Today, I read about student demonstrators who have decided to occupy the student center at the University of California-Santa Cruz in protest against budget cuts in higher education. The university administration, while concerned about the inconveniences to non-participating students and a potential fire hazard, has not asked the demonstrators to leave.
I have posted numerous posts about student rights to free speech and protest. This time, I went to the site of Occupy California, the protest group, to learn more about their actions. A press release on their site stated that they had occupied the student center in Santa Cruz because "the time for pointless negotiations is over." Okay, but what are the group's demands? One post on the group's blog page reads: WE WANT EVERYTHINGbut it is written as more of an expression of frustration with "the system."
The occupation came just days after students and faculty jointly walked out of classes to protest tuition increases and faculty furloughs. While that action ran only one day it is significant because students and faculty joined together. However, Occupy California, a student organization, believes it can accomplish more by acting alone. They pose one serious threat: a protracted takeover could lead students at the other campuses to take similar steps in solidarity. But so far, no such threats have been made.
Students have occupied campus buildings in the past; some administrators had done the same while they were students. While some takeovers yielded tangible accomplishments (most notably Rutgers-Newark forty years ago), most resulted in removal by campus police or voluntary withdrawal after the TV cameras stopped rolling.
I don't know how committed Occupy California is to occupying a university building, or how well organized they are. I hope, for health's sake, that they've brought enough food with them. I don't even know how many students are involved. But I'd suggest that a better course of action is a meeting with the people who can make decisions. However, the longer Occupy California occupies a building the less likely such a meeting will happen.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Harvard's Bars on Books Raises New Questions
Today's Boston Globe has a story about bars on books in the library of Dunster House, one of Harvard's oldest on-campus residences. While not breaking news, the story has attracted 32 comments so far.
Harvard installed the bars in order to prevent further theft of rare books; the story reported that over $1 million in rare books were stolen from university collections eight and nine years ago.
The bars present a bad image; that Harvard does not trust its students, or at least those who live in Dunster, to handle rare volumes with care. But it also made me wonder:
+ Why must students handle first editions of works that have already been through numerous reprints? The photo in the story shows a picture of Franz Kafka's Trial which can be purchased in paperback at used bookstores. I do understand that some fields require a study of early works and translations, but those works should be in more secure places.
+ Why can't a university sell books that are not essentially rare--like the Kafka book in the photo--if there is a private collector ready to buy them? I understand special collections; these are truly rare items such as private papers or books that cannot be reprinted or digitized. I also understand that alumni donate books with the hope that students will read them. But college libraries cannot grow forever. If that Kafka early edition can fetch $10,000, or maybe $100,000, then I'd have two words to say: sell it.
I realize that the research reputation of a college or university is formed partly on the quality of a library. But sometimes in this digital age the college library does not need to have the rarest version of most works when a digital version will do.
Harvard installed the bars in order to prevent further theft of rare books; the story reported that over $1 million in rare books were stolen from university collections eight and nine years ago.
The bars present a bad image; that Harvard does not trust its students, or at least those who live in Dunster, to handle rare volumes with care. But it also made me wonder:
+ Why must students handle first editions of works that have already been through numerous reprints? The photo in the story shows a picture of Franz Kafka's Trial which can be purchased in paperback at used bookstores. I do understand that some fields require a study of early works and translations, but those works should be in more secure places.
+ Why can't a university sell books that are not essentially rare--like the Kafka book in the photo--if there is a private collector ready to buy them? I understand special collections; these are truly rare items such as private papers or books that cannot be reprinted or digitized. I also understand that alumni donate books with the hope that students will read them. But college libraries cannot grow forever. If that Kafka early edition can fetch $10,000, or maybe $100,000, then I'd have two words to say: sell it.
I realize that the research reputation of a college or university is formed partly on the quality of a library. But sometimes in this digital age the college library does not need to have the rarest version of most works when a digital version will do.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Congress Should Not Rein in Football Coaches Salaries
Today, I read an op-ed by New York lawyer Benjamin Rosenberg, who calls for Congress to withhold federal research funds from colleges and universities that pay, on average, more to their football and basketball coaches than they pay tenured professors.
I don't understand the logic of such a proposal: to ask Congress to punish the people who need the money the most because the head football coach earns a high salary. All this would do is force the more serious scholars to seek employment elsewhere. If one measures scholarship by the quality of research produced by their faculty then Rosenberg's proposal would diminish faculty quality. Not to mention that Congress, by such a decision, would be indirect participants in the governance of large public universities. I know of no politician who wants to go in that direction.
I went to Rutgers, a university that pays the head football coach approximately $2 million. He also gets a house and numerous benefits. But he has also done what the university has asked him to do: win football games and recruit athletes who graduate and become a credit to the university. The football coach is responsible for 90 men on scholarship as well as a host of other support staff. He is the face of the football program and does more than his fair share of fund raising. His job is secure, only as long as he wins football games and puts fans in the seats.
Now, I could frame Mr. Rosenberg's debate a little differently. Would I prefer to pay the football coach over twenty tenured professors who raise little in the way of research money for their academic interests, delegate grading and small class recitations to poorly paid adjuncts, and attract few students to their classes or academic departments? This might seem like an unattractive trade-off, but it is a decision that university presidents face at budget time. Personally, if the football coach has been everything I hoped, I vote in his favor.
If academic leaders, voters and lawmakers are so concerned about the salary of the football or basketball coach, then they have to find a way to deal with the source: the university's athletic department. Athletic department fundraising is separate from the fundraising efforts of the rest of the university. They have their own contacts as well as access to corporate sponsorships.
In theory, the athletic department should raise all of the money it needs to:
+ Pay coaches salaries
+ Cover the costs of athletic scholarships to students
+ Maintain a sports program that is in compliance with federal Title IX statutes
+ Manage sports facilities, medical and travel arrangements for athletes
+ Pay support staff
The issue is not the head coach's salary as much as the operating deficit of the athletic program. No athletic program should run a deficit, but more important, no university should go into another budget to cover it. If a state inspector general discovers such a deception then the university and state government can deal with it. An act of Congress is not necessary.
I don't understand the logic of such a proposal: to ask Congress to punish the people who need the money the most because the head football coach earns a high salary. All this would do is force the more serious scholars to seek employment elsewhere. If one measures scholarship by the quality of research produced by their faculty then Rosenberg's proposal would diminish faculty quality. Not to mention that Congress, by such a decision, would be indirect participants in the governance of large public universities. I know of no politician who wants to go in that direction.
I went to Rutgers, a university that pays the head football coach approximately $2 million. He also gets a house and numerous benefits. But he has also done what the university has asked him to do: win football games and recruit athletes who graduate and become a credit to the university. The football coach is responsible for 90 men on scholarship as well as a host of other support staff. He is the face of the football program and does more than his fair share of fund raising. His job is secure, only as long as he wins football games and puts fans in the seats.
Now, I could frame Mr. Rosenberg's debate a little differently. Would I prefer to pay the football coach over twenty tenured professors who raise little in the way of research money for their academic interests, delegate grading and small class recitations to poorly paid adjuncts, and attract few students to their classes or academic departments? This might seem like an unattractive trade-off, but it is a decision that university presidents face at budget time. Personally, if the football coach has been everything I hoped, I vote in his favor.
If academic leaders, voters and lawmakers are so concerned about the salary of the football or basketball coach, then they have to find a way to deal with the source: the university's athletic department. Athletic department fundraising is separate from the fundraising efforts of the rest of the university. They have their own contacts as well as access to corporate sponsorships.
In theory, the athletic department should raise all of the money it needs to:
+ Pay coaches salaries
+ Cover the costs of athletic scholarships to students
+ Maintain a sports program that is in compliance with federal Title IX statutes
+ Manage sports facilities, medical and travel arrangements for athletes
+ Pay support staff
The issue is not the head coach's salary as much as the operating deficit of the athletic program. No athletic program should run a deficit, but more important, no university should go into another budget to cover it. If a state inspector general discovers such a deception then the university and state government can deal with it. An act of Congress is not necessary.
Denying David Horowitz's Right to Speak is Foolish
I know that I haven't posted for a little while, but I had some personal obligations to attend to: an educational program and a Bar Mitzvah, both quite enjoyable.
Today, I came back to read that the St. Louis University (MO) administration has decided to block an October appearance by conservative activist David Horowitz. I have reviewed one of Horowitz's books on Educated Quest, so I read the story further.
According to the story, Horowitz's appearance has been blocked because The event -- "An Evening with David Horowitz: Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights" -- in its current form could be viewed as attacking another faith and seeking to cause derision on campus.
I've never considered radical Islam to be a religion, but jihad has been interpreted as a call for an Islamic state, without saying where such a state would be whether it be in the Middle East or spanning the globe. I'm sure that Horowitz would clear this up in his talk without hints of sensationalism. He is not so much interested in challenging religion as he is in discussing a very powerful global political movement.
What bothers me more is that the university administration compounded the problem. University officials offered the students several suggestions to modify their program in a way that could achieve their aims while remaining true to the university's Catholic, Jesuit mission and values. Among the suggestions was that the students engage scholars with expertise on historical and theological aspects of Islam to help prepare their program.
Why should Horowitz participate in a modified program? He is not qualified as a religious scholar, nor is he marketing himself as one. He is certainly not qualified to engage one or two of them in debate over religion. And if Horowitz were to refute religious scholars in a public forum, where he has persuasive skills, then he might influence students in a direction opposite to the intentions of the university administration. Not to mention that the university administration, by their actions, has tried to take actions to suppress ideas that they do not want their students to hear.
David Horowitz has strong views. I don't always agree with them, but at the same time I would never suppress his speeches. Freedom of speech is a right granted to all Americans under the Constitution, and Horowitz is an American citizen. He is not an enemy of the people, only those who strongly disagree with him.
By contrast, I look at Columbia University's decision to allow Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. Columbia not only gave Ahmadinejad a forum, but the university president also made these requests to Ahmadinejad:
+ Release a Columbia PhD who would be offered a position on the faculty upon his safe return
+ Allow a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address Iranian universities about free speech
+ Answer as to whether the Iranian president planned on wipe 400 colleges and universities off the map for opposing a boycott of Israeli speakers on their campuses
+ Explain why Iran directly supported known terrorist organizations
I look back to the presidential debates where Barack Obama and John McCain argued over preparation versus pre-existing conditions with respect to talks with Iran. I wonder, if such discussions are so sensitive, why did a college president with no authority over U.S. foreign policy act the way he did?
But further, why was Columbia allowed to invite Ahmadinejad in the first place? You won't get much arguments from all walks of political life that he, unlike Horowitz, is perceived to be an enemy of the United States.
Today, I came back to read that the St. Louis University (MO) administration has decided to block an October appearance by conservative activist David Horowitz. I have reviewed one of Horowitz's books on Educated Quest, so I read the story further.
According to the story, Horowitz's appearance has been blocked because The event -- "An Evening with David Horowitz: Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights" -- in its current form could be viewed as attacking another faith and seeking to cause derision on campus.
I've never considered radical Islam to be a religion, but jihad has been interpreted as a call for an Islamic state, without saying where such a state would be whether it be in the Middle East or spanning the globe. I'm sure that Horowitz would clear this up in his talk without hints of sensationalism. He is not so much interested in challenging religion as he is in discussing a very powerful global political movement.
What bothers me more is that the university administration compounded the problem. University officials offered the students several suggestions to modify their program in a way that could achieve their aims while remaining true to the university's Catholic, Jesuit mission and values. Among the suggestions was that the students engage scholars with expertise on historical and theological aspects of Islam to help prepare their program.
Why should Horowitz participate in a modified program? He is not qualified as a religious scholar, nor is he marketing himself as one. He is certainly not qualified to engage one or two of them in debate over religion. And if Horowitz were to refute religious scholars in a public forum, where he has persuasive skills, then he might influence students in a direction opposite to the intentions of the university administration. Not to mention that the university administration, by their actions, has tried to take actions to suppress ideas that they do not want their students to hear.
David Horowitz has strong views. I don't always agree with them, but at the same time I would never suppress his speeches. Freedom of speech is a right granted to all Americans under the Constitution, and Horowitz is an American citizen. He is not an enemy of the people, only those who strongly disagree with him.
By contrast, I look at Columbia University's decision to allow Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. Columbia not only gave Ahmadinejad a forum, but the university president also made these requests to Ahmadinejad:
+ Release a Columbia PhD who would be offered a position on the faculty upon his safe return
+ Allow a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address Iranian universities about free speech
+ Answer as to whether the Iranian president planned on wipe 400 colleges and universities off the map for opposing a boycott of Israeli speakers on their campuses
+ Explain why Iran directly supported known terrorist organizations
I look back to the presidential debates where Barack Obama and John McCain argued over preparation versus pre-existing conditions with respect to talks with Iran. I wonder, if such discussions are so sensitive, why did a college president with no authority over U.S. foreign policy act the way he did?
But further, why was Columbia allowed to invite Ahmadinejad in the first place? You won't get much arguments from all walks of political life that he, unlike Horowitz, is perceived to be an enemy of the United States.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
College Football Hall of Fame Needs New Home
Today I read on Bleacher Report, an online newsletter, that the College Football Hall of Fame is seeking a new home. Currently based in South Bend, Indiana, home of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, the Hall's attendance is supposedly suffering with the local economy.
So, a search will be on for a new home, and more than one writer has already mentioned Atlanta.
While is true that Atlanta has many assets: the city is host to the SEC Championship Game as well as the Chick-fil-A Bowl (formerly the Peach Bowl); it is home to Georgia Tech, a school with a notable football history, and it is considered the commercial capital of the South. But other cities should be considered, too.
There have been too many mistakes in the siting of sports halls of fame. Baseball's hall is located in Cooperstown, New York because of the generosity of a family foundation. But if Major League Baseball wanted to maximize attendance it would have placed the Hall of Fame in New York City; it's a city of baseball champions and a year-round tourist destination.
Pro football's hall is in Canton Ohio; the early teams played there and Ohio has been an important state for the game. The old Cleveland Browns were one of the most successful franchises. But that hall should be in Chicago because the Bears have won the most championships and George Halas, the late owner and coach, was the most important pioneer in the league.
Basketball's hall is in Springfield, Massachusetts; the game was founded there, but the downtown is not exactly a tourist spot. The Celtics have the most championships, so Boston should probably host the hall. Then again, the citizens of Boston have yet to name a street or plaza after Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Dave Cowens or Larry Bird who brought the city so many of those titles.
Hockey's hall is in Toronto, which makes perfect sense. Hockey is Canada's national pastime. Montreal's Canadians have the winning tradition, but English is the language in the remaining Original Six cities (Boston, Chicago, Detroit, New York and Toronto) in professional hockey. So, the largest English-speaking city in Canada gets the hall.
South Bend seemed like a good fit for college football's hall. There are more inductees from Notre Dame than any other college. The place is likely to be busy on football weekends with fans of the visiting team, but that's going to be only six or seven weekends a year. South Bend is not a tourist destination the rest of the time, unless you count prospective Notre Dame students and their families.
