A Governor's Race You Got to Love

Here in New Jersey, we have a three-way race for Governor, in which an independent candidate, Christopher Daggett, has polled between 13 and 20 percent less than a week before Election Day, and there are still undecided likely voters who have not made up their minds.

Daggett, a former commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection under a Republican governor, and a former regional administrator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency under a Republican president, is probably the most successful independent candidate for governor in New Jersey history. The reason I believe that he is successful, despite limited funds, is that he better represents New Jersey Republicans than the Republican candidate Chris Christie.

Since 1947, when the state revised its constitution, New Jersey has elected four Republican governors and six Democrats. Republicans, including acting governors, have held the seat for 29 of those 62 years, Democrats have governed for 33.

This year, however, the Republicans chose a Bush conservative, Chris Christie, who is running on his resume as a U.S. Attorney. According to his Web site, Christie's office racked up an astonishing record - winning convictions or guilty pleas from over 130 public officials - both Republican and Democrat - without losing a single case.

However, his positions on the issues that matter to New Jersey voters, Christie's positions lean to the right of his state's Republican party. Conservative social viewpoints do not play well in the Garden State; in fact, they have been repudiated by former Republican governors Thomas Kean and Christine Todd Whitman.

Christopher Daggett better fits the mold of a New Jersey Republican than Chris Christie. Yet members of the Republican party asked Daggett not to run back in July. My guess is that money from the national party was more likely to flow to Christie, and as we know money has a lot to do with winning elections.

However, given Daggett's strong showing with limited funds, and no prominent Democratic or Republican endorsements, makes me wonder how this race would have turned out. Had Daggett been the Republican nominee over Christie. I believe that the pundits would have declared him the winner this week.

For New Jersey, change in party has often meant a switch from a moderate governor from one party to a moderate governor from the other. That's because the issues: education, environmental protection, insurance rates (auto and health care), taxation and transportation, never change, even when the actors do.

A switch from Corzine to Daggett would have ensured a smooth transition for the Republicans and given them a chance to take majorities in both houses of the State Legislature in 2011. But by choosing Christie the Republicans have helped the Democrats keep control of the state.

In Dallas A Clash Over Diversity on an Elected School Board

Yesterday, I touched on the question of elected versus appointed school boards with the story of Montclair, New Jersey. Today, I read in the Dallaa Morning News about the concerns of black community leaders in an upcoming school board election.

The story is about a school board seat in a single district, District 9, in the Dallas Independent School District (DISD). For thirty years this seat has been held by a black school board trustee. However, the upcoming race features four candidates for the newly open seat. Three are black and one is white.

This district, according to the story, was formed during the early 1970's to provide representation for the black South Dallas neighborhood. However, the district's boundaries have shifted to include white neighborhoods as well. City-wide, the nine-member board has three blacks, three Latinos and three white trustees. The school system, according to the story, is about 68 percent Latino, 5 percent white and 26 percent black.

Further complicating the picture, the story states that the white candidate Sally Cain, wife of a former state senator is heavily financed by influential white politicians and business leaders, including former Dallas Mayor Laura Miller and former U.S. Attorney Paul Coggins. There is concern among black leaders that the three black candidates will split the black vote, so that Cain will be elected.

This might be one of the most significant electoral races of 2009. It's local, but it is a test of how far one part of the nation has gone with respect to race in politics, especially in a year when the America's first black president took office.

My impression is that people run for school board because they truly care about education, or because they love politics. I'd like to believe that voters will vote for a candidate who best reflects their views, without regard to their race, sex, age, sexual orientation, or anything that has nothing to do with their ideas, passions or qualifications to serve. And it is up to the candidates to sell their ideas, passions, and qualifications to the voters without using race to their advantage, or to another candidate's disadvantage.

But more important, it is up to people to vote. A school board that must face a public election cannot assure diversity. Activists and community leaders hold more sway over elected officials than the electorate. And anyone who wants to run in a democratic race has the right to make their case.

University of South Carolina Tops Trojan's Sexual Health Rankings

Sometimes you read something, and you got to chuckle. Until you realize it's a serious story. Trojan, the leading manufacturer of condoms, released the results of its annual College Sexual Health Report Card and the University of South Carolina, home of the Fightin' Gamecocks, ranked first.

The Report Card ranks college sexual health promotions efforts on these categories:

1. Student opinion of health center
2. Health center hours of operation
3. Availability of patient drop-in vs. appointment only
4. Availability of separate sexual awareness program
5. Contraceptive availability and cost
6. Condom availability and cost
7. HIV testing, cost and locality (on- vs. off-campus)
8. Other STI testing, cost and locality (on- vs. off-campus)
9. Availability of anonymous advice via email / newspaper column
10. Existence of lecture / outreach programs
11. Existence of student peer groups
12. Availability of sexual assault programs
13. Website usability and functionality

Other schools that ranked in the top five for sexual health programs and services were Stanford, U-Conn, Columbia and Florida Atlantic. DePaul, Brigham Young, Baylor, Providence and St. John's University (NY) rounded out the bottom five in this Report Card of 141 schools. Top-ranked South Carolina has appeared no lower than 11th in Trojan's rankings since the Report Card's inception four years ago. The Report Card also grouped schools by sports conference, which sounds a little silly.

I never knew such a Report Card existed until today, but maybe it's a good idea. The quality of health services is a legitimate concern for any parent sending their son or daughter away to school. It is as important to quality of life as the food and housing. It's worth a few minutes to take a look at where your son or daughter's current or prospective school(s) ranks here. It's also worth the time to include a look at the health center when you visit the campus.

A North Jersey Suburb Tussles Over Appointed Verses Elected School Board

Today I read on NJ.com that Montclair, a northern New Jersey suburb of 37,000, is debating a change from an appointed to an elected school board. This debate is not new to larger cities such as Boston, Chicago or New York, but it is rare for a suburban community that does not have a full-time local government.

I have previously questioned the need for suburban school boards to exist, and I tackled some of the dynamics of their politics in my first novel, The Sex Ed Chronicles, so I found the story interesting.

Two arguments raised in favor of the appointed board are that few voters turn out for school board elections--nationally, this is true--and that the idea of an appointed board had the backing of the local NAACP chapter and the Montclair League of Women Voters. Another argument is favor was that a mayor can be pressured to maintain diversity on the board; the voters cannot assure diversity in an election. Diversity, in this case, will partly be assured by an increase from seven to nine members.

Activists who have a broader agenda than individual parents prefer the elected board because they can gain a vote over the budget and school policies. And school board member who runs for election is required to be a parent of a child in the school system. It is just as easy for someone opposed to investment in education to get elected as it is for someone who is a sincere advocate for the schools. Low voter turn-out assures that can happen.

But one necessary ingredient for an effective appointed school board, at least in the larger cities, has been a popular, secure mayor who faces little threat of losing an election. Boston, Chicago, New York, even Trenton have mayors who have been re-elected at least twice. Montclair, according to the story, has elected a new mayor and council only in the past year. Those who served the previous mayor can be removed. In Montclair's case, either an appointed or elected school board would be a political body.

When I read stories like this, I become more convinced that the answer to the problems of suburban school boards is to have no school board at all. New Jersey is a prime state to start; there are more public school districts (approximately 630) than local governments (approximately 580) in the state. Some of these districts govern county vocational schools, but even when you remove them from the total, school systems still out-number communities.

There is a duplication of non-educational services--custodial, administrative, food services, security and transportation being examples--that school boards do not need to manage, and such duplication is wasteful public spending.

Then, there are the two most important functions of a suburban school board: hire a superintendent and negotiate the teacher's contract. But the mayor, council and business administrator can lead a search for an academic superintendent of schools. The mayor and council can ask principals to help in the screening process. They can also hire a capable labor lawyer to negotiate a teacher's contract.

Parents, teachers and principals can govern individual schools, as long as they're aware of the budgetary issues of their community. Parochial schools and public charter schools are governed this way, why is it less possible for public elementary and secondary schools. Such a model would force a principal and teachers to become more accountable to parents.

An Ohio High School's Extracurricular Cutbacks

Last night, I watched a segment on HBO's Real Sports about Grove City High School (OH). Located in a region with double-digit unemployment, the school district decided to eliminate all extracurricular activities from their budget. Note the word all; athletics, the arts, even academic enrichment programs took the hit.

