I have less to invest in the early years; my income is lower and my spouse might not want to work for a little while. So, my strategy might be to put what little I could save in the early years into an aggressive growth fund, then shift to more conservative options as my child gets older.
I don't want to be limited in my choice of funds, but I'd direct the money into something safe, like a tax free government bond fund, for at least the last six or seven years before college. If I am reading Carey's story correctly, I have to assume that most savers didn't do that. My guess is that their money is in an equity fund that they might not have chosen on their own.
Carey also adds that politicians and colleges need to take more responsibility for setting tuition policy, either through larger public subsidies to the schools or agreements to limit increases over several years. I don't know how long term schools can go, but here's one thought: index the increases to the salary increases in the teacher's contract, if the school is public. Those are predictable, unlike the costs of utilities and health care. And teachers are less likely to accept a cut in pay than an increase in their share of the health care premium or an energy conservation program on-campus.
So, if your faculty union agreed to a five or six percent raise, then that's what the tuition increase will be. Could that happen? Doubtful, because faculty will want larger raises in good times, and that will make negotiations more difficult for politicians and college presidents. But on the other hand, those people are charged with managing wages as well as costs. And parents need a predictable indicator, so they can save whatever they can.
According to the story, 529 plans, named by Congress for the section of the tax code that defines them, were started as tax-deferred savings plans, much along the lines of the 401-K plans that parents make investments for their retirement. Their origins go back to the 1970s and 80s, when the price of higher education began to rise at historically unprecedented rates, settling into a steep upward trajectory that continues to this day. But, according to Carey, the savings invested in 529 plans have crashed, again much like 401-Ks. Carey goes into far more detail than I can summarize in a post, so I encourage you to read his piece for yourself.
I read financial planning magazines from time to time, and they often tout the 529 as an investment and savings vehicle. But after reading this piece, I wondered if they were necessary, especially plans that are meant to save for tuition and living expenses at a limited subset of schools, such as those in the saver's home state.
Carey makes many points, but one that stood out is that saving for college is not like saving for retirement. For one thing, the window towards college is shorter and the price of education is less predictable. In addition, parents should not want to restrict where their children go to school; they should allow for contingencies such as relocation. My brother, as one example, has moved many times in his career, so a state=sponsored 529 might have been impractical.
I agree with Carey, in that the time horizon is shorter, but the investment strategy for parents is not much different. Imagine a couple with a child on the way. They have, in theory, eighteen years to save for college for that child. If I put myself in that position, I have less to invest in the early years; my income is lower and my spouse might not want to work for a little while. So, my strategy might be to put what little I could save in the early years into an aggressive growth fund, then shift to more conservative options as my child gets older.
I don't want to be limited in my choice of funds, but I'd direct the money into something safe, like a tax free government bond fund, for at least the last six or seven years before college. If I am reading Carey's story correctly, I have to assume that most savers didn't do that. My guess is that their money is in an equity fund that they might not have chosen on their own.
Carey also adds that politicians and colleges need to take more responsibility for setting tuition policy, either through larger public subsidies to the schools or agreements to limit increases over several years. I don't know how long term schools can go, but here's one thought: index the increases to the salary increases in the teacher's contract, if the school is public. Those are predictable, unlike the costs of utilities and health care. And teachers are less likely to accept a cut in pay than an increase in their share of the health care premium or an energy conservation program on-campus.
So, if your faculty union agreed to a five or six percent raise, then that's what the tuition increase will be. Could that happen? Doubtful, because faculty will want larger raises in good times, and that will make negotiations more difficult for politicians and college presidents. But on the other hand, those people are charged with managing wages as well as costs. And parents need a predictable indicator, so they can save whatever they can.
The Fashion Show Follows the Runway Formula, Minus Tim and Heidi
Last night, I caught the first episode of The Fashion Show, Bravo TV's replacement for the Emmy-award winning Project Runway, which has moved in location and station to Los Angeles and Lifetime, respectively.
I'm not a huge fan of reality shows. The only ones that I watch regularly are the non-celebrity seasons of The Apprentice, Top Chef and Runway. I loved the original Apprentice because it was the only reality show where I could actually do the tasks--I even tried out for what turned out to be the last season--and I like Chef and Runway because they are realistic and fair. Every cook is asked to cook and every fashion designer is asked to design; there are no bungie-jumping or bug-eating challenges.
I became a fan of Runway through friends who have been involved with Parsons School of Design who have met Tim Gunn through their alumni activities with the school. They told me to watch the show--my wife had seen it before me, too--and I got hooked. Not because I am a fashionista, but because the show is a story of promising, and mainly young, designers who want to launch the "next new thing that's in." That's what fashion students want to do.