So, what other cities could host the hall, besides Atlanta? The host should have ties to college football as well as other tourist attractions. It should also be a place with choices of lodging at all prices, and it should be in a place people would visit outside of football season. Supposedly, Dallas is interested but it is not a year-round tourist center.
New York is home to the Heisman Trophy, but hosts no major college football team. You have to travel an hour to Rutgers or West Point to see a game. But there are historical ties to the game when you consider the region. Rutgers is the birthplace of college football. Princeton and Yale were dominant powers in the late 19th and early 20th century and three Heisman winners and three national championship teams have come from West Point. Army-Notre Dame games in Yankee Stadium were major events. Rutgers has the land for a new hall, but New Brunswick and Piscataway are not weekend tourist destinations. Few remember the dominance of Army, Princeton and Yale in the sport. Not to mention that land in the Big Apple is ultra-expensive, unless a major developer like Donald Trump is willing to be a benefactor.
Austin, Texas would be an interesting place, given Texas' success in football and the added attraction of being a music capital for the Southwest. Unlike the other Big 12 cities, Austin is a nice weekend destination outside football season. But the city lacks a major airport.
Pasadena, California has the Rose Bowl, the Grand Daddy of them all, USC and UCLA are loaded with football tradition, and the sunny weather brings the tourists in year-round. Tours of the Rose Bowl could provide added appeal to a college football hall of fame. The only negative is the traffic on the freeways.
Orlando or Tampa, Florida. Both have warm weather, tourism and bowl games, but no long standing ties to college football history.
Atlanta is not a bad place to have the Hall, but Pasadena is more appealing. I like the idea of the Hall in a warm-weather tourist center adjacent to one of its most hallowed stadiums.
So, a search will be on for a new home, and more than one writer has already mentioned Atlanta.
While is true that Atlanta has many assets: the city is host to the SEC Championship Game as well as the Chick-fil-A Bowl (formerly the Peach Bowl); it is home to Georgia Tech, a school with a notable football history, and it is considered the commercial capital of the South. But other cities should be considered, too.
There have been too many mistakes in the siting of sports halls of fame. Baseball's hall is located in Cooperstown, New York because of the generosity of a family foundation. But if Major League Baseball wanted to maximize attendance it would have placed the Hall of Fame in New York City; it's a city of baseball champions and a year-round tourist destination.
Pro football's hall is in Canton Ohio; the early teams played there and Ohio has been an important state for the game. The old Cleveland Browns were one of the most successful franchises. But that hall should be in Chicago because the Bears have won the most championships and George Halas, the late owner and coach, was the most important pioneer in the league.
Basketball's hall is in Springfield, Massachusetts; the game was founded there, but the downtown is not exactly a tourist spot. The Celtics have the most championships, so Boston should probably host the hall. Then again, the citizens of Boston have yet to name a street or plaza after Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Dave Cowens or Larry Bird who brought the city so many of those titles.
Hockey's hall is in Toronto, which makes perfect sense. Hockey is Canada's national pastime. Montreal's Canadians have the winning tradition, but English is the language in the remaining Original Six cities (Boston, Chicago, Detroit, New York and Toronto) in professional hockey. So, the largest English-speaking city in Canada gets the hall.
South Bend seemed like a good fit for college football's hall. There are more inductees from Notre Dame than any other college. The place is likely to be busy on football weekends with fans of the visiting team, but that's going to be only six or seven weekends a year. South Bend is not a tourist destination the rest of the time, unless you count prospective Notre Dame students and their families.
So, what other cities could host the hall, besides Atlanta? The host should have ties to college football as well as other tourist attractions. It should also be a place with choices of lodging at all prices, and it should be in a place people would visit outside of football season. Supposedly, Dallas is interested but it is not a year-round tourist center.
New York is home to the Heisman Trophy, but hosts no major college football team. You have to travel an hour to Rutgers or West Point to see a game. But there are historical ties to the game when you consider the region. Rutgers is the birthplace of college football. Princeton and Yale were dominant powers in the late 19th and early 20th century and three Heisman winners and three national championship teams have come from West Point. Army-Notre Dame games in Yankee Stadium were major events. Rutgers has the land for a new hall, but New Brunswick and Piscataway are not weekend tourist destinations. Few remember the dominance of Army, Princeton and Yale in the sport. Not to mention that land in the Big Apple is ultra-expensive, unless a major developer like Donald Trump is willing to be a benefactor.
Austin, Texas would be an interesting place, given Texas' success in football and the added attraction of being a music capital for the Southwest. Unlike the other Big 12 cities, Austin is a nice weekend destination outside football season. But the city lacks a major airport.
Pasadena, California has the Rose Bowl, the Grand Daddy of them all, USC and UCLA are loaded with football tradition, and the sunny weather brings the tourists in year-round. Tours of the Rose Bowl could provide added appeal to a college football hall of fame. The only negative is the traffic on the freeways.
Orlando or Tampa, Florida. Both have warm weather, tourism and bowl games, but no long standing ties to college football history.
Atlanta is not a bad place to have the Hall, but Pasadena is more appealing. I like the idea of the Hall in a warm-weather tourist center adjacent to one of its most hallowed stadiums.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The No-Frills College Experience
Today, I am reading a Washington Monthly interview with Paul LeBlanc, president of Southern New Hampshire University, a private, non-profit institution in the Granite State.
The university opened a satellite campus in an office park offering small classes and personal attention, but none of the amenities or extra-curricular activities found on a residential campus including dormitories, a student center, dining hall or sports program. Charging $10,000 per year, or one third the expenses of a residential college education, the satellite campus opened to serve the needs of 35 non-traditional, aka adult or working, students.
A no-frills education is not an unusual concept. State university systems and private colleges have operated satellite campuses for decades. Rutgers, my alma mater has operated a University College in several New Jersey cities and the graduate business school has locations in multiple office parks as well as a main campus. Today, advances in laptop computers, the declining costs of these machines and Internet capabilities make a no-frills education more attractive than ever.
What is more remarkable is that LeBlanc passed on the savings, the costs of providing all of the amenities in a residential campus experience, of a new frills education to his students. And he saw that there were plenty of non-traditional students willing to bank the difference.
The university opened a satellite campus in an office park offering small classes and personal attention, but none of the amenities or extra-curricular activities found on a residential campus including dormitories, a student center, dining hall or sports program. Charging $10,000 per year, or one third the expenses of a residential college education, the satellite campus opened to serve the needs of 35 non-traditional, aka adult or working, students.
A no-frills education is not an unusual concept. State university systems and private colleges have operated satellite campuses for decades. Rutgers, my alma mater has operated a University College in several New Jersey cities and the graduate business school has locations in multiple office parks as well as a main campus. Today, advances in laptop computers, the declining costs of these machines and Internet capabilities make a no-frills education more attractive than ever.
What is more remarkable is that LeBlanc passed on the savings, the costs of providing all of the amenities in a residential campus experience, of a new frills education to his students. And he saw that there were plenty of non-traditional students willing to bank the difference.
Book Review: Shooting Stars by Lebron James and Buzz Bissinger
Shop Indie Bookstores
Buzz Bissinger is one of my favorite non-fiction writers. He leads the life that am I trying to lead, alternating between stories about politics (A Prayer for the City) and sports (Friday Night Lights and Three Nights in August). All three of these books remain on my shelves.
Shooting Stars, a story of the pre-NBA Lebron James and his teammates from grade school through high school is, however, different from the three previous Bissinger titles. For one thing, it is written in first person with James, aka King James, as the narrator. Bissinger appears to be in the background listening, and quite possibly editing him.
Shooting Stars is not so much a bio of James (at least one has already been written) as it is the story of a "Fab Five" who managed to stay together. It is a story of a top team that was asked to do more than most parents would expect high school students to do: play a national schedule of games while acting like adults.
James does not come across as the most mature of athletes in this book; he took jerseys from a sporting good store owner and obtained a Hummer SUV through a loan signed by his mother, both incidents that could have cost him his high school eligibility let along a shot at college, if the pros had not become an option. However, throughout the story, aside from these incidents, he appeared to appreciate the chances to be on the same team with close friends for several years. At the end of this story, I had to respect him for that.
It was also interesting that James was not the only member of his team to taste success. All of his teammates went on to college, two on football scholarships, two to play basketball in front of their hometown friends at the University of Akron. His first high school coach went on to the college ranks--he had previously lost a college job through a racial slur--and his second is still successful while running Jame's summer tournament.
If these is one book that will take you inside the day-to-day life of a top high school basketball player within an elite parochial school program, look no further. Like it or not, this story tells the present and near future of the sport.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Why The Fuss About Immigrant Children In Community College?
Last week the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that North Carolina's State Board of Community Colleges voted to reverse a policy of not allowing the children of illegal immigrants to attend its institutions. This policy, approved by a vote of 16-1 allows children of illegal immigrants to attend a community college if:
1. Are a graduate of a U.S. high school
2. Pay out-of-state tuition, totaling $4,400 per academic year.
3. Do not displace a North Carolina or U.S. resident from a class or program
On one hand, the board allowed new students, but on the other hand, they discriminated against them in the admissions process. They asked one group of students, who are ineligible for financial aid, to pay more than their classmates.
The high school graduate requirement also assumes that their home community allowed them to attend the local high school or a similar accredited private college. What if the student had earned a GED after being absent from a traditional high school at a younger age? This is an important question because the community colleges administer the GED in North Carolina.
The third condition, non-displacement, essentially means that one group of students is assured to have a smaller choice of classes than the rest of the students, for a non-academic reason. Anyone who attended college knows that registration classes in the popular majors close out early. This condition essentially says: you're welcome to come as long as you don't become, for example, a business or nursing major.
And what if such students get a job and pay taxes, since they want to have more secure roots in the community and become citizens. Should they be denied an education that would help them succeed?
I do not believe the schools ask for policies like these, especially a community college. They go against a primary mission of such schools: to provide accessible and affordable educational opportunities for disadvantaged students.
I will not discuss the motivations of non-educators who support such policies. That discussion is not worth your time or mine.
1. Are a graduate of a U.S. high school
2. Pay out-of-state tuition, totaling $4,400 per academic year.
3. Do not displace a North Carolina or U.S. resident from a class or program
On one hand, the board allowed new students, but on the other hand, they discriminated against them in the admissions process. They asked one group of students, who are ineligible for financial aid, to pay more than their classmates.
The high school graduate requirement also assumes that their home community allowed them to attend the local high school or a similar accredited private college. What if the student had earned a GED after being absent from a traditional high school at a younger age? This is an important question because the community colleges administer the GED in North Carolina.
The third condition, non-displacement, essentially means that one group of students is assured to have a smaller choice of classes than the rest of the students, for a non-academic reason. Anyone who attended college knows that registration classes in the popular majors close out early. This condition essentially says: you're welcome to come as long as you don't become, for example, a business or nursing major.
And what if such students get a job and pay taxes, since they want to have more secure roots in the community and become citizens. Should they be denied an education that would help them succeed?
I do not believe the schools ask for policies like these, especially a community college. They go against a primary mission of such schools: to provide accessible and affordable educational opportunities for disadvantaged students.
I will not discuss the motivations of non-educators who support such policies. That discussion is not worth your time or mine.
A Trenton Educational Landmark Must Be Set in a New Direction
It's been more than two and half years since I took a public tour of Trenton Central High School. Built in 1932, the high school is approximately 380,000 square feet; imagine three Wal-Marts stacked one atop the other. It has a library with a chandelier, four gymnasiums,two theaters with one being the equal equipment-wise of Broadway theatres of the day, and a swimming pool. There was also a two-room model apartment for home economics instruction. The school's main entrance is imposing, quite similar to a college administration building or the corporate offices of a financial services company.
Today, I read an editorial in our hometown Trenton Times. Written by Tony Persichilli, a lifelong resident and former news writer, the editorial called for the restoration of the high school. He believes that history should be preserved, not destroyed. For the most part I agree, but this school building has serious water damage from the room to the basement. A structural rehabilitation of the entire building might not be possible.
I was an urban planner for eight years, and I know that old school buildings can be rehabilitated. I have to travel only two miles to see a successful example of an old school converted to condominium homes. The old buildings have high ceilings and stronger floors than newer ones. They can be adapted to handle computers as well as a more modern HVAC system. As long as the money is there. One New Jersey news story mentioned that the cost to replace the school was $150 million. I do not know if rehabilitation would be less expensive.
But I also see the value in protecting the history: it reminds the current students and their families where they came from. It makes them feel prouder about the school, and they are not left with the impression that they are being "warehoused" for four years. However, students have been relocated to other buildings because parts of this 1932 campus could not be occupied.
Half-way solutions are never popular, but I going to propose one.
Rehabilitate the original building (including the front entrance area, the main auditorium and the library space) and knock down the wings. Make this the new headquarters for the school system. Put a Hall of Fame in the building and host graduation and theatre, too. The school board and the superintendent's offices occupies a newer, but far less attractive, building that is unflattering to its mission. Put them in a historic landmark and the administration has a chance to cast a more positive outlook on the public. Trenton public schools are not in the best academic shape, through there are some bright spots, including a foundation.
Trenton deserves some protection for its history. But its high school students deserve more modern classrooms and labs. They don't need four gyms and a swimming pool next to water-damaged spaces.
Today, I read an editorial in our hometown Trenton Times. Written by Tony Persichilli, a lifelong resident and former news writer, the editorial called for the restoration of the high school. He believes that history should be preserved, not destroyed. For the most part I agree, but this school building has serious water damage from the room to the basement. A structural rehabilitation of the entire building might not be possible.
I was an urban planner for eight years, and I know that old school buildings can be rehabilitated. I have to travel only two miles to see a successful example of an old school converted to condominium homes. The old buildings have high ceilings and stronger floors than newer ones. They can be adapted to handle computers as well as a more modern HVAC system. As long as the money is there. One New Jersey news story mentioned that the cost to replace the school was $150 million. I do not know if rehabilitation would be less expensive.
But I also see the value in protecting the history: it reminds the current students and their families where they came from. It makes them feel prouder about the school, and they are not left with the impression that they are being "warehoused" for four years. However, students have been relocated to other buildings because parts of this 1932 campus could not be occupied.
Half-way solutions are never popular, but I going to propose one.
Rehabilitate the original building (including the front entrance area, the main auditorium and the library space) and knock down the wings. Make this the new headquarters for the school system. Put a Hall of Fame in the building and host graduation and theatre, too. The school board and the superintendent's offices occupies a newer, but far less attractive, building that is unflattering to its mission. Put them in a historic landmark and the administration has a chance to cast a more positive outlook on the public. Trenton public schools are not in the best academic shape, through there are some bright spots, including a foundation.
Trenton deserves some protection for its history. But its high school students deserve more modern classrooms and labs. They don't need four gyms and a swimming pool next to water-damaged spaces.
Stevens Tech, The Lawsuit, Part II, The Complaint is Posted
Kudos to the Chronicle of Higher Education. Last week, their story provided a link to the New Jersey Attorney General's complaint against Stevens Institute of Technology while our local news sites did not.