Parents have joined with the district on three occasions to collect votes for property tax levies to pay for these activities, and all three proposals went down to defeat. There is a new proposal, to tax approximately $200 for every $100,000 of assessed valuation, down from the last proposal for $250. Quite honestly, I did not know that it could cost $400 to $500 per homeowner to run a selection of extracurricular programs, plus additional fees, called pay-to-play, for sports.

The news story did not say much about the school, so I gathered some information. What I learned is that Grove City is a good school, with a fairly large student body. The high school has approximately 1,700 students for 107 teachers, a good student-faculty ratio for a public school. Those 107 teachers have an average of 16 years experience and 60 percent of them have advanced degrees. That shows that the teachers they hired wanted to be there.

Then I went to GreatSchools.com, a parent's site, and read reviews of the school. Again, I got the picture that Grove City is a good suburban high school. One parent contributed an interesting point: The school's Class of 2005 had five National Merit Scholars and received six million dollars in scholarships. I would agree with the statements by parents on this site that extracurricular activities contributed to the high performance of the student body.

I can understand some of what has happened with this school. People are opposed to tax levies because too many people are not working. The school board took a noble step. They chose to ask every student to share the pain, rather than continue some programs and drop others. Grove City's district is not the Texas town in Friday Night Lights, where football and its pageantry are funded to the exclusion of everything else.

However, according to the Real Sports program, some families acted as if the extracurricular programs had high importance. One young man became emancipated from his family and moved on his own to a nearby town to play football while working as a landscaper. Other families put their homes up for sale or signed apartment leases to relocate to other school districts.

What bothers me most is not the opposition to the levy, or the reactions after it did not pass, but that the community could not try to think outside the box to help the kids. If people are out of work, some could have given time to volunteer for some of these activities. Or they could have found donors, or help from nearby Ohio State University or the nearest community college.

They might not have been able to save every program, but they could have saved some of them. Programs such as debate and chorus have entry fees--parents could share that expense and raise money, as needed--but not the insurance requirements of competitive sports.

My issue with pay-to-play, which is a remedy in some communities, is that it might be worth the investment for some families, but not others. The Real Sports piece mentioned another Ohio school that charged parents $450 for their children to participate in athletics.

The athletic director is shown on the phone, calling other schools to forfeit contests, because the school does not have enough athletes to compete. Was it possible that the parents in this community could have pooled their resources to create a grant program--where children of out-of-work parents play for free--to save some of these sports?

I can see parents to ante up when they have pinned their hopes on their child earning a college sports scholarship. I can also see 'sponsors' putting up the money when parents can't. I hope we don't see too much of that. These kids are not ready to go pro so early.

Another Look at Engineering Education and Careers

Today, I am reading through a report jointly released by Rutgers and Georgetown University public policy analysts that states that our nation's colleges and universities have provided a more-than-adequate supply of entry-level science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduates.

However, over a period of nearly three decades, the vast majority of these graduates leave their first field and enter into a business career.

I follow stories like this because I worked with college career services professionals for a long time. I also met leaders of organizations such as Inroads that introduce high school and college students to engineering and business careers. In addition, my father had a long career in engineering and manufacturing management. So, I can talk about these subjects on firm ground.

Many news reports on education and entry level employment mention that there are shortages of computer scientists and engineers, and the federal government has taken steps to increase funding to encourage more students to become interested in these fields. There are also numerous non-profits that ably take up this challenge.

However, this report confirmed the major problem: engineering and scientific fields--excluding research doctorates who were not part of the study--are not always good career paths. The educator's review of review of federal educational and labor statistics, dating back to the 1970s, revealed that among 1977 college graduates in science and engineering, only 35 percent were working in what the government considered to be a related field 10 years later That percentage climbed up to 43 percent among 1993 graduates measured by their 2003 occupations.

When people leave one field for another--and I have been one of these people--they usually leave for financial reasons or lifestyle reasons. The manufacturing setting is not an attractive one for current graduates--this is the sector that my father spent most of his forty year career--and the long-term compensation is not as high as it is in marketing, finance or production management.

Not all engineers are natural managers, so the technical career path becomes limited without a doctorate. And employers do not want to make a commitment to long-term doctoral study for their most promising workers. They have to wait too long to see results.

I wonder if we might need two types of new programs. One would be a partnership between business, government and universities to train promising research engineers. The partnership would be an advanced science or engineering degree; it could be combined with a sponsored thesis. But the degree does not necessarily need to be a doctorate. If anything, it shouldn't. An employer who has sponsored that engineer would not want to lose his value while he tries to complete a doctoral thesis.

The second, and more important program, would be similar to alternate teacher certification. Only this time we train bachelor's degree holders to become engineers. The program would combine undergraduate and advanced courses, depending on the applicant's prior education, into a bachelor's or master's in engineering. This will result in an older entry level population--but is that such a bad thing? A more mature and motivated group of workers would replace people who have left a field.

America gives workers many second chances. Engineers and scientists switch to business, even law. Some become teachers, too. Others go to medical school. Why can't corporate America consider workers who are willing to take a second chance to become an engineer?

The Price for Football Success

Today, I read through a public report by the Knight Commission, a non-profit body that has worked to ensure that intercollegiate athletics programs operate within the educational mission of their colleges and universities for the past 20 years.

This report essentially says that college presidents, at least those who lead the football bowl championship schools, want to rein in the rising costs of college athletics, but feel powerless to do it. They do not like the escalating salaries for football and basketball coaches, but they believe there is nothing they can do, because alumni and boosters are willing to raise the money to pay them. The same is true for athletic facilities. They do not like being forced to cover deficits with university funds when academic funding has been cut.

There's some good news, too. For one thing, most presidents believed that athletic directors exercised transparency with respect to finances, and that they could trust their athletic director to make budget cuts as needed. They also appreciate the visibility that revenue sports, especially football, bring to their universities. But nearly half of the presidents were quite concerned that athletic department spending could not be sustained for the long term.

After reading this report, I am convinced that:

+ Winners like winners. If an entrepreneur or a corporation want to sponsor a team, they expect the team to contend, not just try to stay on the field. It's more likely they'll put millions into the program to make it win than a few hundred thousand to keep it going.

+ The coaches that consistently win are worth their salaries, because there are so few of them. A coach such as Florida's Urban Meyer earns $4 million because he can consistently win the conference title and/or the national championship. Few other coaches have consistency on their side. Urban Meyer's replacement, when that day comes to pass, will also be a consistent winner with a high salary.

+ An up-and-coming coach is a risk for a losing or slumping program, but it is a risk they have to take. They cannot afford to lure the Urban Meyers of the sport to their school, unless they want to buy out their contracts. A college president who lures a top coach and approves a buy-out puts their job on the line if their team continues to lose.

+ The up-and-comers who win move up to the top programs unless their school makes it attractive to stay. Rutgers is facing this dilemma with Greg Schiano, who has been approached by Miami and Michigan in the past. Do they pay Schiano a salary that would put him among the top ten percent, or let him go? It's not improbable to believe that Schiano is in line to become a $4 million coach--at Rutgers. It's also not improbable to see him bolt for another school that will pay.

+ The up-and-comers who lose rarely become head coaches again. They might become assistants at another program. But these are the schools with the toughest decision: do they roll the dice with another up-and-coming coach, or do they use football as a place to make budget cuts?

Are College-Bound Students Ready for the Three Year Degree?

The recent issue of Newsweek carries an opinion piece by Senator Lamar Alexander (R. TN) that asks why college must take four years when a degree can be accomplished in only three? The major reason given is the cost savings, plus the opportunity to begin a post-graduate education, or go to work a year earlier.

Alexander, a former governor, university system president and Secretary of Education is more than qualified to ask the question, and he even shares some examples of schools that have put a three-year degree model in place. I wrote a previous post one such school, Hartwick College, in upstate New York.

But it's possible for practically any school to grant a three year degree--if they have the resources, or have the willingness to change policies. For example:

+ Colleges could allow students to take as many as 21 credits without paying more tuition. This is what Hartwick does with the three-year degree.

+ Cut down on the number of required courses that have little to do with a student's major. Personally, I see little point in forcing a non-science major into a biology, chemistry or physics class and vice versa force science majors into history or poli-sci, but schools do it. Hartwick has a physical education requirement; credits count towards the degree. Most schools don't do that. There's little reason to push calculus on students who do not want to work in an exceptionally quantitative field.