Although my day-to-day fashion ensemble consists primarily of jeans, shorts, sweat shirts, polo shirts, and a variety of discount Nikes, I could not help but be amazed by the drama, as well as the creativity of the designers. Runway has been a great guide for anyone who is considering a career in fashion, and that's why I'm writing about it's successor show here.
Fashion Show is similar to Runway in that is a fashion competition, it starts with 15 people (the first season of Runway did, then the cast grew). Fashion designers are guest judges and a designer and a model counsel the contestants. There is also a six-figure reward, courtesy of Tres Semme hair care products. But that's where the similarities end.
The designer who co-hosts Fashion Show is Isaac Mizrahi, who posses neither the humor of Michael Kors, nor the dignified air of Tim Gunn. The co-host is Kelly Rowland, who does not have the Germanic charm of Heidi Klum, nor a signature phrase, but there's still several episodes to go. I guess that Heidi's "in or auht" travels over to Lifetime, with the original show. Rowland is abrasive, just like Heidi, but Heidi always managed to be cold with a wink. And Rowland is a recording artist, not a fashion model.
At least the two shows share a regular judge, Fern Mallis, senior vice president of IMG Fashion, and known as the creator of New York's Fashion Week. She has always shown that she knows what she is talking about when she has judged.
The judging process for this show is new. The runway is a triangle, there are numerous fashion experts in the audience who vote, and the contestants watch the show from another room. In a sense, the atmosphere is more like Fashion Week than preliminary rounds of Runway. The audience even applauded after each team showed their line, just like a fashion show. Then the judges dropped the truth on the cast. This first round, each team had to design a "gotta have" garment. Rowland merely said that she wouldn't have any of them. C'mon Kelly, learn something clever to say before the season is halfway through.
Over all, Fashion Show is okay. It repeats the cast dynamics of Runway and Mizrahi shares marketing knowledge, which Heidi and Tim rarely did. The producers have also stuck to fashion, from what I have read of future episoodes. They did not ask contestants to design and put up a billboard while snow fell in New York, or paint a airplane, as Tommy Hilfiger did. Stupid tasks like these were beyond the designer's depth, and they took away from the educational value of the show.
But Runway had catch phrases that made it memorable: "Carry On" and "Make it Work" made it into offices outside the fashion world, and Heidi's "in or auht" sent shivers up contestant's spines. This show needs some extra chemistry between the cast and judges, otherwise it will be auht after one season.
I'm not a huge fan of reality shows. The only ones that I watch regularly are the non-celebrity seasons of The Apprentice, Top Chef and Runway. I loved the original Apprentice because it was the only reality show where I could actually do the tasks--I even tried out for what turned out to be the last season--and I like Chef and Runway because they are realistic and fair. Every cook is asked to cook and every fashion designer is asked to design; there are no bungie-jumping or bug-eating challenges.
I became a fan of Runway through friends who have been involved with Parsons School of Design who have met Tim Gunn through their alumni activities with the school. They told me to watch the show--my wife had seen it before me, too--and I got hooked. Not because I am a fashionista, but because the show is a story of promising, and mainly young, designers who want to launch the "next new thing that's in." That's what fashion students want to do.
Although my day-to-day fashion ensemble consists primarily of jeans, shorts, sweat shirts, polo shirts, and a variety of discount Nikes, I could not help but be amazed by the drama, as well as the creativity of the designers. Runway has been a great guide for anyone who is considering a career in fashion, and that's why I'm writing about it's successor show here.
Fashion Show is similar to Runway in that is a fashion competition, it starts with 15 people (the first season of Runway did, then the cast grew). Fashion designers are guest judges and a designer and a model counsel the contestants. There is also a six-figure reward, courtesy of Tres Semme hair care products. But that's where the similarities end.
The designer who co-hosts Fashion Show is Isaac Mizrahi, who posses neither the humor of Michael Kors, nor the dignified air of Tim Gunn. The co-host is Kelly Rowland, who does not have the Germanic charm of Heidi Klum, nor a signature phrase, but there's still several episodes to go. I guess that Heidi's "in or auht" travels over to Lifetime, with the original show. Rowland is abrasive, just like Heidi, but Heidi always managed to be cold with a wink. And Rowland is a recording artist, not a fashion model.
At least the two shows share a regular judge, Fern Mallis, senior vice president of IMG Fashion, and known as the creator of New York's Fashion Week. She has always shown that she knows what she is talking about when she has judged.
The judging process for this show is new. The runway is a triangle, there are numerous fashion experts in the audience who vote, and the contestants watch the show from another room. In a sense, the atmosphere is more like Fashion Week than preliminary rounds of Runway. The audience even applauded after each team showed their line, just like a fashion show. Then the judges dropped the truth on the cast. This first round, each team had to design a "gotta have" garment. Rowland merely said that she wouldn't have any of them. C'mon Kelly, learn something clever to say before the season is halfway through.