The complaint mentions 16 counts of financial mismanagement into the auditing and endowment management practices of the Institute, as well as excessive compensation. While I hold to an earlier point: state government cannot and should not be allowed to set compensation for a privately-funded corporation, it can investigate the school's accounting and financial decision-making practices, as well as the conduct of its board of trustees as it relates to these issues.
The complaint cites is well worth the read for anyone to know how an institution could spend itself into perceived, but not necessarily true, prosperity. There are examples of how restricted monies were reprogrammed for other purposes, something that a college board of trustees cannot do, and in one example, where a donation to manage a scholarship program was actually returned because it could not awarded in accordance with the donor's intentions.
The attorney general has also contended that Steven's board does not have the power to make low interest or no interest loans to the chief executive. One point brought out in the complaint, but not reported by NJ.com was that the board of trustees voted to forgive the loans. This is irresponsible, considering the university's operating deficit and poor bond rating.
The burden of proof is obviously on the attorney general, but it would be in the best interest of the school if President Raveche and the board members involved in the audit, finance and endowment decisions were to resign so that a lawsuit does not go forward.
However, the university faculty, not the state, should appoint an interim president to manage the academic direction of the school while the financial irregularities are resolved. In order to maintain public confidence the next president should be a gentleman and a scholar. And he should not be foolish enough to ask his board for a mortgage.
The complaint mentions 16 counts of financial mismanagement into the auditing and endowment management practices of the Institute, as well as excessive compensation. While I hold to an earlier point: state government cannot and should not be allowed to set compensation for a privately-funded corporation, it can investigate the school's accounting and financial decision-making practices, as well as the conduct of its board of trustees as it relates to these issues.
The complaint cites is well worth the read for anyone to know how an institution could spend itself into perceived, but not necessarily true, prosperity. There are examples of how restricted monies were reprogrammed for other purposes, something that a college board of trustees cannot do, and in one example, where a donation to manage a scholarship program was actually returned because it could not awarded in accordance with the donor's intentions.
The attorney general has also contended that Steven's board does not have the power to make low interest or no interest loans to the chief executive. One point brought out in the complaint, but not reported by NJ.com was that the board of trustees voted to forgive the loans. This is irresponsible, considering the university's operating deficit and poor bond rating.
The burden of proof is obviously on the attorney general, but it would be in the best interest of the school if President Raveche and the board members involved in the audit, finance and endowment decisions were to resign so that a lawsuit does not go forward.
However, the university faculty, not the state, should appoint an interim president to manage the academic direction of the school while the financial irregularities are resolved. In order to maintain public confidence the next president should be a gentleman and a scholar. And he should not be foolish enough to ask his board for a mortgage.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Should an Engineering Student Pay More Than a Liberal Arts Major?
Today I am reading a Los Angeles Times story about various student fee increases that have received reluctant support from the University of California Board of Regents. As you'll see in the story, the proposed increases are extreme. Then again, so is California's financial crisis.
One proposal that has been considered, but not yet approved, is to charge undergraduate upperclassmen majoring in business or engineering an extra $900 a year in tuition or fees (the story did not say which). Oddly enough, that makes sense, given the greater market for graduates with these pre-professional majors, their compensation potential and the international reputation of the University of California schools.
Even given the other proposed fee increases, an engineering student would pay less than half the cost of going to Cal Tech or MIT and the business student would pay less than half the costs of going to Wharton--while having the opportunity to compete for the same jobs.
I do not believe that an extra $1,800 over two years would discourage Berkeley or UCLA students from completing their degrees or, that it would force them into changing their major for something "less expensive."
But I would like make some suggestions on where the extra fees should be spent:
+ First, some should be redistributed to students from economically disadvantaged families, so that more of them are likely to complete these degrees.
+ Second, some should be invested into tutoring and academic counseling to help accomplish the above.
+ Third, a university with an international reputation should have recruiters who can call on employers around the world and capitalize on a vast alumni network. California has the largest economy of all the states, and one of the largest economies in the world, but Golden State employers will not be able to hire all of the graduates for years. So, the university's career services should be global and among the best.
+ Fourth, these schools should hire the best fundraisers they can to expand the pool of money to continue the first three actions. The extra $1,800 the students will be asked to pay today cannot be increased beyond inflation forever.
One proposal that has been considered, but not yet approved, is to charge undergraduate upperclassmen majoring in business or engineering an extra $900 a year in tuition or fees (the story did not say which). Oddly enough, that makes sense, given the greater market for graduates with these pre-professional majors, their compensation potential and the international reputation of the University of California schools.
Even given the other proposed fee increases, an engineering student would pay less than half the cost of going to Cal Tech or MIT and the business student would pay less than half the costs of going to Wharton--while having the opportunity to compete for the same jobs.
I do not believe that an extra $1,800 over two years would discourage Berkeley or UCLA students from completing their degrees or, that it would force them into changing their major for something "less expensive."
But I would like make some suggestions on where the extra fees should be spent:
+ First, some should be redistributed to students from economically disadvantaged families, so that more of them are likely to complete these degrees.
+ Second, some should be invested into tutoring and academic counseling to help accomplish the above.
+ Third, a university with an international reputation should have recruiters who can call on employers around the world and capitalize on a vast alumni network. California has the largest economy of all the states, and one of the largest economies in the world, but Golden State employers will not be able to hire all of the graduates for years. So, the university's career services should be global and among the best.
+ Fourth, these schools should hire the best fundraisers they can to expand the pool of money to continue the first three actions. The extra $1,800 the students will be asked to pay today cannot be increased beyond inflation forever.
Book Review: Gridiron Gauntlet, The Story of the Men Who Integrated Pro Football by Andy Piascik
Shop Indie Bookstores
Today the road from college to professional football begins in training schools and scouting combines, but sixty years ago the road for an African American football player was paved with many bumps. Gridiron Gauntlet, tells the stories of twelve players who forded over them.
After World War II pro football, unlike major league baseball, was re-integrated. African American players were allowed to play in the early years of the National Football League from the 1920s through 1934, but were later excluded from the game for 13 years. The re-integration of pro football, however, took place in 1946, one year before Jackie Robinson broke the color line in major league baseball. Four players joined the Los Angeles Rams and the Cleveland Browns, who were among the better teams in not one, but two professional football leagues.
Unlike the baseball players, football players could benefit from the formation of a new professional football league. Founded in 1946 by Chicago sportswriter Arch Ward, the All American Football Conference (AAFC) lasted four seasons. The best team, the Cleveland Browns was one of three to join the NFL and they were champions in the senior league from the start.
In addition, from reading these stories, coaches like Paul Brown in Cleveland and Buck Shaw with the San Francisco Forty Niners (first of the AAFC, then later the NFL) were familiar with the African American players from their college days or from their play on military base teams.
Military bases formed teams comprised of college starts during World War II, frequently played college teams and they were ranked along with colleges in the polls. One player in this book, Joe "The Jet" Perry played only one year of college football for a junior college before joining the Navy. He was offered a contract with the Forty Niners off his play on the Naval base team.
College decisions were different as well. Choices were limited to historically black schools as well as colleges and universities outside of the South and Southwest. A player from North Carolina might go to North Carolina Central or North Carolina A&T or find themselves playing up north at a school like Michigan or Michigan State.
It was also interesting to read that these players knew that they had to prepare for life after football before they signed a pro contract; the sport was far from the lucrative game that it is today. Today's athletes are encouraged to plan, but they so many work full-time on their sports in the off season, because of the money at stake.
It's very hard for an oral history to go wrong when the author allows his subjects to open up. Gridiron Gauntlet is a fine example of such an oral history.
New Jersey Attorney General Overstepping Bounds on Stevens Tech
Today I read a story on NJ.com that New Jersey's attorney general plans to file a lawsuit today against Stevens Institute of Technology, charging the school with fiscal impropriety and seeking to remove its top two leaders. A teo-year investigation has revealed perceived misappropriation of endowment funds and excessive compensation.
The story goes on to cite the compensation of the president of the school as well as a personal loan granted by the Steven's board of trustees for the president to purchase and renovate two vacation homes in Vermont and on the Jersey Shore. The attorney general says that she has the legal authority to investigate and try the school because the state has the right to regulate non-profit corporations such as privately funded colleges and universities.
I was in agreement with the attorney general on a prior post about JuicyCampus, a now-defunct college student gossip site that allowed students to post unflattering comments about their classmates. However, I am split on this decision.
So I believe that the board of a college should lend money to its president for vacation homes? No, but there is nothing illegal about it. Even publicly funded universities have provided mortgage assistance to administrators, star professors and football coaches. Corporations grant low-interest, and even no-interest loans to board members. Is it morally despicable in these economic times? Yes, but it is not illegal.
The loans, however, are the only misappropriation mentioned in this story. If the president pulled from an academic budget line to buy a house that would be a different, and also a more embarrassing story. In that situation the president would likely resign before any lawsuit could happen.
The story cites the university president's compensation at $1.8 million. But it also acknowledges that the university has gotten a lot for its money. The current president has boosted enrollment,increased the endowment, and expanded the research agenda. He's been at the helm for 22 years; few boards give a president that much time to solve a school's problems.
The attorney general can says what she wants, but she cannot tell a private university board what to pay their president anymore than she can tell the Rutgers Board of Governors what to pay their football coach. She can address issues of impropriety, for instance if the president had misused state or federal funds, but that has not been mentioned. The state's office of the inspector general has investigated public university spending over the past year, but that is within his authority because all of the spending involves public employees or public money.
There might be one hitch, however. According to this story, the president proposed an ambitious spending plan in 2003, just as the rating services became concerned about the school's financial picture and the school was running an $8.5 million deficit.
The story does not say how the school's bond ratings improved four years later. If there is a black hole in the financial picture, however, it has not been revealed yet. If there was evidence of a misuse of revenues or improper accounting in the attorney general's two-year investigation, then there will be a new story.
The story goes on to cite the compensation of the president of the school as well as a personal loan granted by the Steven's board of trustees for the president to purchase and renovate two vacation homes in Vermont and on the Jersey Shore. The attorney general says that she has the legal authority to investigate and try the school because the state has the right to regulate non-profit corporations such as privately funded colleges and universities.
I was in agreement with the attorney general on a prior post about JuicyCampus, a now-defunct college student gossip site that allowed students to post unflattering comments about their classmates. However, I am split on this decision.
So I believe that the board of a college should lend money to its president for vacation homes? No, but there is nothing illegal about it. Even publicly funded universities have provided mortgage assistance to administrators, star professors and football coaches. Corporations grant low-interest, and even no-interest loans to board members. Is it morally despicable in these economic times? Yes, but it is not illegal.
The loans, however, are the only misappropriation mentioned in this story. If the president pulled from an academic budget line to buy a house that would be a different, and also a more embarrassing story. In that situation the president would likely resign before any lawsuit could happen.
The story cites the university president's compensation at $1.8 million. But it also acknowledges that the university has gotten a lot for its money. The current president has boosted enrollment,increased the endowment, and expanded the research agenda. He's been at the helm for 22 years; few boards give a president that much time to solve a school's problems.
The attorney general can says what she wants, but she cannot tell a private university board what to pay their president anymore than she can tell the Rutgers Board of Governors what to pay their football coach. She can address issues of impropriety, for instance if the president had misused state or federal funds, but that has not been mentioned. The state's office of the inspector general has investigated public university spending over the past year, but that is within his authority because all of the spending involves public employees or public money.
There might be one hitch, however. According to this story, the president proposed an ambitious spending plan in 2003, just as the rating services became concerned about the school's financial picture and the school was running an $8.5 million deficit.
The story does not say how the school's bond ratings improved four years later. If there is a black hole in the financial picture, however, it has not been revealed yet. If there was evidence of a misuse of revenues or improper accounting in the attorney general's two-year investigation, then there will be a new story.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Book Review: Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada's Quest to Change Harlem and America by Paul Tough
Shop Indie Bookstores
Whatever It Takes is a story of the history and progress of Harlem's Children's Zone, a ninety-seven block laboratory of ideas related to parenting and education. Inspired by its success, President Obama has vowed to duplicate the Children's Zone in twenty cities. But the success of Harlem's Children's Zone is driven by the force of one man, Geoffrey Canada, a New Yorker, and graduate of Bowdoin and Harvard. Canada also reports to a board comprised of wealthy investors who have been willing to seed his efforts, especially in elementary education.
While government money can be set aside and sound policies can be developed, the force of a leader is extremely difficult to duplicate. The author of this story, New York Times reporter Paul Tough, spent considerable time with Canada; this is a story written over notes gathered over five years. As I read this story, I became convinced that Canada's style, combative at times, charming at times, was the reason that he has implemented such an extensive number of programs, far beyond what any pragmatic legislator or mayor would ever dream to propose.
Canada's thought behind such programs is that many had been good, but they had been too limited. How, he reasoned, in a place where there are so many children in need, how could so many children be excluded from having needs fulfilled? In Canada's case, idealism has taken a lead surrendering to pragmatism only when necessary. For instance, Canada was repeatedly advised to place a charter elementary school under the direction of the nationally recognized Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP). KIPP had had success improving student test scores at schools in the Bronx, achieving better results than Canada's school.
Anyone who is involved with urban education should read Whatever It Takes. So far, this has been the best account of what is really required to make things happen on a major scale.
Book Review: The Confederate General Rides North by Amanda C. Gable
Shop Indie Bookstores
Set in the late 1960's, The Confederate General Rides North is the story of Katherine McConnell, an 11 year old Civil War scholar who is forced into traveling with her mother from Georgia to Maine. Her mother wants to settle there and open an antique shop. Katherine tells us that her mom's dream is just that, a dream, not a plan, and she does not want to live up north. However, her mother promises that they will visit all of the major Civil War battlefields as they embark from Marietta including Appomattox, Manassas, Harpers Ferry, Antietam and Gettysburg.
Mother and daughter have an interesting journey. Mom does not share Katerine's enthusiasm for history, but her sister is a history teacher who generously shares her knowledge. However, she has some eye for opportunities, not only to sell antiques but also to sell sketches of the historic places that her daughter likes to visit. Katherine tries to retell her journey as a general's ride where she is, and this is a guess, Robert E. Lee, who must be strong at all times, even through personal setbacks.
I chose to read this story because I am working on a novel based in Gettysburg. It gave me a child's perception of the battlefields and tourist towns, albeit from the perspective of someone growing up forty years ago. It was useful for me to learn what a young tourist would find curious as well as boring. Katherine is drawn to the monuments as well as the usual replica souvenirs such as books, hats and swords. I was quite entertained by her curiousity about the Civil War, especially since she is a daughter of the Confederacy.
This was a very moving and useful story for me. Other readers will find it to be an excellent, and unique, coming of age tale. Two thumbs up.
'Rutgers 3' Anti-War Protesters Get Off Lightly
Today I found an interesting story on myCentralJersey, a hometown news site, that three Rutgers students who had been involved in an antiwar protest eighteen months ago were sentenced to disorderly conduct and traffic violations for their role in the event. This does not sound significant at first--students lead protests that can go awry--but this rally called Walk Against the War led Rutgers students to walk out of classes, disburse into downtown New Brunswick then later onto Route 18, a very heavily trafficked state highway.