+ Colleges could offer a true summer semester, a four-month course calendar, instead of much shorter winter or summer sessions. Students could complete eight semesters in less than three years, assuming they could get all of the credits they need for their major. The challenge at the big schools will be to offer the required courses in all majors, as well as some electives.

+ College administrators could allow more taken elsewhere while a student is enrolled at the school. For instance, a New Jersey student who attends Gettysburg College, a 2,600 student private liberal arts school in Pennsylvania, could enroll for a summer semester at Rutgers and take a full course load. Gettysburg could allow up 45 to 54 Rutgers credits to the bachelor's degree. In addition, the student saves money on the cost of the degree by paying Rutgers' in-state tuition,

The problem is that colleges do not always have control over curriculum. Certain majors such as accounting, education, engineering, nursing and pharmacy have course requirements imposed by professional associations; the profession has the final say in what the students are expected to know.

When I looked at the Hartwick program in researching my prior post, I saw that it was not possible to complete a degree in every major over three years. I doubt a school could graduate an accountant, an engineering or a teacher in three years unless they already came to college with a semester's worth of advanced placement credits.

But most curriculum in the liberal arts work like this: you take about a quarter of your credits, usually during the first two years, in core courses. Some of those classes might be the introductory ones in the major, while others are courses you must take because the school says you must take them.

Then you have a major with eight to ten courses that have between 24 and 40 credits. So, fifty to seventy percent of your courses are required. The rest are electives. Some students use electives to complete another major, some use them to pad their GPA, and others do independent research or take graduate classes.

There are many schools that allow their students to use their senior year to take credits towards their first year of a law degree, a medical degree, a MBA and other graduate programs. These are wonderful experiences, and they make a point: the chosen students were bright enough to begin that degree after completing only three years of college.

But, from my experiences working with colleges, I learned that approximately two-thirds of the senior classes, even those at the best schools, would prefer to work after graduation.

So, my question to Senator Alexander, educators and accreditors is: how much do students need to know to receive a bachelors degree? Not necessarily to go on to further education, but to become productively employed? If you remove requirements, a course that has little to do with the student's ambitions, or remove electives, then is the student as good a citizen, and as qualified a worker, as the person who has taken more classes?

Indiana University Begins 'Sexploration' This Week

Continuing on with sex education stories, Indiana, the university that introduced the Kinsey Report to the world is hosting a week-long program on sexuality. Beginning today, IU's Sexploration is a series of--in their words--interactive sex positive events.

According to the story, sach day's events will fall under a different theme: Monday asks "Am I Normal?" Tuesday's theme is "Sex Talk," examining healthy sexual communication; Wednesday's events give "Sexual Insight" with an opportunity to discover your own unique sexual personality; and Thursday's events examine "Health and Sex" with the 37th annual IU Health Fair Health. The day's events culminate in the opportunity to ask questions of Dan Savage, author of several books, including Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist.

This program is a great idea, but having studied the politics of sex education, it made me think of questions about the sex education the students had received before they started college. These include:

+ Do college programs such as these "undo" the sex education taught in some schools? I would imagine that students who had been engaged in an abstinence-only sex education program in high school might be in for a shock.

+ If there are people who feel that way, would they ever ask the university not to run such programs in the future? While Indiana is often considered to be a politically conservative state, it has a Democratic senator and delivered the majority of its votes to President Obama in the 2008 election. But would a conservative trustee or legislator ever make hay about such a program? It's not impossible to consider; perceptions of public universities are formed from events such as these.

+ Do these programs succeed because they go beyond the health-related issues taught in high school? My feeling is yes; they use sexuality to sell safe sex.

How India's Young Adults Learn About Sex

Today I see s curious story from Mumbai, India reporting that only five in 1,000 teens in this city learn about sex from their parents. According to the story, 67.5 percent learn from the media and the Internet.

This study, presented at an Indian national conference on sexology, also reported that that 42% of the students got their first dose of sex-related information between 11 and 15 years of age, while only 8% received it between 19 and 20 years. It added that other sources of information are schoolteachers (4.5%), college professors (25%) and sexual health workshops (2.5%).

I would be curious to see what the percentages would be for various U.S. cities, given the varied instruction in sex education across the country. Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay, is one of the largest cities in the world, with a population of over 16 million. This story might raise some thoughts about how American teens would learn about sex if there was no sex education at all.

The New York Jets Have Fireman Ed But Rutgers Has Lil' Jovi

Today, I'm reading my Rutgers alumni e-zine and there's a story on twelve year old, Nicholas Sasso, aka Lil' Jovi who has become a fixture at our home football games. The son of Rutgers alumni, Nicholas dances and plays air guitar to a select Jon Bon Jovi hit on the Jumbotron.

Whether you do or don't go to a Rutgers game, check out this clip from last season's home finale. It'll bring you a smile this Monday morning.

Attractive Public Options in Higher Education

Yesterday, I commented on an address by Kevin Carey, policy director at Education Sector, a non-partisan think tank based in Washington D.C. Kevin had delivered an address on how the top 30 percent of college graduates, including those who attended the flagship state universities, owed it to the remaining 70 percent to help them succeed in college.

I essentially agreed with his address because there can never be enough strong public options for students who cannot afford a private college education. I want to take that point further, by showing that there are strong public schools beyond the flagship state universities such as Berkeley, Michigan and the University of Virginia.

I started with the U.S. News College Guide; it was inexpensive and it had the statistics I needed. I wanted to know which public colleges, excluding the large research universities, had freshman retention rates and graduation rates comparable to the more selective schools. I ignored where the schools ranked.

My first cut-off was schools that typically appealed to a B+ student, with SAT's ranging from 1,100 to 1,300, with a freshman retention rate of 85% of better and a six year graduation rate of 75% or better, both similar to the larger flagship schools. These were the schools I found.

James Madison University (Va)
The College of New Jersey (NJ)
State University of New York-Geneseo (NY)
University of Mary Washington (Va)

The College of William and Mary met these mumbers, but the school is considered to be a national research university. And unlike the schools above, and the ones I'll list later, it has a nationally respected law school and graduate business school.

Four is not a crowd in the world of higher education, so I broadened my criteria. I wanted schools that appealed to a B student or better, SAT range from 980 to 1,200, a freshman retention rate of 80% or better, and a six year graduation rate of 60% or better. Their students would be borderline admissions cases at a flagship school. These are the schools I found.

Appalachian State University (NC)
Bloomsburg University (PA)
Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo (CA)
The Citadel (SC)
College of Charleston (SC)
Eastern Illinois University (IL)
Millersville University (PA)
Montclair State University (NJ)
New College of the University of South Florida (FL)
Ramapo College of NJ (NJ)
Richard Stockton College of NJ (NJ)
Rowan University (NJ)
Saint Mary's College of Maryland (MD)
Salisbury University (MD)
State University of New York-Fredonia (NY)
State University of New York-New Paltz (NY)
Towson University (MD)
Truman State University (MO)
University of North Carolina-Wilmington (NC)
University of Northern Iowa (IO)
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (WI)
University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse (WI)
Virginia Military Institute (VA)
West Chester University (PA)
Western Washington University (WA)

These are schools that parents should target if:

+ Their college-bound student lives in the same state, or nearby. These are regional schools, so on-campus recruiting, off-campus internships and other work-related assignments are likely to be regional as well.

+ They would like to save a little on tuition over the flagship state university.

+ They are concerned that the flagship university is a place where their college-bound student is likely to feel lost or uncomfortable. With the exception of James Madison, all of these schools had fewer students than the flagship state school in their state.

+ Their college-bound student is interested in an education major. Several of these schools started as teacher's colleges, including all of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania schools on this list. Their education programs have had enough time to become respected within their states and nearby states.

+ There is a unique direction to the school, which allows it to stand out within the state. The New Jersey schools, for example, draw their students from across the entire state--Montclair is the only one close to being a commuter school--but they have different missions. The College of New Jersey takes pride in its selectivity, while being one quarter the size of Rutgers; it was awarded a Phi Beta Kappa chapter three years ago. Ramapo and Richard Stockton market themselves as liberal arts schools, Rowan emphasizes engineering and technology; the school received a $100 million donation to build an engineering school.

I could select a planet to move to more easily than my kid can choose a college . Guest Post by Ashley Olson Rosen

My friend, Ashley Olson Rosen, is a former journalist, now blogger, who has written often on education and parenting. Visit her blog, Funnier With Wine, for more original commentary.