Over all, Fashion Show is okay. It repeats the cast dynamics of Runway and Mizrahi shares marketing knowledge, which Heidi and Tim rarely did. The producers have also stuck to fashion, from what I have read of future episoodes. They did not ask contestants to design and put up a billboard while snow fell in New York, or paint a airplane, as Tommy Hilfiger did. Stupid tasks like these were beyond the designer's depth, and they took away from the educational value of the show.
But Runway had catch phrases that made it memorable: "Carry On" and "Make it Work" made it into offices outside the fashion world, and Heidi's "in or auht" sent shivers up contestant's spines. This show needs some extra chemistry between the cast and judges, otherwise it will be auht after one season.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
"Liberal" College Towns Lead Lists of Best Places to Live in U.S.
Last night, I picked up a copy of Newsmax. I had never read the magazine before, but from previous skims at the news rack, I had been led to believe that it is a conservatively focused magazine. I picked up this issue because of the lead story: The Cities and Towns With the Best American Values. Then today, Yahoo Finance ran a Forbes story entitled America's Top Towns to Live Well.
I looked at both lists. While they did not share any particular town in common, they both listed college towns among their top communities. The Newsmax story ranks Madison, Wisconsin second and Chapel Hill, North Carolina third. Both are not only college towns; they are also state capital regions with diverse government and private sector workforces. Georgia which rank anong the top 25. The Yahoo story ranks Boulder, Colorado first and includes the college towns of Coral Gables, Florida, Evanston, Illinois and Davis, California among its top 20.
College towns also appear high in the quality of life rankings in Money magazine. Durham, North Carolina (part of the Research Triangle along with Chapel Hill), Charlottesville, Virginia, Boise, Idaho (Boise State is Idaho's largest state university), Raleigh, North Carolina (again, part of the Research Triangle) and Iowa City, Iowa appear in their top 25.
I find it interesting that the reporters for a conservative magazine and two financial magazine ranked college towns so highly. This is an audience that often regards these communities as liberal enclaves that make extensive public investments in quality of life improvements such as quality public schools, bike paths and mass transit (almost always buses). They do not pretend to be low-tax business centers; in fact, the importance of a college, a business that does not pay full property taxes, places more of the fiscal burdens on businesses and home owners. But the larger college towns have more services because their voters place a premium on quality of life.
The mayors of all but two of these cities are Democrats. No partisan leanings are listed for the mayors of Coral Gables, Davis and Iowa City, but in two of these three cities biographical information suggests that they may lean Democratic as well. Iowa City mayor, Regenia Bailey, has been a political appointee of former Democratic governor, and current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack and also an appointee of the current Democratic governor, Chet Culver. Davis mayor, Ruth Asmundson, is considered to be a political moderate who was thought to lean Democratic during the 2008 elections.
College towns such as the ones listed here are thought to be "liberal" in their politics, yet they are considered to be among the most desirable places to live. Think a few conservative pols could learn something from that?
I looked at both lists. While they did not share any particular town in common, they both listed college towns among their top communities. The Newsmax story ranks Madison, Wisconsin second and Chapel Hill, North Carolina third. Both are not only college towns; they are also state capital regions with diverse government and private sector workforces. Georgia which rank anong the top 25. The Yahoo story ranks Boulder, Colorado first and includes the college towns of Coral Gables, Florida, Evanston, Illinois and Davis, California among its top 20.
College towns also appear high in the quality of life rankings in Money magazine. Durham, North Carolina (part of the Research Triangle along with Chapel Hill), Charlottesville, Virginia, Boise, Idaho (Boise State is Idaho's largest state university), Raleigh, North Carolina (again, part of the Research Triangle) and Iowa City, Iowa appear in their top 25.
I find it interesting that the reporters for a conservative magazine and two financial magazine ranked college towns so highly. This is an audience that often regards these communities as liberal enclaves that make extensive public investments in quality of life improvements such as quality public schools, bike paths and mass transit (almost always buses). They do not pretend to be low-tax business centers; in fact, the importance of a college, a business that does not pay full property taxes, places more of the fiscal burdens on businesses and home owners. But the larger college towns have more services because their voters place a premium on quality of life.
The mayors of all but two of these cities are Democrats. No partisan leanings are listed for the mayors of Coral Gables, Davis and Iowa City, but in two of these three cities biographical information suggests that they may lean Democratic as well. Iowa City mayor, Regenia Bailey, has been a political appointee of former Democratic governor, and current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack and also an appointee of the current Democratic governor, Chet Culver. Davis mayor, Ruth Asmundson, is considered to be a political moderate who was thought to lean Democratic during the 2008 elections.