I wrote a novel, Defending College Heights, which deals in part with antiwar activism and the protests of yesterday and today, and I am a Rutgers graduate, so I feel compelled to read and respond.
The three students, two now alumni, involved in the protest were not punished for their anti-war views; they were punished for their over-zealousness which created dangerous travel conditions. This was the first time I have ever read of a protest, past or present, that started on campus that might have injured students or bystanders off-campus.
The 'Rutgers 3,' as they were later called, faced fines of up to $500 and quite possibly jail time. However, they received pro-bono legal counsel who worked out an agreement with a municipal prosecutor where the defendants would pay $353 in fines but serve no jail time. Erik Straub, who had led protesters onto Route 18, was also sentenced to 30 days community service.
The light sentence is probably a sign of the times, sympathy for people who only wanted to express their opinions about an already-unpopular war. Had the 'Rutgers 3' asked permission to hold a peaceful pre-announced protest on campus grounds they probably would have received it. They would have gotten press, too, but the event would have admittedly been less spectacular.
Instead, they caused two problems: the Rutgers 3 decided on an unannounced walk-out and, by taking the protest off-campus, they subjected their actions to the will of the public and state and local police. Suppose their actions had caused a traffic accident that led to burnt cars and injured bodies, just like we see in news coverage and movies about the Iraq War?
The Rutgers 3 are getting their lives started, but I believe that their actions were punished too lightly. While the fines appear to fit the violations, all three defendants should have been sentenced to community service, not just one. Maybe they could have been placed on a work crew to clean up the highway. They might have witnessed an accident they could have caused. They would have also learned what it means to be in harm's way.
I wrote a novel, Defending College Heights, which deals in part with antiwar activism and the protests of yesterday and today, and I am a Rutgers graduate, so I feel compelled to read and respond.
The three students, two now alumni, involved in the protest were not punished for their anti-war views; they were punished for their over-zealousness which created dangerous travel conditions. This was the first time I have ever read of a protest, past or present, that started on campus that might have injured students or bystanders off-campus.
The 'Rutgers 3,' as they were later called, faced fines of up to $500 and quite possibly jail time. However, they received pro-bono legal counsel who worked out an agreement with a municipal prosecutor where the defendants would pay $353 in fines but serve no jail time. Erik Straub, who had led protesters onto Route 18, was also sentenced to 30 days community service.
The light sentence is probably a sign of the times, sympathy for people who only wanted to express their opinions about an already-unpopular war. Had the 'Rutgers 3' asked permission to hold a peaceful pre-announced protest on campus grounds they probably would have received it. They would have gotten press, too, but the event would have admittedly been less spectacular.
Instead, they caused two problems: the Rutgers 3 decided on an unannounced walk-out and, by taking the protest off-campus, they subjected their actions to the will of the public and state and local police. Suppose their actions had caused a traffic accident that led to burnt cars and injured bodies, just like we see in news coverage and movies about the Iraq War?
The Rutgers 3 are getting their lives started, but I believe that their actions were punished too lightly. While the fines appear to fit the violations, all three defendants should have been sentenced to community service, not just one. Maybe they could have been placed on a work crew to clean up the highway. They might have witnessed an accident they could have caused. They would have also learned what it means to be in harm's way.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
What If a Student Tells a Teacher "You Lie?"
I watched President Obama's health care speech last week and heard the now-infamous shout "You Lie!" from Rep. Joe Wilson (R. South Carolina). Today I read that the House will vote "disapproval" of Wilson's conduct even though he has apologized to the president, and the president has accepted the apology. This all seems childish , and it's no wonder that people have less confidence in Congress and government in general.
And I had to wonder: how will this inspire other people to act in settings where civility is expected. For instance, the classroom.
I imagine a young conservative going back a little more than thirty years, in age, but not time. Hes's sitting in an AP history or government class in public school. He is a gung-ho politics nerd who watches FOXNews programming every night and subscribes to the National Review.
The non-political smart set among his classmates hates him; the rest find him odd. But he is who he is. He plans to major in history or poli-sci at Dartmouth or Washington and Lee; they're kinder and gentler to conservatives than most top schools.
His AP teacher had me in a prior class sophomore year. She didn't like the way he was the first to raise my hand, and eventually she avoided calling on him unless no one else wanted to answer a question. His work was no less than perfect. He got his 'A.' But the teacher hoped that she's never see him again. Her politics were liberal and he always made it a point to challenge her views on a variety of issues. The teacher, however, was smart enough to keep class from becoming a two person conversation. But teacher and student had no choice when it came to an AP course. There was only one available. And our student needs the grade.
He plans to take the AP tests and history and government and wants a perfect score for college credit. So he does all of the recommended summer reading--some of the books take a liberal point of view--and reads more on his own. He becomes a walking encyclophedia on all things history and politics, while remaining true to his conservatism.
Early in the semester, the teachers walk out and go on strike. They settle within a week and return to the classroom. Our liberal history teacher uses class time to talk about the American labor movement and the rights of public employees to strike. She is active in her union and, therefore, is on fairly firm ground in class.
Except for her one frustrated conservative who shouts "you're lying!" as she passionately makes a point. Startled by the interruption, she asks the student to leave.
"Why?" he asks. "You're lying to the class." And he cites one example from the reading he has done over the summer.
"That's not the point," she replies. "You don't interrupt a teacher while she's speaking. Didn't you learn that in first grade?"
Now the rest of the class is giggling. The teacher must win this confrontation or send it elsewhere.
"Well, I'm not leaving. I have more proof you're lying. The class deserves to know the truth."
The teacher has a choice: let him pontificate knowing the class will not care, or send him to the principal, presumably to be suspended for his behavior. If that happens she fears his parents may sue.
If I were that teacher I'd let him pontificate. I'd thank him for his time and shake his hand. I'd say that appreciated his thorough and thoughtful analysis. And I'd defend his right to deliver an informed presentation as passionately as I defended my right to strike, if that were necessary. All of this is far less damaging than censuring a student front ofr a class or forcing a student to take your side.
What would you do?
And I had to wonder: how will this inspire other people to act in settings where civility is expected. For instance, the classroom.
I imagine a young conservative going back a little more than thirty years, in age, but not time. Hes's sitting in an AP history or government class in public school. He is a gung-ho politics nerd who watches FOXNews programming every night and subscribes to the National Review.
The non-political smart set among his classmates hates him; the rest find him odd. But he is who he is. He plans to major in history or poli-sci at Dartmouth or Washington and Lee; they're kinder and gentler to conservatives than most top schools.
His AP teacher had me in a prior class sophomore year. She didn't like the way he was the first to raise my hand, and eventually she avoided calling on him unless no one else wanted to answer a question. His work was no less than perfect. He got his 'A.' But the teacher hoped that she's never see him again. Her politics were liberal and he always made it a point to challenge her views on a variety of issues. The teacher, however, was smart enough to keep class from becoming a two person conversation. But teacher and student had no choice when it came to an AP course. There was only one available. And our student needs the grade.
He plans to take the AP tests and history and government and wants a perfect score for college credit. So he does all of the recommended summer reading--some of the books take a liberal point of view--and reads more on his own. He becomes a walking encyclophedia on all things history and politics, while remaining true to his conservatism.
Early in the semester, the teachers walk out and go on strike. They settle within a week and return to the classroom. Our liberal history teacher uses class time to talk about the American labor movement and the rights of public employees to strike. She is active in her union and, therefore, is on fairly firm ground in class.
Except for her one frustrated conservative who shouts "you're lying!" as she passionately makes a point. Startled by the interruption, she asks the student to leave.
"Why?" he asks. "You're lying to the class." And he cites one example from the reading he has done over the summer.
"That's not the point," she replies. "You don't interrupt a teacher while she's speaking. Didn't you learn that in first grade?"
Now the rest of the class is giggling. The teacher must win this confrontation or send it elsewhere.
"Well, I'm not leaving. I have more proof you're lying. The class deserves to know the truth."
The teacher has a choice: let him pontificate knowing the class will not care, or send him to the principal, presumably to be suspended for his behavior. If that happens she fears his parents may sue.
If I were that teacher I'd let him pontificate. I'd thank him for his time and shake his hand. I'd say that appreciated his thorough and thoughtful analysis. And I'd defend his right to deliver an informed presentation as passionately as I defended my right to strike, if that were necessary. All of this is far less damaging than censuring a student front ofr a class or forcing a student to take your side.
What would you do?
Winston Salem State to Cut Costs by Reducing Athletic Ambitions
There are several ways that colleges can cut costs without reducing the quality of academics. One way to decommit to intercollegiate athletes.
Today, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Winston Salem State University (NC) is doing precisely that. The university , a historically black school and a member of the University of North Carolina system, has announced that they will be shifted from NCAA Division provisional 1 status to Division 2 in all sports. At present the university fields 14 teams, the minimum allowable to be in Division 1. The Chronicle story quoted an NCAA representative as stating that Winston Salem is the first school to ask to return to their prior status.
The problem was financial; the budget for athletics grew from approximately $2.88 million to $5.58 million 2005-2006 through 2008-2009 while total revenue grew from $2.07 million to $3.77 million. Just for the fiscal year that ended June 30, the athletic program generated a deficit of approximately $1.8 million. The university had considered moving money from other resourecs to athletics, but the university's chancellor opposed such actions.
The university and the Chronicle reported that eighty percent of the athletic department budget is covered by student fees, which are aproximately $580 per student. While I do not know if this covers both intramural sports, which all students can participate, as well as intercollegiate athletics, the cost burden on students seems excessively high. I am also led to believe, given the budget deficit, that ticket sales are inadequate to make up the difference. To divert resources from academics to athletics would have sent a bad signal to students who do not compete in sports, parents and politicians.
This had to be a difficult decision, as the school has a notable athletic pedigree including Basketball Hall of Famers Clarence "Big House" Gaines and Earl "The Pearl" Monroe who starred with my hometown Knicks. Their 1967 Division 2 basketball team, coached by Gaines and led on the court by Monroe, was the first historically black school to win a national championship. Winston Salem is one of only six historically black schools to win this title.
But in this case the chancellor made the right decision. While Winston Salem will continue to run a deficit into next year, after concluding Division 1 play in ll sports, the fiscal picture will be better afterwards. It has to make one think, too. Does a school without a notable athletic pedigree need to maintain an expensive commitment to athletics in the wake of financial problems?
It is one thing if the students who receive athletic scholarships are academically qualified and their classmates cheer them on with enthusiasm. It is another if the athletes are there for athletics sake and their classmates don't bother to watch him perform. I can't say anything about Winston Salem's athletes, but a sports program can't soldier on when there are too few fans in the seats.
Today, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Winston Salem State University (NC) is doing precisely that. The university , a historically black school and a member of the University of North Carolina system, has announced that they will be shifted from NCAA Division provisional 1 status to Division 2 in all sports. At present the university fields 14 teams, the minimum allowable to be in Division 1. The Chronicle story quoted an NCAA representative as stating that Winston Salem is the first school to ask to return to their prior status.
The problem was financial; the budget for athletics grew from approximately $2.88 million to $5.58 million 2005-2006 through 2008-2009 while total revenue grew from $2.07 million to $3.77 million. Just for the fiscal year that ended June 30, the athletic program generated a deficit of approximately $1.8 million. The university had considered moving money from other resourecs to athletics, but the university's chancellor opposed such actions.
The university and the Chronicle reported that eighty percent of the athletic department budget is covered by student fees, which are aproximately $580 per student. While I do not know if this covers both intramural sports, which all students can participate, as well as intercollegiate athletics, the cost burden on students seems excessively high. I am also led to believe, given the budget deficit, that ticket sales are inadequate to make up the difference. To divert resources from academics to athletics would have sent a bad signal to students who do not compete in sports, parents and politicians.
This had to be a difficult decision, as the school has a notable athletic pedigree including Basketball Hall of Famers Clarence "Big House" Gaines and Earl "The Pearl" Monroe who starred with my hometown Knicks. Their 1967 Division 2 basketball team, coached by Gaines and led on the court by Monroe, was the first historically black school to win a national championship. Winston Salem is one of only six historically black schools to win this title.
But in this case the chancellor made the right decision. While Winston Salem will continue to run a deficit into next year, after concluding Division 1 play in ll sports, the fiscal picture will be better afterwards. It has to make one think, too. Does a school without a notable athletic pedigree need to maintain an expensive commitment to athletics in the wake of financial problems?
It is one thing if the students who receive athletic scholarships are academically qualified and their classmates cheer them on with enthusiasm. It is another if the athletes are there for athletics sake and their classmates don't bother to watch him perform. I can't say anything about Winston Salem's athletes, but a sports program can't soldier on when there are too few fans in the seats.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A Consumer Guide to Colleges
Last week I attended a program sponsored by Education Sector, a non-partisan think tank that concentrates on a select set of issues in K-12 and higher education. This program focused on a single question: Is it possible for the higher education community in the U.S. to reach President Obama's goal for sixty percent four-year degree completion rates by the year 2020?
Members of the panel included the editor-in-chief of the Washington Monthly, which has recently published its college rankings, a deputy assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Education, a senior fellow of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation who had previously directed the college rankings for U.S. News and World Report and the editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education. Also on the panel were the senior public policy director for Education Sector and the president of Southern New Hampshire University.
One of the issues bandied about was the concept of a "consumer guide" for parents more relevant than published rankings. There is already a wealth of information about colleges from the federal government, the rankings and numerous published guides and Web sites, but it can be argued that there is no one consumer guide that students and parents can rely upon that provides some insight into the true quality of a school. There are schools that more selective than others, but selectivity is not something that can be translated into the quality of classes.
So I tried to consider what I would want to know if I had a college-bound student in my family. I would not necessary care how high a school ranked; the rankings do not consider student access to the school, for instance, a top state university is quite partial to residence of the host state. But I would care to know:
+ The four-year graduation rate: what share of the students enrolled as freshman graduate on time? This gives some idea about who finishes, and how easy, or difficult, it might be to graduate if a student wants to change majors or take courses at another school during semester breaks or study abroad.
+ The four-year average tuition increase: does this school keep increases as close to inflation as possible? Or do tuition increases annually exceed inflation? High price has been equated with quality in higher education, but that does not mean parents should expect sticker shock soon after they have committed to a school. A low tuition increase does not only mean a show of sensitivity to returning students and their parents; it might also show that the school has sought, and found, other sources of income.
+ Annual increase in average student indebtedness: is the school sensitive to the future financial obligations of its graduates? In the past, students would borrow less than half of what they could expect to earn during their first year after graduation. Today, the average is more than a year's salary for graduates in most majors. Schools that are known to provide a package of scholarships, grants and jobs, as well as access to internship or co-op opportunities would be rated higher than those that do not.
+ Investment in student success services, including academic counseling and career development. These are among the first services to be cut in difficult times; their professional staff are not faculty members and these services are not revenue centers. However, these are among the most important departments for student retention, the graduation rate and access to post-graduate education and employment.