---

Oh, my. If my daughter doesn’t choose a college soon, I’m going to blow my head off.

Revise that: If my daughter doesn’t choose a college soon, I’m going to blow her head off.

No, if I’m being honest it’s: If my daughter doesn’t choose a college soon, she’s going to blow my head off.

Ours is not a good group for college visits.

We began her search with certain criteria: She wanted to go far away, meet a bunch of new people and watch awesome sports. Oh, and she wanted to go south of Kentucky.

Her first choice was Clemson, so, with Cheetos and coffee on hand, we set out. Seven hours later, we arrived – she fully rested from a six-hour-and-forty-five-minute nap, me totally wired from about five cups of coffee and still licking my orange-stained fingers.

While there, you may recall, my embarrassing act took place before the tour even commenced. In the restroom at the alumni center, I rambled on in over-caffeinated fashion about the fact that we were wearing what could be construed as purple and orange, the school’s colors. From the stall I pontificated about what kind of lunatic would wear the school’s colors on a visit – and how mortified I was that people might think that we had done so.

When I came out, the feet I had been speaking to didn’t belong to my daughter. They belonged to one of the other mothers. And above her feet, above her mom jeans, she wore a purple-and-orange Clemson University sweater. My daughter was like huddled behind the trash can with her hand on the escape door.

The rest of the day was fine and she actually loved the school. Met with the admissions counselor. All good. Until the drive home when — awake this time — she realized that it wasn’t just a quick nap away.

“Maybe I’ll look at schools that are closer,” she announced with conviction.

I almost swerved sharply toward the thick concrete overpass, to put us all out of our misery, but I didn’t. I just gripped the wheel and said, “Oh, I thought you wanted to go pretty far away.”

“I’m not sure.” (With the glare that’s uniquely hers: How can you be so freaking stupid and This conversation is over, all rolled into one wad of facial muscles.)

OK. This month’s parameters: A great school where she’ll meet new people that is less than two hours away. It has to have good sports and good business and pre-law programs, (potential majors, also changing like the moon phases). Oh, and she has to look good in the school colors.

Within two hours? “OK,” I told her, “that’s great – I’m glad you want to be able to come home every once in awhile. But remember, we don’t live in New England, where there are college campuses at every exit off the interstate. In fact, where we live, there’s a community center that holds an antique tractor festival and a biker bar and a Feed & Seed Depot at the first three exits. Now that fourth exit has a really nice truck stop that may offer big-rig driving lessons. Have you thought about that?”

Yesterday, we headed due north toward Indiana University. It met every single criteria, so a tour and full-day visit was planned.

On the tour, I asked about 15 questions because, as always, I had to be at the front of the line, so I felt it my duty to make the tour director think that our group of 20 was engaged and interested. Then my husband interrupted with some questions because he actually was engaged and interested. An example of my questions: “Do you know what kind of tree that is?” and an example of his questions: “So, Debbie, as a business major do you think it’s best to apply for that program as a freshman or do you recommend waiting and opting in as a sophomore? How difficult is it to get accepted into it later? What quad should she request if she decides on business?”

Oh come ON. After she finally finished with that stupid laborious question, I asked, rapid-fire to test her mettle, “Do you have Ugg boots? Do all the girls have Ugg boots? Is chocolate brown or tan more popular?”

And that’s about when I fell down. Not just a stumble – this was one of those things where I lunged forward in slow motion, sloshed coffee onto the tour guide, sunk really low on a giant stride like that exercise that I don’t do because they HURT LIKE HELL.

I know I said something. Loudly. I don’t remember what but I am almost positive it was a cuss word and I really hope it didn’t start with F, but I can’t count that out.

Finally I got myself upright and this guy – not a tour member, a student – who was striding along next to us on the packed sidewalk, looked at my daughter and said, “Ha! My mother did that same thing when I took a tour.” Then he veered off into a building.

So now she thinks she can’t go to IU because of that stupid incident. But time heals all wounds and besides, we’re running out of compass points bearing colleges.

If you see a blonde in a big rig next winter, you’ll know where she ended up.

GMATS Are Not Employment Tests. They Are Aptitude Tests for Business School

This week, Business Week has a story about corporate recruiters who are using Graduate Management Aptitude Test (GMAT) scores to narrow down their lists of entry-level applicants, presumably from second-tier graduate business schools.

The University of Notre Dame has taken this so seriously that it's graduate business school offered low scorers a four-day class to help them raise their scores so that they could be more attractive to employers.

As someone who has a MBA, I find this to be a frightening trend. It sends a message to prospective MBA students who want to compete for highly desired entry level positions: score high or get into one of the best of the best schools. Otherwise, set your sights elsewhere. It also sends a message to the students who are already there: grades matter most if you did not score high on the GMAT. Prior work experience and interview skills matter less.

I also wondered: if high scorers show such promise before they enter business school, then why wait for them to earn the MBA? Hire them now and teach them what they need to know to succeed in your company. Pay them a lower salary to start and reward them appropriately for their progress. Consulting firms and investment banks already offer two-year analyst programs to select numbers of liberal arts graduates. Why not just make it more attractive for them to stay? They already know the work and the culture of the organization.

When I pursued my MBA, I looked at as an opportunity to get an education that would allow me to change careers. I had worked for eight years in government and the non-for-profit sector, and wanted to move on to a corporate position. I went to a good, but second-tier program, because I received a fellowship and did not need to relocate. I could also work while was in school. I had two internships, one nearly full-time, and graduated in two years. I got what I hoped for. I had a job offer before graduation, and I have remained in the private sector ever since.

Today, employers would have looked at my resume and my GMAT and said no. They would have favored an experienced candidate, someone who would have held an entry-level position, for example, in accounting, finance, information systems or marketing or someone with a high GMAT. After two years going full-time, following the rules, doing the internships, and getting the best grades I could, I would have been plum out of luck.

These trends, favoring a more experienced hire and screening by GMAT scores, make me wonder if the meaning and value of the MBA has changed for prospective applicants. If you have a business background and want the MBA for an extra leg up, is it better to keep working and go part-time, and possibly earn the degree at your company's expense? It probably is, unless you have a GMAT so high that you want to take a shot at one of the top tier schools.

If you have a background as I had, is it worth it to keep working, go part-time and pay for the MBA yourself? It will take longer to get to the career you want. But even if you have a high GMAT, it may not pay to go full-time. You will more likely be judged as the weaker candidate.

It also goes to show that personal career planning needs to began at an earlier age. These days it gets harder for a more experienced worker to change direction.

Payola on a School Board, Sometimes Truth Is Better Than Fiction

From today's Miami Herald comes a story an FBI kickback sting on the Broward (FL) School Board. An undercover FBI agent used a fake name, but a real glass company, to pull off a sting that led to the arrest of a Broward School Board member on bribery charges.

This story is best unexplained. I invite you to read it for yourself.

College-Bound Students Most In Need of Help are Funneled Into The Schools with the Least Resources

I've cited prior articles by Keven Carey, policy director at Education Sector, a Washington D.C.-based, non-partisan, think tank devoted to issues on educational opportunity. Today, I read an address that Carey gave at the University of Wisconsin-Madison this spring entitled: The 'Bottom' Seventy Percent, What America's Elite Institutions of Higher Learning Owe to Everyone Else. If you follow education, the title will get your attention.

In this address, Carey uses the University of Wisconsin as an example of a public university system that is not really a system, but rather a set of autonomous schools. Spending per student at the flagship campus in Madison is more than twice the spending per student at the branch campuses. And while tuition at schools like UW-Madison grew by 34 percent after inflation between 2001 and 2005, the investment per student in instruction and academic counseling declined.

While Carey does not say this in his address, I took these numbers to mean that students who enroll at a flagship campus such as UW-Madison, Cal-Berkeley or Rutgers-New Brunswick, are more expected to sink or swim than ever before. Many will succeed because they are students who might have considered a highly selective private college in better times, and the rest must learn to become more self-sufficient. But those that survive and perform well are highly valued.

However, one of Carey's main arguments is that the students who enter the branch campuses are not only less prepared for college, they are also directed to the schools with fewer resources to help them. I won't put words in Carey's mouth, but this inequity appears to bother him more than the inequity in spending. Which is an interesting point.