College towns such as the ones listed here are thought to be "liberal" in their politics, yet they are considered to be among the most desirable places to live. Think a few conservative pols could learn something from that?
Stanford 40th Anniversary Celebration of Anti-War Activism Condemns Condi Rice
This morning I read an interesting story in Op-Ed News, a progressively oriented online newsletter. Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and a Stanford University alumnus, reported that 150 Stanford students and alumni gathered together; the activists were there to celebrate the 40th anniversary of their protests agant the Vietnam War. Back in the late Sixties, Stanford activists had asked the university to halt all military and economic research projects concerned with Southeast Asia.
This time the collected group targeted former Bush Administration Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for authorizing torture and misleading Americans about the Iraq War. After leaving the Bush Administration, Rice returned to Stanford to teach political science. She is also a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank that is located on the Stanford campus.
Cohn reported that she and another former Vietnam War activist nailed a petition on the university president's door which said that Rice "should be held accountable for any serious violations of the Law (included ratified treaties, statutes, and/or the U.S. Constitution) through investigation and, if the facts warrant, prosecution, by appropriate legal authorities."
No issue there; there have not been major investigations into the torture tactics approved by the Bush Administration. Only the lawyers who drafted a legal justification for torture have been subject to public scrutiny.
These activists have added that Stanford should investigate the charges against Rice. But that is the role of Congress, not the leadership of a private university. If an academic wants to research Rice's role in the U.S. entry into the war in Iraq, then fine, but that is only an academic study, not a document that a university can use to end a colleague's career.
The activist's petition stated that the university should not have "war criminals" on the faculty. The problem is that former secretary Rice has not been found guilty on anything. I am not a fan of the George W. Bush Administristration, quite the opposite, but these activists have proclaimed Rice guilty before she has had any benefit of a hearing. More surprising, they have not asked Congress to convene a hearing, although President Obama is being pressured to allow such proceedings to occur. They asked the university to take the responsibility upon themselves.
I have absolutely no objection to freedom of expression or speech. The protesters were right to say whatever they wanted, as long as the demonstration was peaceful. They got their opinion across to the president of the university; no doubt that was the objective. But Stanford has no reason to dismiss a former provost, now aan cademic colleague, based on prima facie evidence. If Rice is found wanting after a Congressional investigation and hearing, then that is another story. But that hearing has to happen first, and the findings must be public.
When I read stories like this, I see that the extreme left does not behave much differently than the extreme right. Too often pragmatic reasoning goes out the window. It might also be a reason why anti-war activists and the Democratic Party have not always connected. Their politicians are more practical than the activists.
This time the collected group targeted former Bush Administration Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for authorizing torture and misleading Americans about the Iraq War. After leaving the Bush Administration, Rice returned to Stanford to teach political science. She is also a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank that is located on the Stanford campus.
Cohn reported that she and another former Vietnam War activist nailed a petition on the university president's door which said that Rice "should be held accountable for any serious violations of the Law (included ratified treaties, statutes, and/or the U.S. Constitution) through investigation and, if the facts warrant, prosecution, by appropriate legal authorities."
No issue there; there have not been major investigations into the torture tactics approved by the Bush Administration. Only the lawyers who drafted a legal justification for torture have been subject to public scrutiny.
These activists have added that Stanford should investigate the charges against Rice. But that is the role of Congress, not the leadership of a private university. If an academic wants to research Rice's role in the U.S. entry into the war in Iraq, then fine, but that is only an academic study, not a document that a university can use to end a colleague's career.
The activist's petition stated that the university should not have "war criminals" on the faculty. The problem is that former secretary Rice has not been found guilty on anything. I am not a fan of the George W. Bush Administristration, quite the opposite, but these activists have proclaimed Rice guilty before she has had any benefit of a hearing. More surprising, they have not asked Congress to convene a hearing, although President Obama is being pressured to allow such proceedings to occur. They asked the university to take the responsibility upon themselves.
I have absolutely no objection to freedom of expression or speech. The protesters were right to say whatever they wanted, as long as the demonstration was peaceful. They got their opinion across to the president of the university; no doubt that was the objective. But Stanford has no reason to dismiss a former provost, now aan cademic colleague, based on prima facie evidence. If Rice is found wanting after a Congressional investigation and hearing, then that is another story. But that hearing has to happen first, and the findings must be public.
When I read stories like this, I see that the extreme left does not behave much differently than the extreme right. Too often pragmatic reasoning goes out the window. It might also be a reason why anti-war activists and the Democratic Party have not always connected. Their politicians are more practical than the activists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)