+ Student/faculty ratio for introductory classes. These will be large lecture classes at large schools, although large lectures are not the best way for the students to learn, especially if they have not been challenged in high school. A large non-selective school that relies heavily on lecture formats in the introductory classes is likely to have a lower graduation rate than a school that can provide more attention in the classroom.
I chose these five measures because they could be applied to any four-year school whether it be a research institution or a liberal arts college, a residential campus or a commuter school, a public school or a private school. Other measures such as public service activity and student engagement will favor schools that accommodate a more traditional student body, but more and more students are non-traditional. They are not looking for a brand-name label, but they are seeking performance and value. And they have to fit college into a lifestyle that might include work or raising a family. A school that does an excellent job at accommodating non-traditional students deserves as much positive recognition as the top schools in the published rankings.
Members of the panel included the editor-in-chief of the Washington Monthly, which has recently published its college rankings, a deputy assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Education, a senior fellow of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation who had previously directed the college rankings for U.S. News and World Report and the editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education. Also on the panel were the senior public policy director for Education Sector and the president of Southern New Hampshire University.
One of the issues bandied about was the concept of a "consumer guide" for parents more relevant than published rankings. There is already a wealth of information about colleges from the federal government, the rankings and numerous published guides and Web sites, but it can be argued that there is no one consumer guide that students and parents can rely upon that provides some insight into the true quality of a school. There are schools that more selective than others, but selectivity is not something that can be translated into the quality of classes.
So I tried to consider what I would want to know if I had a college-bound student in my family. I would not necessary care how high a school ranked; the rankings do not consider student access to the school, for instance, a top state university is quite partial to residence of the host state. But I would care to know:
+ The four-year graduation rate: what share of the students enrolled as freshman graduate on time? This gives some idea about who finishes, and how easy, or difficult, it might be to graduate if a student wants to change majors or take courses at another school during semester breaks or study abroad.
+ The four-year average tuition increase: does this school keep increases as close to inflation as possible? Or do tuition increases annually exceed inflation? High price has been equated with quality in higher education, but that does not mean parents should expect sticker shock soon after they have committed to a school. A low tuition increase does not only mean a show of sensitivity to returning students and their parents; it might also show that the school has sought, and found, other sources of income.
+ Annual increase in average student indebtedness: is the school sensitive to the future financial obligations of its graduates? In the past, students would borrow less than half of what they could expect to earn during their first year after graduation. Today, the average is more than a year's salary for graduates in most majors. Schools that are known to provide a package of scholarships, grants and jobs, as well as access to internship or co-op opportunities would be rated higher than those that do not.
+ Investment in student success services, including academic counseling and career development. These are among the first services to be cut in difficult times; their professional staff are not faculty members and these services are not revenue centers. However, these are among the most important departments for student retention, the graduation rate and access to post-graduate education and employment.
+ Student/faculty ratio for introductory classes. These will be large lecture classes at large schools, although large lectures are not the best way for the students to learn, especially if they have not been challenged in high school. A large non-selective school that relies heavily on lecture formats in the introductory classes is likely to have a lower graduation rate than a school that can provide more attention in the classroom.
I chose these five measures because they could be applied to any four-year school whether it be a research institution or a liberal arts college, a residential campus or a commuter school, a public school or a private school. Other measures such as public service activity and student engagement will favor schools that accommodate a more traditional student body, but more and more students are non-traditional. They are not looking for a brand-name label, but they are seeking performance and value. And they have to fit college into a lifestyle that might include work or raising a family. A school that does an excellent job at accommodating non-traditional students deserves as much positive recognition as the top schools in the published rankings.
What Can One "Do" With a Philosophy Degree?
Last month, I put up a post: What Does One "Do" With a Physics Major? that reached out to a respectable online readership. The thought behind the post was to ask what people "do" with a traditional liberal arts major versus a pre-professional degree; in the first case it was between studying physics versus computer science or engineering.
This month, I asked similar questions about the philosophy major to a professional philosopher whom I have known since grade school. Graduating from our high school as a National Merit Scholar, Victoria Kamsler earned a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy Bryn Mawr College (PA) in 1982, then later a doctorate in politics from Oxford University in England.
Victoria's academic interests include democratic theory, utopian thought and environmental ethics. Victoria has taught at Harvard, Wellesley College (MA), Queens College CUNY, the University of Georgia, and Princeton as well as the University of Toronto in Canada.
Over several years, Victoria has made a professional transition from academia to entrepreneurship, which made her a natural person to ask: what can one do with a degree in philosophy, whether they continue their education, or enter the workforce after college?
Why should college students consider majoring in philosophy versus another humanities major or social science?
Its hard to get a job as a professional philosopher. But philosophy teaches analytical skills, mental discipline and attention to detail, respect for truth (at least for some), and is an opportunity to grapple with some of the finest, most daring, and most subtle thought our culture has produced. Philosophy majors tend to be among the smartest students.
What have your former college classmates and students done (besides doctoral study or an advanced degree) after earning their undergraduate degree in philosophy?
Some things philosophy friends and students are doing: Founder of LinkedIn; Vice President and General Counsel of Lincoln Center; Founder of Marco Polo Network, Staff Writer for The New Yorker; and, Movie Producer for films including Adaptation (with Meryl Streep) and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (with Jim Carey and Kate Winslet).After many years in academia, I am now co-founder of Skybase, a solar aeronautics company, and an executive at Greenfiniti, a carbon offset and trading company.
You graduated from Bryn Mawr, one of the leading liberal arts schools in the country. Corporate recruiters readily visit schools of this caliber for consulting positions, among other jobs. How might a liberal arts major, in a humanities major, be an asset to a consulting firm or business?
I never encountered recruiters at Bryn Mawr, but then I was planning to attend grad school at Oxford, and not paying attention to recruiting. I have worked as a consultant, and I think we offer sophisticated analytical skills and a capacity for intellectual boldness.
How has undergraduate instruction in philosophy changed since you were a student?
My undergraduate instruction was heavily historical. Now, in my field, there is more interdisciplinarity, particularly interest in cognitive science, linguistics, behavioral economics. There is a greater gulf between 'analytical' and 'continental' philosophy, though some, like Charles Taylor, try to bridge this.
Do you believe that the demand for doctorates in the humanities in the U.S. will increase, decrease or remain about the same over the next ten years, and why?
Probably decrease. The economy is not likely to recover fully in the near to mid term and it is just too hard to get a decent job as a humanities professor.
Universities are resorting more and more to adjuncts to take up the teaching load and save money. These are badly paid, dead-end jobs, usually with no benefits. Adjunct positions are good for professionals in other fields (law, cinema, etc.) who enjoy teaching and want to 'give back' by occasional part-time teaching. But it is a precarious and frustrating way to live, if you plan to support yourself by teaching. It is almost impossible to get enough writing done to advance your career, while cobbling together enough little teaching jobs to live on.
My advice: don't go to grad school in philosophy unless you really love it and can't think of doing anything else. And even then, stop for a reality check: can you handle all the risk in your career? That's a different issue from whether students should take philosophy as undergraduates. Majoring in philosophy as an undergraduate can be wonderful for intellectually lively and curious people.
This month, I asked similar questions about the philosophy major to a professional philosopher whom I have known since grade school. Graduating from our high school as a National Merit Scholar, Victoria Kamsler earned a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy Bryn Mawr College (PA) in 1982, then later a doctorate in politics from Oxford University in England.
Victoria's academic interests include democratic theory, utopian thought and environmental ethics. Victoria has taught at Harvard, Wellesley College (MA), Queens College CUNY, the University of Georgia, and Princeton as well as the University of Toronto in Canada.
Over several years, Victoria has made a professional transition from academia to entrepreneurship, which made her a natural person to ask: what can one do with a degree in philosophy, whether they continue their education, or enter the workforce after college?
Why should college students consider majoring in philosophy versus another humanities major or social science?
Its hard to get a job as a professional philosopher. But philosophy teaches analytical skills, mental discipline and attention to detail, respect for truth (at least for some), and is an opportunity to grapple with some of the finest, most daring, and most subtle thought our culture has produced. Philosophy majors tend to be among the smartest students.
What have your former college classmates and students done (besides doctoral study or an advanced degree) after earning their undergraduate degree in philosophy?
Some things philosophy friends and students are doing: Founder of LinkedIn; Vice President and General Counsel of Lincoln Center; Founder of Marco Polo Network, Staff Writer for The New Yorker; and, Movie Producer for films including Adaptation (with Meryl Streep) and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (with Jim Carey and Kate Winslet).After many years in academia, I am now co-founder of Skybase, a solar aeronautics company, and an executive at Greenfiniti, a carbon offset and trading company.
You graduated from Bryn Mawr, one of the leading liberal arts schools in the country. Corporate recruiters readily visit schools of this caliber for consulting positions, among other jobs. How might a liberal arts major, in a humanities major, be an asset to a consulting firm or business?
I never encountered recruiters at Bryn Mawr, but then I was planning to attend grad school at Oxford, and not paying attention to recruiting. I have worked as a consultant, and I think we offer sophisticated analytical skills and a capacity for intellectual boldness.
How has undergraduate instruction in philosophy changed since you were a student?
My undergraduate instruction was heavily historical. Now, in my field, there is more interdisciplinarity, particularly interest in cognitive science, linguistics, behavioral economics. There is a greater gulf between 'analytical' and 'continental' philosophy, though some, like Charles Taylor, try to bridge this.
Do you believe that the demand for doctorates in the humanities in the U.S. will increase, decrease or remain about the same over the next ten years, and why?
Probably decrease. The economy is not likely to recover fully in the near to mid term and it is just too hard to get a decent job as a humanities professor.
Universities are resorting more and more to adjuncts to take up the teaching load and save money. These are badly paid, dead-end jobs, usually with no benefits. Adjunct positions are good for professionals in other fields (law, cinema, etc.) who enjoy teaching and want to 'give back' by occasional part-time teaching. But it is a precarious and frustrating way to live, if you plan to support yourself by teaching. It is almost impossible to get enough writing done to advance your career, while cobbling together enough little teaching jobs to live on.
My advice: don't go to grad school in philosophy unless you really love it and can't think of doing anything else. And even then, stop for a reality check: can you handle all the risk in your career? That's a different issue from whether students should take philosophy as undergraduates. Majoring in philosophy as an undergraduate can be wonderful for intellectually lively and curious people.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Obama Made Speech Only He Could Have Made
Yesterday, President Obama made his first-day-of-school speech. I read the transcript earlier, because it was already published in USA Today. I didn't see anything remotely controversial, but I did realize one thing: Obama was one of the few presidents who could have given that speech. Few of our presidents have had elementary school age children while they served in the White House.
I did some quick research, looking at the bios of the younger presidents who have served. Theodore Roosevelt was our youngest president; he entered the White House upon William McKinley's assassination in 1901. He and Edith, his second wife, had five children, ages four to fourteen. Jimmy Carter's daughter, Amy, and Bill Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, were also of elementary school age when their fathers took office. So was Caroline Kennedy; she became of school age during the middle of her father's term.
The nation has seen President Obama at home and on the campaign trail with his family, and no one, to my knowledge, has criticized him as a father. He sends his kids to school, just like many fathers do. And we also know that he was raised without a father for much of his life. No matter who you are, you have to applaud a man for rising from that to achieve what he has achieved. This speech was more of a fatherly talk than a policy address and I can't imagine a better president to give it.
I did some quick research, looking at the bios of the younger presidents who have served. Theodore Roosevelt was our youngest president; he entered the White House upon William McKinley's assassination in 1901. He and Edith, his second wife, had five children, ages four to fourteen. Jimmy Carter's daughter, Amy, and Bill Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, were also of elementary school age when their fathers took office. So was Caroline Kennedy; she became of school age during the middle of her father's term.
The nation has seen President Obama at home and on the campaign trail with his family, and no one, to my knowledge, has criticized him as a father. He sends his kids to school, just like many fathers do. And we also know that he was raised without a father for much of his life. No matter who you are, you have to applaud a man for rising from that to achieve what he has achieved. This speech was more of a fatherly talk than a policy address and I can't imagine a better president to give it.
The Best Investments in Public Higher Education Might Be In the Less Selective Schools
This morning, the Chronicle of Higher Education has a story which is a summary of a book called Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Public Universities. Written by three scholars, including a former Princeton University president, the book investigates reasons for low graduation rates in four public state university systems: Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia that are comprised of 47 schools.
I have not read the book, but I garnered some interesting points from the story, which include:
+ Students may be "undermatching," choosing a less selective institution than one they are qualified to attend. This also extends to the choice of a two-year school over a four-year college. The authors concluded that students should do the opposite to improve their chances for graduation.
+ It would be more efficient to focus on improving four-year graduation rates (at least within these four public university systems) than offering the options for accelerated degree programs because four-year graduation rates are still too low. Less than half of the students enrolled system-wide graduated in four years, which is considered "on time."
+ There was a relationship between income and degree completion rates, but no relationship between price of the school (tuition) and completion rates. The authors state this helps begin a case that public institutions should move away from merit-based aid.
+ High school grades are better predictors of college performance than test scores for less selective schools.
These are all interesting points, but they make me curious. If I followed these thoughts, and others as I read the book, I might conclude that the best public investments in higher education would be in the less selective schools, as opposed to flagship universities. Some reasons:
+ They are less likely to have the alumni base for development efforts
+ They are less likely to be research-oriented universities that raise money for academic grants that could turn into student research and scholarship opportunities.
+ They are the ones more likely to be criticized for poorer graduation rates; you do not improve this number, and improve a school, by throwing fewer resources at it. There are more counseling issues, especially academic counseling, that need to be resolved.
+ The teaching styles at work at a selective school, mainly large lecture classes, are less likely to be effective with students who are less prepared to do college work.
+ The less selective school needs to invest more in the freshman-sophomore experience if they expect to retain students into the later half of their education.
+ The alternative to helping a poor-performing school is to close it down. That would certainly decrease access to higher education for more people.
I do not know what the political reaction would be from state to state to direct resources from the crown jewel of a system to it's poorer cousins. However, if lawmakers want to improve graduation rates for all students, they have to attack the problem at the schools that are getting the poorest results.
I look at the National Football League as an analogy. All of the teams are not equal, in fact one, the Detroit Lions, did not win a single game. The Lions ownership can spend millions to hire better players; they need more of them than their opponents. And that investment might take them to four or five wins. A top team, I'll use the Minnesota Vikings for example, might spend the same money, but on one player who can help them go further in the playoffs. The same amount gets them one win.
The Vikings will still be the better team, but the Lions will be lauded for getting more bang for their buck. They'll be considered the up-and-coming team by the analysts and they'll attract more money, in the form of paying fans. The same would be true for public higher education spending if investments were targeted to the less selective schools.
I have not read the book, but I garnered some interesting points from the story, which include:
+ Students may be "undermatching," choosing a less selective institution than one they are qualified to attend. This also extends to the choice of a two-year school over a four-year college. The authors concluded that students should do the opposite to improve their chances for graduation.
+ It would be more efficient to focus on improving four-year graduation rates (at least within these four public university systems) than offering the options for accelerated degree programs because four-year graduation rates are still too low. Less than half of the students enrolled system-wide graduated in four years, which is considered "on time."