College-bound students do not enter college on equal footing. Some need more help, and quite possibly more personalized instruction, than others. Yet the best college students, regardless of their alma mater, hope to compete equally for the same jobs or admissions to graduate and professional schools after they graduate. Yet, you can look at the numbers of on-campus recruiters or visiting admissions officers to know that is not the case.

It will take some re-direction of public investment to reduce the inequities within the publicly funded schools, at least within popular majors or majors in demand. This starts when colleges pay more attention to the state labor market and state government invests more into academic and pre-professional counseling at the schools that need it most.

We have a choice: get our poorest performing schools up to par or continue to inadequately fund inadequate performance. Closing a public college is akin to political suicide, especially if the school is diverse or Historically Black, so closure is almost never an option. Besides, if you want to have a high quality of life in your community or your state you can never have enough good public schools.

Movie Review: Fame, The Remake

This weekend I went to see Fame, a remake of a 1980 movie of the same name. I liked that movie when it came out, so I was curious to see what a remake would be like.

The original Fame was more of a musical than a movie and while it introduced fresh young talent, it showcased the dance and vocal skills of Debbie Allen, who played Lydia Grant, a dance instructor, or better put, dance tormentor. It was a very good movie, especially enjoyable if you liked dance and musicals.

In the remake, Allen appears, but she has a minor role and the students are more the stars. The new Fame is less of a musical; it appears to be more like a documentary for a performing arts school than a movie.

The best part is the beginning because you see the tension of competing for a coveted spot in the freshman class--we're told that there were 10,000 applicants for only 200 spots--and we see just how tough it is. We also see a gritty setting, which is quite realistic. You feel that you are in an old, faded, but venerable school building. But after the audition scenes, the movie goes downhill.

Fame, the remake, is organized in five parts: auditions, freshman year, sophomore year, junior year and senior year. I got a fair sense of what it's like to start out at this school, but I could not tell what you learned in later years.

Aside from one character, Jenny Garrison (played by Kay Panabaker), I got no sense that the students matured through the years or learned anything new. More teacher-interaction would have helped and there was enough time to insert such dialogue: the movie is only an hour and a half.

These kids supposedly got a rigorous education, but I could not see how their talents--which start as quite impressive--evolved. The way this movie ends, the cast reads off as if they are being "introduced" to the world like American Idols.

But in one sense, the remake did emulate the original film. It showed that some young men and women were more ready to become performers than others. Two characters get their big breaks, one in acting and another in dance, before graduation and drop out of school. It was not a bright idea to convey that message. Other characters, Jenny included, believe they are ready to tackle the real world, and end up disappointed; their plights were the more realistic.

I don't want to say this a bad movie; the vocals and dancing were very strong. But I believe that an in-person one-hour documentary with real teachers and students would have been better. But if you're a parent with a son or daughter interested in an arts school, I would recommend seeing the movie for the first part alone. The rest is okay, but not terribly well developed.

Book Review: The Price of Defiance, James Meredith and the Integration of Ole Miss by Charles W. Eagles

Shop Indie Bookstores

In the fall of 1962, eight years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, The University of Mississippi became the second-to-last flagship state university to desegregate its student enrollment. This book, The Price of Defiance, describes the twin battles over desegregation and segregation that were fought when James Meredith, a 29 year-old transfer student from Jackson State College (also in Mississippi) applied for admission, then later tried to enroll and attend classes at Ole Miss.

Written by a history professor at Ole Miss, The Price of Defiance begins with a very detailed history of segregationist politics within state government, the university administration and prominent alumni, even after the Brown decision. While the university had no written policy of excluding black students, the administration threw up hurdles to discourage black applicants.

The greatest obstacle was a requirement to provide five letters of recommendation from Ole Miss alumni, these were almost impossible for a black applicant to collect because alumni were either devout segregationists or afraid to be signaled out as sympathetic to integration. As the author states throughout the book, white supporter of integration received as much hate mail from segregationists as black activists did. Faculty members who supported integration were also treated shabbily outside academe, though they were approved for paid leaves to work at other schools as a way for Ole Miss to save face.

I've used the Jackie Robinson analogy in prior posts, and it applied to James Meredith in 1962. He was not necessarily the best black student, but he was the best prepared black student to enter Ole Miss at the time. Meredith was not the traditional college applicant. He was 29, married and he had accumulated college credits from several schools, some while serving in the U.S. Air Force. He was already married at the time he applied for admission to Ole Miss, though he stated that he wished to reside in university-owned housing.

While there were questions about Meredith's college grades, as well as his military service, the greater concern was that he would be "trouble" should he be accepted to the university. Was he sincere about obtaining a better education than he had received at Jackson State, or was he trying to strike a blow for a larger movement?

There were several subplots in this detailed book that caught my attention, including:

+ Mississippi governor Ross Barnett was so intent on enforcing segregation that he asked the legislature and the university trustees to invoke the power unto him to be the acting university registrar. Barnett, in fact, stood in front of Meredith and handed him proclamations that denied his request to enroll at Ole Miss, even after the courts had ruled for Meredith.

+ President Kennedy and Governor Barnett communicated regularly. Kennedy tried to help Barnett save face while trying to make the governor enforce the law. Kennedy also went out of his way not to embarrass the governor and the state in his public remarks.

+ Care was taken to exclude blacks from the federal troops sent by the National Guard to protect Meredith and secure the Ole Miss campus as he tried to register.

+ Meredith was not actually the first black student at Ole Miss, although he was the first black graduate. Harry Murphy, an Atlanta native, was stationed with the Navy V-12 program at Ole Miss during World War II. Murphy lived in student housing, took a freshman course load and naval science classes, and participated on the track team. He had no problems while attending Ole Miss because his naval and academic records had erroneously listed him white or Caucasian.

+ Meredith aligned himself with Medgar Evers, a black Mississippian, however he was not always aupportive of the motives of the white leadership of the NAACP.

+ During Meredith's first semester, he attended classes accompanied by U.S. Marshalls while the campus was perceptually under siege. Resentment towards the military presence on campus was directed at him personally, as well as at President Kennedy through the media.

Prior to reading this book, I only knew that Meredith was the first black student and that it took a long time for Ole Miss to integrate. I had no idea how determined the segregationists really were until I finished this story.

Are College Cheerleading and Competitive Dance College Sports?

Last week, USA Today ran an editorial debate as to whether competitive cheerleading and dance should be considered as sports under federal Title IX education law.

Title IX mandates a balance between the number of men's sports and women's sports at a college or university. As athletic departments wrestle with budgeting difficulties, Title IX means that men's sports, as well as women's are cut to achieve gender balance.
However, cheerleading and dance have nor previously been considered as competitive sports, although college squads often enter competitions.

I read and reviewed a book about college cheerleading in a previous post, so here's what I think.

+ Cheerleading would be a competitive sport for men and women at most schools. The stylistic programs at a sports event or a competition depend on male and female participants. This is no different than a band with drum majors and baton twirlers.

But I could imagine a school dropping male cheerleaders from their squads if cheerleading became recognized as a women's sport. I could also imagine schools creating a "spirit squad" exclusively to support their revenue sports, but treating competitive cheerleading as a separate women's sport, if there is sufficient interest.

+ Competitive dance, on the other hand is, to my knowledge, exclusively female. It is more similar to gymnastics than it is to cheerleading. Even though college dancers entertain at sports events--and they don't have to--they do not lead cheers. To me, this is already a sport.

Suggested Twists on Academic and Athletic Reform

This week's Chronicle of Higher Education runs this editorial Now We Must Reform Athletics Reform. Written by Gerald Gurney,senior associate athletic director for academics and student life at the University of Oklahoma, a major college sports power, the editorial offers suggestions on how to reform the admissions process for incoming student athletes.

Gurney points out something I did not know. Beginning in 2010, the NCAA will institute a Coaches Academic Progress Rating; they will collect and promote graduation, eligibility and student retention rates for coaches across their careers (though the story does not say if this means a coach's career with more than one school). This will be an interesting number; some coaches emphasize graduation more than others. But coaches in the revenue sports also share different numbers, as in how many of their players earn professional contracts.

Gurney counters that minimum admissions standards are needed, including standardized test scores of at least 820 on the math and verbal SATs or 17 on the ACT. At present, grades and test scores of student-athletes are considered on a sliding scale. He also adds that the number of at-risk student athletes per team--those who begin college with academic difficulties--be limited.

I disagree with both approaches, though I understand their intentions. The idea is to punish institutions that recruit student-athletes who are athletes first and foremost. But if there is no cut-off for admissions for non-athletes--and most colleges and universities do not set minimum test scores for admissions--then why subject athletes to them?

If I had my druthers, this is the process I would like to see:

+ All applicants for admission must take the core courses specified by the university. No exceptions for athletes. If a school requires three years of math through Algebra II and trigonometry--as Rutgers did when I applied--than all entering freshman and transfers must have completed these courses.

+ All applicants must have a minimum C+ average in the core required courses. An admissions office then needs to consider the remainder of the transcript and how much it is, or is not, "padded" with non-college prep courses.

+ All applicants who want to be considered for athletic scholarships in revenue sports should be asked to write a well-constructed essay that answers two questions: 1) What are your career plans, should a post-graduation career in your sport become impossible to pursue, and 2) How will admission to our school help you in your career plans? Student-athletes should show some commitment to an education, and this essay is an opportunity to do it. It also provides a writing sample for placement purposes.

+ No applicant with a criminal offense beyond a minor misdemeanor--one that would not be cause to reject a non-athlete--will be considered for an athletic scholarship. If I were high atop the hierarchy of the NCAA I would be more concerned about "at-risk" students who enter with criminal records than anything else.

+ All athletic scholarships are for five years. This might mean a corresponding decrease in the number of scholarships, but if schools ask athletes to devote more time to their sport, they should, in turn, give them more time to earn a degree. If the student-athlete takes advantage of the added time to earn a master's degree, that is fair reward for their contribution to their team.

The problem that I see with a Coaches APR and the status quo is that both force a coach to become involved in a student's academic progress. I might be in the minority, but that is unfair to the coach. If a student can get into the school, then it should be his responsibility to make grades in his chosen major.

Coaches are hired to win within the rules of their sport. They are not hired to baby sit "at-risk" teens. At the same time, schools have not been able to take coaches at their word about "at-risk" student-athletes. A coach only knows that they can coach the talent; they cannot always keep a "at-risk" player on the straight and narrow.

Book Review: Speech-Less, Tales of a White House Survivor by Matt Latimer

Shop Indie Bookstores

Last week, I wrote a post on "What Does One 'Do' with a Poli Sci Major?" Soon after I wrote the post I started reading Speech-Less, an excellent, and humorous, memoir that tries to answer the same question. .

The author, Matt Latimer, is a former speechwriter to former president George W. Bush. Raised in Flint, Michigan as a son of liberal Democrats, he sees that his parent's philosophy does not match up with his; he believes, in fact, that big government is partly responsible for the decline of his hometown's economy. Reagan is the first national politician who catches his attention, but he is too young to serve as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. However, in 1996, he receives his golden ticket, a job as a page at the 1996 Republican National Convention where he gets numerous opportunities to rub elbows with some of his political heroes.

After law school, Latimer begins his political career as a low-level aide to former senator Spencer Abraham (R. Michigan). Less than inspired by his boss, he moves on to become press secretary and campaign manager to an obscure Michigan Congressman, then to a more responsible role with Senator John Kyl (R. Arizona). He spends three years chief speechwriter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a brief stint with Republican national chairman Mitch McConnell on a TV project, and at the end lands a dream job as a White House speechwriter.

All along the way Latimer had me laughing and rolling in the aisles, while he reminded me that important people are very, very human. He was also honest about the differences between conservatism as a political philosophy and political cronyism as blantantly practiced by the last presidency.

I did not envy him for some of his challenges, for instance, coordinating between career public affairs officers at the Defense Department and Secretary Rumsfeld, or trying to write speeches about a declining economy for an unpopular president.

I don't believe Latimer loses his conservatism by the end of the book, but he adds the label "principled conservative" to senators such as Jim DeMint (R. SC) who oppose Bush on the bailout bill. I had to respect that Latimer was willing to go to the mat for such an unpopular president, though he left his employment shortly before Election Day, 2008.

Any high school or college student who is interested in working in national politics should buy this book. If nothing else, you learn how to address the challenges of working with politicians or handling ideas that you may not be crazy about. Democrats and Republicans alike must handle those challenges, sometimes with projected enthusiasm, and sometimes through gritted teeth.

Dickinson College, An Example of Transparency as Education Marketing

Each week I receive and read many education e-zines. Last week I found an inriguing one collected by Bob Johnson Consulting, a marketing firm specialized in higher education. Last week, his newsletter provided a link to the President's Message for Dickinson College (PA), a top liberal arts schools. Founded in 1793, Dickinson is also one of the oldest colleges in the country. The average math and verbal SATs of applicants and enrolled students are approximately 1,300.

I have written about transparency in higher education in several previous posts, so it was appropriate to read this message. I wish the presidents of all colleges would post something like this before the start of the school year. It reads like the executive summary of an annual report, important since parents look at college as an investment more than ever before.

Dickinson's president, William Durden, who is also an alumnus (a major marketing strength, I believe) uses this page to state, among other things, that:

+ Standard & Poor’s Rating Service reaffirmed the College’s “A” debt status; a college with a strong bond rating can spend less to issue debt, and that holds down costs. The college sold out a $15 million bond issue at the beginning of 2009.

+ The college community held discussions resulting in $2 million in budget cuts. The president adds that the student paper was allowed to cover discussions on the cuts.

+ Prudent financial planning, in the wake of a weak economy and the declining value of the endowment, led to a surplus of $3 million. The president then explains how the surplus will be allocated.

+ The college had a freshman retention rate exceeding 92 percent, which is excellent for any school. This shows student satisfaction is high and that students are likely to stay, even though the cost of a private college is higher than a public option. The college reports that eighty percent of the students entering as freshman go on to graduate within four years.

+ The college added $3 million to the financial aid budget for the 2009-2010 school year. The college has an openly written Q and A page in financial aid as well.

President Durden's openness and candor regarding Dickinson's financial position is impressive. It helps that he had good news to share, but more important, he is sharing news that parents want to know. There are many excellent liberal arts schools with quality faculty and beautiful campuses. But Dickinson deserves added attention because they have posted the numbers to help a family make an informed decision.

Should Rutgers Follow a State School Trend of Pursuing Out-Of-State Students?

Today I read a story in Inside Higher Education about a new admissions marketing trend. Public universities are considering more aggressive recruitment of out-of-state students to boost enrollments and revenues.

I grew up in New Jersey and I have lived here most of my life. Garden Staters are very fortunate to have a very good flagship state university. Rutgers in New Brunswick is around the top 25 such schools in the U.S. News rankings each year.

That's an impressive ranking when I consider that Rutgers' endowment, according to the Almanac of Higher Education, is lower than all but three of the public universities that rank ahead or equal: the Clemson, the University of Georgia, and William and Mary. And Rutgers-New Brunswick's location, central to New York and Philadelphia is also an attraction for students and faculty. The ranking and location combined attract out-of-state applicants.

As big state schools go, Rutgers is "just right." It's a diverse place, because New Jersey is a diverse state. It attracts the New Jersey students it expects to get. Typically their credentials are just below the elite schools: 1,100 to 1,300 SAT range, B+/A- grades, possibly an AP course or two under their belts.

I do not believe that recruiting more out-of-state students would further diversify Rutgers' student body, other than to possibly add wealthier students who could afford to pay out-of-state tuition. But the university would be making a decision to shift enrollment priorities that would close doors to deserving in-state students.

And where would those students go? Possibly, another New Jersey public college--the College of New Jersey is very highly regarded and so is New Jersey Institute of Technology, among others--but if they want to study in a field like engineering the popular option is more likely to be an out-of-state university. Two of our neighboring states, New York and Pennsylvania, have larger public university systems than New Jersey, and they are just as restrictive on out-of-staters.

The University of Delaware loves out-of-state students. They make up more than half of theit student body. But Delaware charges more than $22,000 out-of-state tuition, more than Rutgers' in-state tuition. Rutgers is the better value, unless Delaware woos your student away with a generous scholarship.

But I prefer that Rutgers not pursue the "best-of-the-best" high school students from out-of-state using merit-based aid. For one thing, that would defeat the purpose of getting students who could pay more. And for another, aid should be need based for the students who are excited to be there. And those students are more likely to come from in-state.

When Is a Safe Sex Program Unsafe?