+ There was a relationship between income and degree completion rates, but no relationship between price of the school (tuition) and completion rates. The authors state this helps begin a case that public institutions should move away from merit-based aid.
+ High school grades are better predictors of college performance than test scores for less selective schools.
These are all interesting points, but they make me curious. If I followed these thoughts, and others as I read the book, I might conclude that the best public investments in higher education would be in the less selective schools, as opposed to flagship universities. Some reasons:
+ They are less likely to have the alumni base for development efforts
+ They are less likely to be research-oriented universities that raise money for academic grants that could turn into student research and scholarship opportunities.
+ They are the ones more likely to be criticized for poorer graduation rates; you do not improve this number, and improve a school, by throwing fewer resources at it. There are more counseling issues, especially academic counseling, that need to be resolved.
+ The teaching styles at work at a selective school, mainly large lecture classes, are less likely to be effective with students who are less prepared to do college work.
+ The less selective school needs to invest more in the freshman-sophomore experience if they expect to retain students into the later half of their education.
+ The alternative to helping a poor-performing school is to close it down. That would certainly decrease access to higher education for more people.
I do not know what the political reaction would be from state to state to direct resources from the crown jewel of a system to it's poorer cousins. However, if lawmakers want to improve graduation rates for all students, they have to attack the problem at the schools that are getting the poorest results.
I look at the National Football League as an analogy. All of the teams are not equal, in fact one, the Detroit Lions, did not win a single game. The Lions ownership can spend millions to hire better players; they need more of them than their opponents. And that investment might take them to four or five wins. A top team, I'll use the Minnesota Vikings for example, might spend the same money, but on one player who can help them go further in the playoffs. The same amount gets them one win.
The Vikings will still be the better team, but the Lions will be lauded for getting more bang for their buck. They'll be considered the up-and-coming team by the analysts and they'll attract more money, in the form of paying fans. The same would be true for public higher education spending if investments were targeted to the less selective schools.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Another College Ranking Report Proves Ranking is Relative
This week, Washington Monthly released it's annual rankings of national universities and liberal arts colleges. They use a different formula than U.S. News or Forbes. It is based on three factors:
1) Social Mobility: Does the school assist students who are from low-moderate income families and how effectively does the school help all of their students graduate?
2) Research: Is there cutting edge scholarship among the faculty and do they effectively pursuade students to pursue advanced study at the doctoral level in math, science and engineering?
3) Service: Do students serve their community or country while in school as well as after they leave, as measured through participation in the Peace Corp or ROTC?
The Washington Monthly rankings have the University of California-Berkeley at the top for research universities and Amherst College as the top liberal arts school. Berkeley won the university category going away, and two University of California campuses: UC-San Diego and UCLA followed behind.
The interesting observation from these three California schools is the percentage of students who were eligible for Pell Grants; it is approximately a third of the student population at each school. Historically black schools as well as private schools in large cities had high percentages as well. The California schools stand out among state-supported universities.
But there is something else to consider for future rankings: the state of California has plans to cut its own grant-in-aid programs. I had to wonder if state support should be part of future rankings; after all, state universities exist to educated state residents. That also impacts the school's ability to minimize tuition increases, which is not considered in these rankings.
None of the top three California schools were exceptional in terms of ROTC recruitment, but we don't know if students opted for alternatives such as Officer Candidate programs which offer military training and summer salaries but no obligation before graduation, or serve in the military in a reserve unit. Another missing factor, if military service is considered public service,would be veterans returning to school under GI benefits. So, I consider the military service portion of this ranking to be quite incomplete; it should encompass all ways that students could serve in the military or utilize benefits for prior service.
On the flip side of the service coin, Peace Corps recruitment and work-study money were the only factors, possibly because data was available. I was surprised, given the service orientation of these rankings, that Teach for America was excluded. This is glaring since Teach for America is not only one of the largest recruiters of college graduates, but they look for students of all majors. The Peace Corps will favor graduates who have language or scientific and technical skills. I realize that the Peace Corps has been around since JFK, but Teach for America has a 21 year history of service to public schools and it receives support from politicians of both parties.
There is also a problem with using percent of work-study money for public service.For one thing, some schools run community-based projects while others do not. Some faculty who work in the community, others don't. So, if my school allocates more work-study students to, for instance, the social work or urban planning departments than the physics department, does that elevate my ranking?
I understand, but personally dislike, the research portion of this ranking. For one thing, flagship schools and the most selective private schools have a built-in advantage because they have the best access to grants and awards committees as well as lawmakers who ask for money on their behalf.
In addition, if a school tells their faculty to be teachers first, or does not grant the PhD, then it is less of a research school. I'm less concerned if the faculty are winning awards, because it makes me wonder how much time the devote to teaching undergraduates. And consider this:top scholars are recruited to universities with a promise of more time for research and less time for teaching.
I have less of an issue with the student portion of this ranking, since intellectual curiosity is a positive measure of a school. But why not add smeasures for non-science doctorates or students who continue their education within a certain timeframe after graduation?
I also noticed something conspicuously absent: the military service academies do not appear in the liberal arts ranking. U.S News ranks West Point and Annapolis among the top twenty national liberal arts schools and Forbes has West Point as the top school with Annapolis at thirty. I had to ask myself: how would these service academies fare in Washington Monthly?
My guess is that they would rank high in serving the disadvantaged student: everyone goes for free and those who survive freshman summer go on to graduate in four years. I can't guess the research side since there are civilian academics and military instructors; not all of them have advanced degrees. However, it's not unusual to see career officers with doctorates in engineering. On the service side, every graduate serves in the military while they're in training and after they graduate.
So, the military rank would be at the top, with no rank for the Peace Corps and public service work-study, because neither applies to a military academy. That might be the only reason the academies don't appear with Washington Monthly's top schools; the military is the only public service option and it's forced upon the students. If that's true, then fair enough.
I know I'm picking nits but Washington Monthly intends to have a respected ranking of schools. The problem is that the methodology is incomplete.
1) Social Mobility: Does the school assist students who are from low-moderate income families and how effectively does the school help all of their students graduate?
2) Research: Is there cutting edge scholarship among the faculty and do they effectively pursuade students to pursue advanced study at the doctoral level in math, science and engineering?
3) Service: Do students serve their community or country while in school as well as after they leave, as measured through participation in the Peace Corp or ROTC?
The Washington Monthly rankings have the University of California-Berkeley at the top for research universities and Amherst College as the top liberal arts school. Berkeley won the university category going away, and two University of California campuses: UC-San Diego and UCLA followed behind.
The interesting observation from these three California schools is the percentage of students who were eligible for Pell Grants; it is approximately a third of the student population at each school. Historically black schools as well as private schools in large cities had high percentages as well. The California schools stand out among state-supported universities.
But there is something else to consider for future rankings: the state of California has plans to cut its own grant-in-aid programs. I had to wonder if state support should be part of future rankings; after all, state universities exist to educated state residents. That also impacts the school's ability to minimize tuition increases, which is not considered in these rankings.
None of the top three California schools were exceptional in terms of ROTC recruitment, but we don't know if students opted for alternatives such as Officer Candidate programs which offer military training and summer salaries but no obligation before graduation, or serve in the military in a reserve unit. Another missing factor, if military service is considered public service,would be veterans returning to school under GI benefits. So, I consider the military service portion of this ranking to be quite incomplete; it should encompass all ways that students could serve in the military or utilize benefits for prior service.
On the flip side of the service coin, Peace Corps recruitment and work-study money were the only factors, possibly because data was available. I was surprised, given the service orientation of these rankings, that Teach for America was excluded. This is glaring since Teach for America is not only one of the largest recruiters of college graduates, but they look for students of all majors. The Peace Corps will favor graduates who have language or scientific and technical skills. I realize that the Peace Corps has been around since JFK, but Teach for America has a 21 year history of service to public schools and it receives support from politicians of both parties.
There is also a problem with using percent of work-study money for public service.For one thing, some schools run community-based projects while others do not. Some faculty who work in the community, others don't. So, if my school allocates more work-study students to, for instance, the social work or urban planning departments than the physics department, does that elevate my ranking?
I understand, but personally dislike, the research portion of this ranking. For one thing, flagship schools and the most selective private schools have a built-in advantage because they have the best access to grants and awards committees as well as lawmakers who ask for money on their behalf.
In addition, if a school tells their faculty to be teachers first, or does not grant the PhD, then it is less of a research school. I'm less concerned if the faculty are winning awards, because it makes me wonder how much time the devote to teaching undergraduates. And consider this:top scholars are recruited to universities with a promise of more time for research and less time for teaching.
I have less of an issue with the student portion of this ranking, since intellectual curiosity is a positive measure of a school. But why not add smeasures for non-science doctorates or students who continue their education within a certain timeframe after graduation?
I also noticed something conspicuously absent: the military service academies do not appear in the liberal arts ranking. U.S News ranks West Point and Annapolis among the top twenty national liberal arts schools and Forbes has West Point as the top school with Annapolis at thirty. I had to ask myself: how would these service academies fare in Washington Monthly?
My guess is that they would rank high in serving the disadvantaged student: everyone goes for free and those who survive freshman summer go on to graduate in four years. I can't guess the research side since there are civilian academics and military instructors; not all of them have advanced degrees. However, it's not unusual to see career officers with doctorates in engineering. On the service side, every graduate serves in the military while they're in training and after they graduate.
So, the military rank would be at the top, with no rank for the Peace Corps and public service work-study, because neither applies to a military academy. That might be the only reason the academies don't appear with Washington Monthly's top schools; the military is the only public service option and it's forced upon the students. If that's true, then fair enough.
I know I'm picking nits but Washington Monthly intends to have a respected ranking of schools. The problem is that the methodology is incomplete.
Book Review: The Spire by Richard North Patterson
Richard North Patterson is one of my favorite legal and political fiction writers, and when I learned that he wrote a new story where a college president was the hero, I just had to read it.
The Spire's hero, Mark Darrow, is a lawyer and honors graduate of Caldwell College, a fine, second-tier liberal arts college in central Ohio--my guess is that the fictional school would rank just below Kenyon or Oberlin in the same state--who has been asked to take over the presidency of the school in the wake of an embezzlement scandal.
While Darrow, who is now in his late thirties and a successful Boston attorney, is reluctant to accept the job, he does so at the request of his college benefactor, Lionel Farr. Farr had spotted a promising Darrow in high school on route to nowhere but football glory days and arranged for him, and his closest friend Steve Tillman, to receive full scholarships. Darrow goes on to succeed academically and athletically, but his friend Tillman becomes lead suspect in the murder of Angela Hall, a black co-ed who is also the sister of a local drug dealer, on the campus.
Darrow, who had found Hall's body at the base of the Spire, a campus landmark, is not asked to testify. He moves on to Yale Law School and his career in Boston. Yet, after the death of his wife in an automobile accident, Darrow decides to put his Boston life behind him and become the new president at his alma mater with the help of Farr, the college provost. In addition to his presidential duties, Darrow makes it his personal responsibility to investigate the Hall murder and become reacquainted with Tillman, who has been in prison.
As in all Patterson novels, there are many twists and turns as well as organizational politics. Anyone who is not involved with college politics will learn a great deal about a president's job from The Spire. I was familiar with some of the maneuvering by Provost Farr from my research for Defending College Heights as well as the controversial town-gown relations. The fictional town, Wayne, has has racial tensions that have become quieter during the sixteen years since Darrow left town, but they still brew under the surface.
If there is a weakness to The Spire it is that Darrow is too young to be the typical college president. While he fit the background: alumnus, townie, lawyer, confident to Provost Farr, there was no reason that he could not have been an older man. There have been young college presidents--Bard's Leon Botstein assumed his job at the age of 29--but this a presidency is usually a job for a man or woman who has had a longer academic or professional career than Mark Darrow. Patterson made Darrow into too much of a "golden boy makes good" for my taste. Aside from this, The Spire is a very suspenseful and credible tale.
The Spire's hero, Mark Darrow, is a lawyer and honors graduate of Caldwell College, a fine, second-tier liberal arts college in central Ohio--my guess is that the fictional school would rank just below Kenyon or Oberlin in the same state--who has been asked to take over the presidency of the school in the wake of an embezzlement scandal.
While Darrow, who is now in his late thirties and a successful Boston attorney, is reluctant to accept the job, he does so at the request of his college benefactor, Lionel Farr. Farr had spotted a promising Darrow in high school on route to nowhere but football glory days and arranged for him, and his closest friend Steve Tillman, to receive full scholarships. Darrow goes on to succeed academically and athletically, but his friend Tillman becomes lead suspect in the murder of Angela Hall, a black co-ed who is also the sister of a local drug dealer, on the campus.
Darrow, who had found Hall's body at the base of the Spire, a campus landmark, is not asked to testify. He moves on to Yale Law School and his career in Boston. Yet, after the death of his wife in an automobile accident, Darrow decides to put his Boston life behind him and become the new president at his alma mater with the help of Farr, the college provost. In addition to his presidential duties, Darrow makes it his personal responsibility to investigate the Hall murder and become reacquainted with Tillman, who has been in prison.
As in all Patterson novels, there are many twists and turns as well as organizational politics. Anyone who is not involved with college politics will learn a great deal about a president's job from The Spire. I was familiar with some of the maneuvering by Provost Farr from my research for Defending College Heights as well as the controversial town-gown relations. The fictional town, Wayne, has has racial tensions that have become quieter during the sixteen years since Darrow left town, but they still brew under the surface.
If there is a weakness to The Spire it is that Darrow is too young to be the typical college president. While he fit the background: alumnus, townie, lawyer, confident to Provost Farr, there was no reason that he could not have been an older man. There have been young college presidents--Bard's Leon Botstein assumed his job at the age of 29--but this a presidency is usually a job for a man or woman who has had a longer academic or professional career than Mark Darrow. Patterson made Darrow into too much of a "golden boy makes good" for my taste. Aside from this, The Spire is a very suspenseful and credible tale.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Florida International University Drops Marching Band, Needs Pep Band
Last week, Sports Illustrated's Selena Roberts wrote a column about Florida International University and it's decision to drop their marching band. If there is an award for Penny Wise, Pound Foolish move by a college, this decision would be a contender.
Florida International, which will be coming to Rutgers Stadium in three weeks, has decided to have a football program without the support of a band or cheerleaders. Okay, you can do without them before or after a game; Rutgers does quite nicely with pumped-in pregame music at home, too. But there's a reason why college teams have cheerleaders and bands: someone has to lead the fans and let them know what to say or do when their team is on a drive.
I live in a sports market where two teams: the Jets and Giants, do without cheerleaders or a pep band. I don't know the reason for their decision. But they also have longer histories playing football than Florida International University and they have name players to cheer for. When a lesser known player makes an important play, then the electronic scoreboard helps to lead the fans into cheer or song. But those scoreboards are expensive to maintain, too. Besides, who really wants to take their cues from computer generated images?
Florida International is still new to the ranks of bowl-eligible teams though it is developing a local rivalry with the University of Miami. Last season, the rivalry turned into a fight on the field. They play in a 20,000 seat stadium; that's about the same as a basketball arena on a major college campus.