Since the release of my first novel, The Sex Ed Chronicles, I follow sex education issues online. Today, I read some interesting stories out of Oberlin College (OH) on last year's Safer Sex Night and this year's new Safer Sex Week.

Founded in 1833 by Quakers, Oberlin was one of the stops along the Underground Railroad. By the turn of the 19th century one-third of all African American graduates of predominantly white institutions in the United States had graduated from Oberlin. Today, Oberlin is also known for its music conservancy and production of successful PhD's.

Last year Oberlin's Sexual Information Center hosted a scantily clad (their words, not mine) dance party as part of Safer Sex Night. But heavily intoxicated students vomited during the party and booed student educators when they performed educational skits. A "tent of consent" and pornography aired on walls were part of previous parties, but they were discontinued.

But Oberlin's events have worked. Last year's Safe Sex Dance attracted 900 students, almost one-third of Oberlin's total enrollment. This year, however, there are plans for a smaller dance, and a requirement that each student attend one educational event before the dance to receive a ticket.

To me, using extreme stereotypes at a dance about safe sex is like trying to cure obesity by prying one's mouth open and stuffing it with candy bars. You'll make the point, but maybe you'll go too far. But this story also made me wonder about the sex education the students had received before they came to Oberlin.

Which is More Democratic, a Public or a Private College?

I am reading a fascinating piece in this week's Chronicle of Higher Education called: Is It My Job to Teach the Revolution? I was drawn to the piece because of the research I had done to write my novel, Defending College Heights.

The points of this piece, which was written by the Director for the Center for Women and Gender at Dartmouth College, was that college administrators have been placed in the role of advising people on how to demonstrate against the institutions they work for. As colleges have grown and added more programs, such as gender studies or ethnic studies or added multi-cultural events, people who once demanded "The Man," the university's senior administration to offer these programs have been co-opted by The Man to run them.

There are two sides to this. One is that the college adds a new program that must have a budget and space. it is a non-academic program that helps drive up the cost of a college education. The other side is customer service. When students and their families pay as much as $200,000 for a college degree they expect educators and college trustees to become more sensitive to their concerns. The students are on campus all the time, so they will have the louder voice.

I followed the comments made by politicians, especially Senator Charles Grassley (R. Iowa) about the spiraling costs of a college education; tuition has risen beyond inflation. And as I read this Dartmouth administrator's piece, I have to wonder if customer service and tuition increases have any relationship to one another.

Dartmouth is one of the nation's top private colleges. It is the smallest Ivy League school and one of the best endowed institutions in the country. If Dartmouth wants, for example, to expand the woman's center, it can do two things: seek private contributions or fund it from tuition or fees. They cannot rely on the school's endowment.

If students and their parents are willing to pay the higher tuition of fees, and no one loses financial aid, then a woman's center is more feasible. There might be some unhappy alumni, but they have less standing because the woman's center cost them nothing.

So, some customers are satisfied, and others have lost nothing.

Now, go to a public university and try to build the same woman's center. Although the state may subsidize only a small portion of each student's education; the subsidy is less than thirty percent in most places, conservative politicians will freely denounce the women's center as a "cost center" by "liberal feminists." The people who support the women's center, or similar student programs, will be blamed for driving up the cost of college.

The students who support a women's center will have less of a voice, though they will be quite upset with an administration that is forced to say no. They will have little impact on the legislator's opinion. A change of heart does not necessarily mean more votes.

Even if the students agreed to charge themselves for the cost of a woman's center, or find a grant, can be attacked by politicians who can say that their state university, partly funded by their tax dollars, is harboring "radical feminists." So, a college president, fearing embarrassment or loss of a more important pool of funds, is forced, albeit reluctantly, to say no.

An interesting contrast in educational democracy.

What Can One "Do" With a Poli Sci Degree? Career Advice I Could Have Used

When I was in college I often got these questions: You're majoring in poli sci but you don't want to go to law school? What'll you do with the degree?

I thought about those questions yesterday as I wrote my post about Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma). Coburn didn't major in political science--he was pre-med and he later became a physician--so I could understand him questioning the value of the social science doctorate. He just needed a better speech writer. His passion got the best of him.

But I thought I'd go further and offer thoughts as to what someone can "do" with a political science degree, besides go to law school. I'm not the only poli sci major I know who did not become a lawyer.

Poli sci is one of those majors where you can literally have it your way. Combined with computer science and statistics and you can go into polling and policy research. Combine the major with foreign languages and you can go into international relations or international trade. Or, if you love to write, combine it with creative writing and journalism and you can be a pundit, reporter or speech writer. And if you're persistent enough you can find entry level jobs in any one of those fields.

While I went right into graduate school after college, I now advise college students to go to work for a couple of years in a field of interest. I was midway through a master's degree before I realized that I could have gotten some jobs with just my bachelor's. I couldn't turn back the clock for me, but I can help others. Find a passion first and practice it for a little while, so you're sure that it's the right field for you over the long haul.

This is especially true for budding lawyers; the law degree is one of the more expensive options. If you think that you want to be a lawyer, then work as a legal assistant in a medium to large size firm. Or work as an aide to a legislator or legislative committee staff, or for a governor or mayor. Get a sense of how law is written and used in daily life.

Some other tips:

+ When starting out in politics or policy-making, your first concerns should not be money or name-dropping, but how soon you can have an impact. An advance person for a House district campaign or a state legislative campaign will have more visibility and more access to the candidate than an advance person for a presidential campaign. An aide to a mayor or governor is more likely to have his ideas heard than an aide in the West Wing. It might sound impressive to work in the White House, but there are many layers of staff who have more opportunity to influence policy than the new kid on the block.

+ Conquer math phobia. Everything in policy-making has number crunching or data interpretation. Those who read numbers correctly have a strong leg up over those who don't. When you watch the news, so many political confrontations are about budgets and revenues. If you're going to ask your voters to pay more taxes or accept spending cuts then you better know your math. It wouldn't hurt to know some basic accounting,too.

+ Be in tune to what's "hot." Right now, education, health care and conservation are hot topics with elected officials. These are areas where decision-makers are trying to force change. If you're interested in other issues, for instance economic development or transportation, that are not at the top of the pile now, try to land a position with someone who can advance them later. You become noticed when you work on high-priority issues.

+ Always read. Whether it's news coverage or books on your interest, take time to read outside of work. You might find a new wrinkle to impress your boss. And if you succeed in a political position, you can be quickly rewarded.

+ Any time you are not home alone or with your family behind closed doors, you are in public. You don't have to be paranoid, but don't do something stupid in public that will get you in the news for sure. Aides who get into bar fights do get their 15 minutes of infamy. Those who take money illegally get much more attention than they want.

+ If you plan to make a career in elected state or national politics develop a more lucrative career in the private sector before you run. People prefer to vote for candidates who are financially secure. They don't want someone who needs the office to make a living.

Teachers Building Brands

This morning, I want to talk about a different type of educator, teachers who built brands into incredibly far-flung enterprises.

Last week, my local Barnes and Noble featured a signing by Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer, who has a television show on the National Geographic Channel. I love dogs, but I had no idea who Cesar was. However, the 400 people who lined up from end-to-end at the shopping mall did. I could not imagine 400 people in one store's trade area seeking out one type of dog training.

I didn't buy a book because I don't have a dog at home--yet. But I did take a Cesar Millan bookmark. I needed something to hold the pages in the book I did buy. One side is a picture of Cesar in fitness clothes holding a ball with a chihuahua under his arm while four dogs sit at attention awaiting his next command. The chihuahua's the smallest dog, but he appears most determined to get the ball first. Nice picture. Cesar is a very good looking man; the picture and layout help sell his show.

Then I turned to the other side side and gasped. Cesar is not a TV host who has written one book, he is a brand. He has written two books: the newest, How to Raise the Perfect Dog, and the other, A Member of the Family. He has a magazine, Cesar's Way, an online video course, a series of DVDs coming out in November, a tour of live shows, and a brief plug for a foundation for the rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming of abused and abandoned dogs.

Now I love dogs. Tica, my sister in law's golden retriever, has a special place in my life. She's lovable, though she hasn't quite learned how to heel. But I doubt that I'd need more than a couple of coaching sessions to get her in the right direction. I guess there are a lot more challenging dogs, and frustrated owners, who would be better customers for a Millan book and software suite.