So, here's a suggestion, since Florida International plays in such a cozy space: why not have a pep band, like colleges have at basketball games? They don't have to march on the field, but who says they can't be equally entertaining from the stands during the game? I'm sure they'd be strong competition for the scoreboard for home games, and provide an entertaining show for the small visitors sections on the road.
Besides, Florida International has been forced to give up nine football scholarships. The pep band can take those seats on the team plane. Why not? The school has to pay for them anyway.
Florida International, which will be coming to Rutgers Stadium in three weeks, has decided to have a football program without the support of a band or cheerleaders. Okay, you can do without them before or after a game; Rutgers does quite nicely with pumped-in pregame music at home, too. But there's a reason why college teams have cheerleaders and bands: someone has to lead the fans and let them know what to say or do when their team is on a drive.
I live in a sports market where two teams: the Jets and Giants, do without cheerleaders or a pep band. I don't know the reason for their decision. But they also have longer histories playing football than Florida International University and they have name players to cheer for. When a lesser known player makes an important play, then the electronic scoreboard helps to lead the fans into cheer or song. But those scoreboards are expensive to maintain, too. Besides, who really wants to take their cues from computer generated images?
Florida International is still new to the ranks of bowl-eligible teams though it is developing a local rivalry with the University of Miami. Last season, the rivalry turned into a fight on the field. They play in a 20,000 seat stadium; that's about the same as a basketball arena on a major college campus.
So, here's a suggestion, since Florida International plays in such a cozy space: why not have a pep band, like colleges have at basketball games? They don't have to march on the field, but who says they can't be equally entertaining from the stands during the game? I'm sure they'd be strong competition for the scoreboard for home games, and provide an entertaining show for the small visitors sections on the road.
Besides, Florida International has been forced to give up nine football scholarships. The pep band can take those seats on the team plane. Why not? The school has to pay for them anyway.
Much To-Do About a Back-to-School Speech
Today, I read that Congressman John Kline (Minn.), the ranking Republican on the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee, and House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) asked President Obama to release an advance edition of his back-to-school address scheduled to air next Tuesday in Wakefield, Virginia. The Obama Administration had already intended to post a copy of the speech, so there's little concern. Teachers who want their students to listen to the president, and those who do not, will carry about their business.
Quite honestly, this is the first time I knew that the president gave a back-to-school address the day after Labor Day. Then again, I spent my whole life in New Jersey public schools, and we didn't start class until Wednesday. The teachers needed Tuesday to prepare to go to work. And I also have friends who live in other states where school has been in session for at least a week.
What is more interesting is the sensitivity that the minority is showing for the impending speech. I never knew that the president had to consult with those who do not support him before giving a speech. Then again, a presidential comment to listen to your teachers, study hard, and make friends could be written in such a way that it would offend someone.
The Department of Education, according to news coverage about this speech, has prepared some materials for teachers that accompany the president's address. This Menu of Classroom Activities was prepared by the Teaching Ambassador Fellows in the U.S. Department of Education. So, I'm left with an impression that the menu was not drawn up by a press officer in the White House or the office of the Secretary of Education.
Then who are the Teaching Ambassador Fellows? Well, they are teachers who applied to win a fellowship with the support of their school system. And the newest fellowship class, announced by Secretary Duncan, has been on board for less than a month.
Is it possible that former President Bush's fellows might have written the Menu, if President Obama's fellows are fairly new to the job? I don't know, but it's not impossible to believe. Besides, I would think that teachers who want this fellowship would check their politics at the door. Their politics, more often than not, are local and may involve tough negotiations with people who supported this president.
Ok, so we know about the Menu and the people who developed it. Now we have to read it. What is so offensive here? Well, there was one thing that got scrapped from a prior version of the Menu: the idea of encouraging students to write to the president asking how they can help. Conservatives considered this to be "socialist indoctrination" so it was axed.
That sentence was replaced with a suggestion for students to write to themselves. I'm not a teacher, I admit, but this sounded dopey. For one thing, this is a civics exercise and a writing exercise. There is a lot more civics and grammar that can be drawn out of elementary school children when they know that an important person might read their letter. There's another suggestion in this Menu: ask kids to write a speech as if they were making their own presidential address. Now, that's challenging, and very cool. But whose speech is most likely to be their guide? Take one guess. You won't need two.
But, I also have to step back. Telling an elementary school student to write to or speak to politicians of all views is still a campaign for an issue, and some politician is going to get a message they won't like. I live in a place where my senators and my representative are in the president's party, but that's not true everywhere else.
So, stop signs pop up. All of a sudden telling a kid to write to himself or herself sounds less dopey in these times of extreme partisanship. Isn't that sad?
Quite honestly, this is the first time I knew that the president gave a back-to-school address the day after Labor Day. Then again, I spent my whole life in New Jersey public schools, and we didn't start class until Wednesday. The teachers needed Tuesday to prepare to go to work. And I also have friends who live in other states where school has been in session for at least a week.
What is more interesting is the sensitivity that the minority is showing for the impending speech. I never knew that the president had to consult with those who do not support him before giving a speech. Then again, a presidential comment to listen to your teachers, study hard, and make friends could be written in such a way that it would offend someone.
The Department of Education, according to news coverage about this speech, has prepared some materials for teachers that accompany the president's address. This Menu of Classroom Activities was prepared by the Teaching Ambassador Fellows in the U.S. Department of Education. So, I'm left with an impression that the menu was not drawn up by a press officer in the White House or the office of the Secretary of Education.
Then who are the Teaching Ambassador Fellows? Well, they are teachers who applied to win a fellowship with the support of their school system. And the newest fellowship class, announced by Secretary Duncan, has been on board for less than a month.
Is it possible that former President Bush's fellows might have written the Menu, if President Obama's fellows are fairly new to the job? I don't know, but it's not impossible to believe. Besides, I would think that teachers who want this fellowship would check their politics at the door. Their politics, more often than not, are local and may involve tough negotiations with people who supported this president.
Ok, so we know about the Menu and the people who developed it. Now we have to read it. What is so offensive here? Well, there was one thing that got scrapped from a prior version of the Menu: the idea of encouraging students to write to the president asking how they can help. Conservatives considered this to be "socialist indoctrination" so it was axed.
That sentence was replaced with a suggestion for students to write to themselves. I'm not a teacher, I admit, but this sounded dopey. For one thing, this is a civics exercise and a writing exercise. There is a lot more civics and grammar that can be drawn out of elementary school children when they know that an important person might read their letter. There's another suggestion in this Menu: ask kids to write a speech as if they were making their own presidential address. Now, that's challenging, and very cool. But whose speech is most likely to be their guide? Take one guess. You won't need two.
But, I also have to step back. Telling an elementary school student to write to or speak to politicians of all views is still a campaign for an issue, and some politician is going to get a message they won't like. I live in a place where my senators and my representative are in the president's party, but that's not true everywhere else.
So, stop signs pop up. All of a sudden telling a kid to write to himself or herself sounds less dopey in these times of extreme partisanship. Isn't that sad?
Two Books for a College Football Thursday
College football's opening weekend is upon us, so I'd like to offer two recommendations to fans on this glorious Thursday.
Imagine a school, all-male, competitive in football during the 20's, 30's, 40's and early 1950's, located in the cold of the Midwest and, down on its luck for the past eight years. The name is associated with football history, but the president wants that no longer; in fact, he cuts the number of football scholarships.
Doesn't sound like an attractive place to play, or to coach? Well, this was Notre Dame in 1964 before the era of Ara Parseghian. Jim Dent's Resurrection is a very well written story that shows how a football program that had fallen apart was quickly rebuilt.
Parseghian took over a squad that had gone 2-8 the season before and he re-purposed their talent to go 9-1, the only loss coming against USC in their final game of the season on a disputed call. Notre Dame finished third in the polls after the loss--it would be another six years before Notre Dame would play in a bowl game with national title hopes--and their quarterback, John Huarte, won the Heisman Trophy. This was in a season for one of the best draft classes in NFL history including Dick Butkus, Gale Sayers and Joe Namath, among others
Huarte would later be drafted and signed by the New York Jets as a back-up or star-just-in-case to Joe Namath. He never had much of a chance in the pros, but according to Dent, he became a millionaire through his intelligent investment in the Arizona Tile Company. But his wide receiver, Jackie Snow, was first-round pick and successful NFL player and a teammate, Alan Page, became a Hall-of-Fame defensive lineman, then later a lawyer and a judge.
I've never been a Notre Dame fan, but I enjoyed this story because I root for the underdog. You will, too.
Shop Indie Bookstores
Clay Travis's On Rocky Top is a fun story about the past season with the University of Tennessee Volunteers during Philip Fulmer's last season as head coach. Travis, who has also written Dixieland Delight, a tour of Southeastern Conference stadiums on game day, was given open access to the team including coaches, the athletic director, players, parents, boosters and fans.
A Tennessee alumnus, Travis had expected to follow his alma mater through a winning season, but everything unravels before his eyes. Losses pile up, and the story ends with the firing of one of the most successful coaches in the school's history.
Coach Fulmer, who is also a Tennessee alumnus and former player, was more respected as a recruiter than a game manager. He is best noted as the coach who recruited Peyton Manning, but never beat Florida or won a national title with him at quarterback. He did, however, become a national champion after Manning graduated with Tee Martin at the helm. Travis mentions poor quarterback play as one of the major reasons for Tennessee's recent misfortunes.
On Rocky Top is an excellent story if you want to know about the politics and challenges of a major college football program that is expected to rank near the top of one of the most competitive conferences in the country. You'll also see that a record of past success and talented players is never taken for granted.
Shop Indie Bookstores
Imagine a school, all-male, competitive in football during the 20's, 30's, 40's and early 1950's, located in the cold of the Midwest and, down on its luck for the past eight years. The name is associated with football history, but the president wants that no longer; in fact, he cuts the number of football scholarships.
Doesn't sound like an attractive place to play, or to coach? Well, this was Notre Dame in 1964 before the era of Ara Parseghian. Jim Dent's Resurrection is a very well written story that shows how a football program that had fallen apart was quickly rebuilt.
Parseghian took over a squad that had gone 2-8 the season before and he re-purposed their talent to go 9-1, the only loss coming against USC in their final game of the season on a disputed call. Notre Dame finished third in the polls after the loss--it would be another six years before Notre Dame would play in a bowl game with national title hopes--and their quarterback, John Huarte, won the Heisman Trophy. This was in a season for one of the best draft classes in NFL history including Dick Butkus, Gale Sayers and Joe Namath, among others
Huarte would later be drafted and signed by the New York Jets as a back-up or star-just-in-case to Joe Namath. He never had much of a chance in the pros, but according to Dent, he became a millionaire through his intelligent investment in the Arizona Tile Company. But his wide receiver, Jackie Snow, was first-round pick and successful NFL player and a teammate, Alan Page, became a Hall-of-Fame defensive lineman, then later a lawyer and a judge.
I've never been a Notre Dame fan, but I enjoyed this story because I root for the underdog. You will, too.
Shop Indie Bookstores
Clay Travis's On Rocky Top is a fun story about the past season with the University of Tennessee Volunteers during Philip Fulmer's last season as head coach. Travis, who has also written Dixieland Delight, a tour of Southeastern Conference stadiums on game day, was given open access to the team including coaches, the athletic director, players, parents, boosters and fans.
A Tennessee alumnus, Travis had expected to follow his alma mater through a winning season, but everything unravels before his eyes. Losses pile up, and the story ends with the firing of one of the most successful coaches in the school's history.
Coach Fulmer, who is also a Tennessee alumnus and former player, was more respected as a recruiter than a game manager. He is best noted as the coach who recruited Peyton Manning, but never beat Florida or won a national title with him at quarterback. He did, however, become a national champion after Manning graduated with Tee Martin at the helm. Travis mentions poor quarterback play as one of the major reasons for Tennessee's recent misfortunes.
On Rocky Top is an excellent story if you want to know about the politics and challenges of a major college football program that is expected to rank near the top of one of the most competitive conferences in the country. You'll also see that a record of past success and talented players is never taken for granted.
Shop Indie Bookstores
Dorm Room, River Vue
Yesterday I read a story about a new dormitory that recently opened at Boston University where 14 students have luxury accommodations that include a 25th floor penthouse view. Overall, there are 960 beds allocated in single and double rooms in this new facility, and for the first time, the university is able to house all undergraduate students who want to live on-campus.
This story attracted a lot of comment, and I can understand why. Jaws must have dropped when adults long past college saw the photos of the viewas well as the new building. I had to admit that my jaw dropped too. It dropped with envy.
These photos made me recall a visit I paid to a high school friend during my freshman year at Rutgers. She lived in one of the older dorms; this was 1978 and the building had been built during the 1950's. She, and others in this building were paired with roommates, but they did not actually have rooms. Rather, they had a one-piece furniture set that combined the closet, dresser drawers, bed, book shelves and a roll-out desk top. The top of the closet and a wall beside the bed were about six feet high, but the roof of the building was nine or ten feet high. There was no door between the two furniture sets per "room," so you can imagine what privacy must have been like. I left feeling lucky that I had gotten into a fairly new dorm for my first semester. The door and walls were paper-thin, but at least they were there.
I've worked and done business in big cities, and I have also attended two large public universities, Rutgers, as I mentioned before and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (which had some unimpressive undergrad dorms when I was there), so here's the way I see this project: bravo for Boston U.
Here is a school that realizes that it must compete on academics and amenities to justify a higher charge--the school even dropped footballbelieving that it was "no longer relevant to the BU experience." in favor of other pursuits. Boston University has a large number of competitors: private research universities such as GW and NYU, other Boston-area schools, and even large state-supported universities. Housing is a competitive advantage, especially for an urban university in a city attractive to young people.
I also give the school extra points for not wanting to throw its student body on the mercy of one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. Not only do student have more on-campus options, they do not need to worry about finding summer sublets.
Detractors should also consider that Boston has one of the better mass transit systems in the country, so students were unlikely to bring a car. A car is not considered part of the calculations for room and board, but if you have been to more isolated university towns, and Champaign-Urbana and State College (PA) come quickly to mind, it becomes almost a necessity if you need to do food shopping or travel to an off-campus job or internship.
There were some comments that BU should be assessed property taxes on these buildings, the reasoning being that if they could afford to construct them, they could afford to pay the taxes. There are some problems with that argument.
First, the students who live in university housing are not city residents. If those buildings were taxed, the taxes would be passed onto the students in the form of higher charges for room and board. That might sound fair to some but consider this: that policy is the equal of taxation without representation. Those students can't vote in local, and quite possibly state elections.
Second, when there is more student housing the campus has more authority over student safety. Any city, Boston included, would welcome that. No doubt a mayor would prefer to see the university security force contain student life on-campus as much as possible, rather than see it spill over into the surrounding neighborhoods.
Third, the money that would be spent on property taxes could be better spent in the university community, for example, to provide more financial aid to students. Affordability and accessibility still need to be a priority for any university president, even if a nice dormitory is built on their watch.
And besides, if I were investing $50,000 a year in a college education, I would want to believe that my college-bound son or daughter was getting their money's worth. A school that charges little to no tuition as a matter of policy is not expected to provide luxury accommodations--that Rutgers furniture solution I described would have a spendthrift legislator smile three decades ago--in fact, they do not need to provide housing at all, if private landlords offer enough options.
But a school that asks for a ransom in gold should be expected to provide the gold standard. Boston University has met it, and then some.
This story attracted a lot of comment, and I can understand why. Jaws must have dropped when adults long past college saw the photos of the viewas well as the new building. I had to admit that my jaw dropped too. It dropped with envy.
These photos made me recall a visit I paid to a high school friend during my freshman year at Rutgers. She lived in one of the older dorms; this was 1978 and the building had been built during the 1950's. She, and others in this building were paired with roommates, but they did not actually have rooms. Rather, they had a one-piece furniture set that combined the closet, dresser drawers, bed, book shelves and a roll-out desk top. The top of the closet and a wall beside the bed were about six feet high, but the roof of the building was nine or ten feet high. There was no door between the two furniture sets per "room," so you can imagine what privacy must have been like. I left feeling lucky that I had gotten into a fairly new dorm for my first semester. The door and walls were paper-thin, but at least they were there.
I've worked and done business in big cities, and I have also attended two large public universities, Rutgers, as I mentioned before and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (which had some unimpressive undergrad dorms when I was there), so here's the way I see this project: bravo for Boston U.
Here is a school that realizes that it must compete on academics and amenities to justify a higher charge--the school even dropped footballbelieving that it was "no longer relevant to the BU experience." in favor of other pursuits. Boston University has a large number of competitors: private research universities such as GW and NYU, other Boston-area schools, and even large state-supported universities. Housing is a competitive advantage, especially for an urban university in a city attractive to young people.
I also give the school extra points for not wanting to throw its student body on the mercy of one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. Not only do student have more on-campus options, they do not need to worry about finding summer sublets.
Detractors should also consider that Boston has one of the better mass transit systems in the country, so students were unlikely to bring a car. A car is not considered part of the calculations for room and board, but if you have been to more isolated university towns, and Champaign-Urbana and State College (PA) come quickly to mind, it becomes almost a necessity if you need to do food shopping or travel to an off-campus job or internship.
There were some comments that BU should be assessed property taxes on these buildings, the reasoning being that if they could afford to construct them, they could afford to pay the taxes. There are some problems with that argument.
First, the students who live in university housing are not city residents. If those buildings were taxed, the taxes would be passed onto the students in the form of higher charges for room and board. That might sound fair to some but consider this: that policy is the equal of taxation without representation. Those students can't vote in local, and quite possibly state elections.
Second, when there is more student housing the campus has more authority over student safety. Any city, Boston included, would welcome that. No doubt a mayor would prefer to see the university security force contain student life on-campus as much as possible, rather than see it spill over into the surrounding neighborhoods.
Third, the money that would be spent on property taxes could be better spent in the university community, for example, to provide more financial aid to students. Affordability and accessibility still need to be a priority for any university president, even if a nice dormitory is built on their watch.
And besides, if I were investing $50,000 a year in a college education, I would want to believe that my college-bound son or daughter was getting their money's worth. A school that charges little to no tuition as a matter of policy is not expected to provide luxury accommodations--that Rutgers furniture solution I described would have a spendthrift legislator smile three decades ago--in fact, they do not need to provide housing at all, if private landlords offer enough options.
But a school that asks for a ransom in gold should be expected to provide the gold standard. Boston University has met it, and then some.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
A Story of Corruption in Kansas City
I just finished reading an amusing story on Salon.com about Kansas City politics written by Joe Miller, author of a book called Cross X about a high school debate program in the same city. I have read, and liked, Cross X and U have done some time in big city politics in New Jersey, so the piece got my attention. I did not know that Miller had moved from becoming an author to communications director for a supposedly reform-minded mayor.
I've been to Kansas City once before on business. It was an interesting place, home of an impressive Negro League baseball museum and a jazz museum. Kauffman Stadium, home of baseball's Royals is still one of the nicest ballparks in the game, even though it is now one of the older facilities in the American League. Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Chiefs, was the model for the original Giants Stadium here in New Jersey.
Kansas City is known for its fountains, though baseball historian Bill James, native to this area, has said that they're in the unlikeliest places, including Burger Kings. This is also the only city in America that has lost professional basketball and hockey franchises, with no hope of their return. And from what I gather from Miller's piece, Kansas City has become a city of athletic mediocrity governed by major league crooks.
Miller points out that Kansas City aggressively used a tactic called Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to redevelop it's wealthier commercial centers. TIF allows local governments to issue and sell bonds for public improvements in a given area backed by future increases in tax revenues from that very same place. In other words, any future increases in property and/or sales tax revenues that come from downtown stay downtown; they are not deposited into the city's general fund.
TIF is a great idea when you keep the impacted area small, and the property owners provide their own maintenance and security (most do anyway if they do business in an urban center). It is not such a great idea when it comprises every major ratable in town. Then the rich get richer while the rest of the city declines. That's precisely what is happening in Kansas City, if you take the news coverage to be true.
Miller served a mayor, Mark Funkhauser, who had been the city's auditor and ran on a platform of fiscal reform. He won, just barely, and he promised that his wife would be a true, though unpaid, partner in governing the city. Only thing was: his wife had no experience that could translate into urban governance. Shades of Todd Palin, I thought, as I read this story.
To my surprise, her behavior was so oddly inappropriate that the city council, a body a mayor cannot afford to rattle, voted to ban her from city hall. But, shades of the Palins again, the "reform mayor" backed his wife, even to the point where he suggested that he would divorce her in order to allow her to remain at work on behalf of the city.
I wanted to bust out laughing as I read this story, but what makes this sad is that expectations for this man were so high. He was educated and informed about the problems; he was not some loudmouth who curried public attention on route to an electoral victory.
Funkhauser might have had a rough going with his city council at the start, but he could have hired professionals and built credibility with the media to sway their votes over time. Those are the things effective mayors do, if they want to get another term to solve their city's problems. No mayor who runs as a miracle worker is expected to walk on water through their first term. But no one expects them to drown.
I've been to Kansas City once before on business. It was an interesting place, home of an impressive Negro League baseball museum and a jazz museum. Kauffman Stadium, home of baseball's Royals is still one of the nicest ballparks in the game, even though it is now one of the older facilities in the American League. Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Chiefs, was the model for the original Giants Stadium here in New Jersey.
Kansas City is known for its fountains, though baseball historian Bill James, native to this area, has said that they're in the unlikeliest places, including Burger Kings. This is also the only city in America that has lost professional basketball and hockey franchises, with no hope of their return. And from what I gather from Miller's piece, Kansas City has become a city of athletic mediocrity governed by major league crooks.
Miller points out that Kansas City aggressively used a tactic called Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to redevelop it's wealthier commercial centers. TIF allows local governments to issue and sell bonds for public improvements in a given area backed by future increases in tax revenues from that very same place. In other words, any future increases in property and/or sales tax revenues that come from downtown stay downtown; they are not deposited into the city's general fund.
TIF is a great idea when you keep the impacted area small, and the property owners provide their own maintenance and security (most do anyway if they do business in an urban center). It is not such a great idea when it comprises every major ratable in town. Then the rich get richer while the rest of the city declines. That's precisely what is happening in Kansas City, if you take the news coverage to be true.
Miller served a mayor, Mark Funkhauser, who had been the city's auditor and ran on a platform of fiscal reform. He won, just barely, and he promised that his wife would be a true, though unpaid, partner in governing the city. Only thing was: his wife had no experience that could translate into urban governance. Shades of Todd Palin, I thought, as I read this story.
To my surprise, her behavior was so oddly inappropriate that the city council, a body a mayor cannot afford to rattle, voted to ban her from city hall. But, shades of the Palins again, the "reform mayor" backed his wife, even to the point where he suggested that he would divorce her in order to allow her to remain at work on behalf of the city.
I wanted to bust out laughing as I read this story, but what makes this sad is that expectations for this man were so high. He was educated and informed about the problems; he was not some loudmouth who curried public attention on route to an electoral victory.
Funkhauser might have had a rough going with his city council at the start, but he could have hired professionals and built credibility with the media to sway their votes over time. Those are the things effective mayors do, if they want to get another term to solve their city's problems. No mayor who runs as a miracle worker is expected to walk on water through their first term. But no one expects them to drown.
Building a Winning Football Program Takes Time and Money
This weekend marks the kickoff of the football season for Rutgers, my alma mater, which will have the unique opportunity to play a defending conference champion, the University of Cincinnati, at the get-go. Normally the conference schedule for bowl-eligible teams does not begin until the third or fourth game.
I've written some pieces about Rutgers football on the blog. I am a fan, and also a season ticket holder, but I am also curious about the team's progress. Rutgers is not the atypical football school. Rutgers is the birthplace of college football, yet from 1869 to 2004, the school played in only one college bowl game, and they didn't need to leave New Jersey to play in it. However, since 2005, Rutgers has reeled off four consecutive winning seasons and won three straight bowl games. This accomplishment is shared with only nine other universities in the country.
Winning has had it's price. I used to wait until an hour before kickoff to drive to the stadium, park my car (for free) and buy my ticket at the gate. Now I pay twenty bucks to park a bus ride away from the stadium and forty bucks to take my seat. And I must have season tickets to get in. I don't mind spending the money--fans at other schools with longer traditions pay more--as long as the quality of play improves and the players graduate. I've been satisfied on both counts for the past three seasons.
My wife doesn't mind me going to the games, or even the price increases for tickets and parking. She even bought me a membership in the Touchdown Club, the university-endorsed fan club that raises money for the football team. I try to make as many of the meetings as I can, not because I care about being close to the coach or the team--they do quite nicely with no comments from me--but because I'm curious about what it will take for Rutgers to take a place among the top 15 to 20 programs in the country.
Rutgers is a long ways away, but if you go to a Touchdown Club meeting, you'll see that the long-time fans are excited but also patient. That's a good thing, because building a winning tradition from nothing takes a lot of time. Rutger's coach Greg Schiano began his tenure in 2001 with a 2-9 season. That was followed by a 1-11 mark , then records of 5-7 and 4-7 in the seasons after that. Seats in the stadium were still easy to come by. Then came the bowl teams and regular sell-outs.
Like Coach Schiano, I am New Jersey born and I have seen this state's politics and pessimism at their worst. It's been very easy for people in this state to argue that the football program is not worth the expense and that money could be better spent to upgrade academics. But I'm not sure that's true. I visit the Rutgers campus often enough to see that winning football teams do more for school spirit than anything short of snow days that cancel classes. From seas of Rutgers football t-shirts to scarlet letter Rs on dormitory, business and fraternity windows, there are more visible expressions of pride in the school than I had seen three decades ago. Back then, I went to a more apathetic university than I see today.
Building a winning tradition takes not only time, but money. Coach Schiano makes over $2 million, more than the president of the university or the governor of our state, and more than most other well-educated professionals. Some ask: why place such a high value on a football coach within a large community of educated people?
Here's my answer: the football coach is responsible for 90 students and accountable for their actions. If any of his recruits fails academically or socially, he gets blamed. He has to teach every day for more than half of the year, and prepare lessons, too. While the Rutgers coach lives close to work, it's not uncommon to read of head coaches who sleep in their offices. The head coach is also responsible for facilities and a staff of assistants and tutors, perhaps as many as most academic department heads. And if they fail, he gets blamed. He has to keep the trust of the larger donors and corporate sponsors, too. If they become over-zealous, he gets blamed for their actions, too. And don't forget, his work product is exposed for a stadium of fans as well as a television audience.
I can't say if Rutgers was prepared for Greg Schiano nine years ago. My guess is that the school was not. But the fans are lucky that the university has given him this much time to build a football program. Voters often give their governors less time to solve more pressing problems.
I've written some pieces about Rutgers football on the blog. I am a fan, and also a season ticket holder, but I am also curious about the team's progress. Rutgers is not the atypical football school. Rutgers is the birthplace of college football, yet from 1869 to 2004, the school played in only one college bowl game, and they didn't need to leave New Jersey to play in it. However, since 2005, Rutgers has reeled off four consecutive winning seasons and won three straight bowl games. This accomplishment is shared with only nine other universities in the country.
Winning has had it's price. I used to wait until an hour before kickoff to drive to the stadium, park my car (for free) and buy my ticket at the gate. Now I pay twenty bucks to park a bus ride away from the stadium and forty bucks to take my seat. And I must have season tickets to get in. I don't mind spending the money--fans at other schools with longer traditions pay more--as long as the quality of play improves and the players graduate. I've been satisfied on both counts for the past three seasons.
My wife doesn't mind me going to the games, or even the price increases for tickets and parking. She even bought me a membership in the Touchdown Club, the university-endorsed fan club that raises money for the football team. I try to make as many of the meetings as I can, not because I care about being close to the coach or the team--they do quite nicely with no comments from me--but because I'm curious about what it will take for Rutgers to take a place among the top 15 to 20 programs in the country.
Rutgers is a long ways away, but if you go to a Touchdown Club meeting, you'll see that the long-time fans are excited but also patient. That's a good thing, because building a winning tradition from nothing takes a lot of time. Rutger's coach Greg Schiano began his tenure in 2001 with a 2-9 season. That was followed by a 1-11 mark , then records of 5-7 and 4-7 in the seasons after that. Seats in the stadium were still easy to come by. Then came the bowl teams and regular sell-outs.
Like Coach Schiano, I am New Jersey born and I have seen this state's politics and pessimism at their worst. It's been very easy for people in this state to argue that the football program is not worth the expense and that money could be better spent to upgrade academics. But I'm not sure that's true. I visit the Rutgers campus often enough to see that winning football teams do more for school spirit than anything short of snow days that cancel classes. From seas of Rutgers football t-shirts to scarlet letter Rs on dormitory, business and fraternity windows, there are more visible expressions of pride in the school than I had seen three decades ago. Back then, I went to a more apathetic university than I see today.
Building a winning tradition takes not only time, but money. Coach Schiano makes over $2 million, more than the president of the university or the governor of our state, and more than most other well-educated professionals. Some ask: why place such a high value on a football coach within a large community of educated people?
Here's my answer: the football coach is responsible for 90 students and accountable for their actions. If any of his recruits fails academically or socially, he gets blamed. He has to teach every day for more than half of the year, and prepare lessons, too. While the Rutgers coach lives close to work, it's not uncommon to read of head coaches who sleep in their offices. The head coach is also responsible for facilities and a staff of assistants and tutors, perhaps as many as most academic department heads. And if they fail, he gets blamed. He has to keep the trust of the larger donors and corporate sponsors, too. If they become over-zealous, he gets blamed for their actions, too. And don't forget, his work product is exposed for a stadium of fans as well as a television audience.
I can't say if Rutgers was prepared for Greg Schiano nine years ago. My guess is that the school was not. But the fans are lucky that the university has given him this much time to build a football program. Voters often give their governors less time to solve more pressing problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)