But I have to praise Cesar, not bury him--okay, bad pun. He's done what few teachers could do. He's made learning a difficult task cool.

If only more math teachers could do the same, and become a brand. I know of one: Danica McKellar, an actress with a math degree from UCLA. I know of her as Winny Cooper on The Wonder Years, but she also had a recurring role as a presidential speech writer on The West Wing. She is also the co-author of a ground-breaking mathematical physics theorem which bears her name (The Chayes-McKellar-Winn Theorem).

Danica's first book, Math Doesn't Suck, is targeted to middle school girls. It appears to blend challenges she knows well: learning math and being Winny, who is pretty and smart. Her second book, Kiss My Math, is much the same, though the math is pre-algebra.

In either book, Danica helps girls with their homework but also helps build self esteem and tells them that it's cool to be smart. She's filling some roles that a traditional teacher cannot fill. She can fill them because she was an actress before she became a mathematician. This allowed her to build her brand; she could have just as easily quit acting and taught math full-time to a much smaller audience.

Danica's success, and Cesar's, made me wonder: is it easier to teach a teacher to become an actor or to teach an actor to become a teacher? I'd love to know the answer. Because we need talented teachers to become brands just as we need talented teachers in our classrooms.

Tom Coburn Can Go Off the Deep End, Even When He's Right

Until yesterday, I had never known that the National Science Foundation funded studies in political science. I had always thought that foundation grants went to scientists and mathematicians.

But thanks to Senator Tom Coburn (R. Oklahoma), I now know that $9 million is awarded to political scientists to study such subjects as drug trafficking, public reactions to torture, the political beliefs of Medicare recipients, and political candidates' presence on YouTube.

Tom Coburn is not one of my favorite senators. This is not the first time he has exaggerated over a program he doesn't like. He said that the political science program fueled the federal deficit that will "waterboard" America's children. Why couldn't he just say that the $9 million could have been better spent on scientific, technology, engineering and mathematics, aka STEM subjects? One paragraph would have been enough, and he would have made his point.

Coburn read a statement into the Congressional Record calling for the elimination of the $9 million appropriation. Here, he recalls the numerous scientific contributions realized through NSF grants. Then he rants about the political science studies.

However, instead of calling for a reduction in grant spending, he says that he supports an 10 to 15 percent increase in the NSF budget for "pure science," which I will take to mean STEM subjects. Then he jumps back and says that "there is $350 billion in government waste."

Funny thing is, rants aside, I agree with Coburn about the $9 million. Congress has every right right to ask the NSF to keep funding strictly to STEM subjects. Scientific innovations help drive our economy and improve our quality of life. If these political science grants are, for example, for a defense or strategic study, then they can be funded by another agency or private foundation set up for that purpose.

Club for Growth Leader Favors Steadfast Conservatism Over Compromise? Or Does He?

Today's USA Today had an interesting opposing view about bi-partisanship. It was written by Chris Chocola, a former Indiana Congressman and president of the Club for Growth, a group that promotes conservative and pro-business candidates and causes.

The piece, GOP offers clear alternative, explains that Republican candidates win when they campaign and govern as conservatives. Someone should have told that to John McCain last year. Barack Obama earned the highest Democratic share of the popular vote since 1964 and he captured 365 of the 538 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Chocola made an interesting comment with respect to McCain, who has been a pro-business conservative longer than most sitting senators:

If the American people really wanted Republicans to compromise, be moderate and be bipartisan, John McCain would be president of the United States.

I was stunned. He believes that Republicans would have preferred to stay home or vote for a third party conservative than elect a president of their own party? Then he must also agree that the majority of the voters wanted Obama to win, because McCain lost. They wanted the change Obama promised, or they were tired of the failures of the Bush Administration. The voters still want change, not wishy-washy health care bills 1100 pages long!

The Republicans had their choice of candidates in 2008. No Republican who would question Ron Paul's conservative credentials. He was successful at drawing a youth vote and Internet fund raising, and he's older than John McCain!

Ron Paul is a pro-life obstetrician; who better than to convey an anti-abortion message? The man has been re-elected to Congress ten times from the Houston metro area, one of America's hotbeds of conservatism. He's more serious about tax cuts and spending cuts than any Republican candidate. And he wrote a New York Times bestseller, mainly on economic policy! He's was the only candidate from either party who could explain economics in a manner the voters would understand.

Chocola also made this comment:

The public is tiring of the overreaching and radical change demanded by the Democratic leadership.

Ron Paul was the only Republican who promised radical conservative change. He called for the dissolution of the IRS, replacing it with no agency. He had called for the end of the Federal Reserve, again to replace it with no agency. He called for an end to the occupation of Iraq--that's not standard party line, but the end of a war does cut government spending--and he supports greater civil liberties.

So, Let's see: real tax cuts, real spending cuts, end to an endless war. Not to mention pro-life. Sound like a conservative who could win an election without alienating people by saying that his opponent is a socialist who pals around with terrorists.

The Republicans rejected the only candidate who represented true conservative change and the only candidate who could have given Obama or Hillary Clinton a run for their money in public debate.

So, I ask. Why didn't Chris Chocola tell his membership to endorse Ron Paul over McCain? Ron Paul's election, or even a very close defeat, would have proven him right. Chocola, et al. are just as responsible for handing the presidency to Barack Obama as the majority who voted for him.

Going Book to Book With Ron Paul.

Micheal Moore and Ron Paul have one thing in common: they have both told the country that the banking system, especially the Federal Reserve, is run by elites. Only Ron Paul has taken more time to figure that out.

After I saw Capitalism, a Love Story, I bought End the Fed, Ron Paul's latest book, as well as The Revolution, A Manifesto, his previous New York Times bestseller. I took on the task of reading the older and newer books back-to-back to learn the congressman's beliefs about capitalism and economic stability.

Paul, an 11-term U.S. Congressman, is a physician who has spent more than a generation studying monetary policy. During his 2008 presidential campaign, Rep. Paul called for the elimination of the IRS, replacing the agency with nothing. He opposed U.S. military intervention in Iraq, calling it an unnecessary war. In The Revolution, he called for the abolition of the individual income tax. He said that while that would cut federal revenues by 4o percent, it would allow a balanced budget if the federal budget were the same size as it was in 1997. He has also called for tax breaks for the disabled.

Paul's major target, however, is the Federal Reserve. In both books he makes these points, among others:

+ The Fed is governed by an un-elected elite that is not accountable to anyone, including Congress and the President.
+ The governance and policies of the Fed is heavily influenced by the major banks that it is supposed to regulate.
+ The Fed creates money "out of thin air" whenever there is a war, a fiscal crisis or a desire for bigger government.
+ By creating money out of thin air, the Fed creates artificial economic "booms" that later become "busts." The current sub-prime housing debacle is one such example.
+ The Fed creates such "booms" around election time by manipulating interest rates and reserve requirements.
+ Government-created entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are intended to be private, can receive capital injections and favored status from the Fed.

Rep. Paul believes the Fed can be closed down and replaced with nothing, along with several other government agencies. I would imagine that functions of the Fed: economic forecasting, managing the money supply, interest rates and reserve requirements--these are cash reserves to prevent runs on a bank--could be handled by other government agencies, but I would prefer that they be led by non-political individuals. The office of the chairman of the Federal Reserve was intended to be non-political, one reason why his term is 14 years. I would imagine that Congress would need to create some non-partisan or bi-partisan body to make similar decisions

But at the same time, Paul, while making elimination of the Fed key to a conservative political platform, has raised a worthwhile debate. How much government do we need, and for what purposes? The thought that we could eliminate large agencies, as well as a significant tax burden is certainly worth an intellectual exercise by Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals alike. These books are not a lengthy read, but they are not a fast one either. However, they offer a starting point.

Rep Paul points out that the Constitution makes few references to government agencies: only defense, diplomacy, powers to tax and protections to individual freedom. However, technological change led to economic expansion and that has changed the roles of government, too. Talking about earmarks, which are small potatoes or linking serious analysis about health policy as Marxism and Socialism will not get us that discussion anytime soon.


Shop Indie Bookstores


Shop Indie Bookstores

The Grand Nagus Teaches Capitalism in Micheal Moore's Movie

This weekend, I saw the new Micheal Moore movie, Capitalism, a Love Story. For the most part, I liked the movie as much as I have any other Micheal Moore movie. I always learn a few interesting historical and political facts, however, I also see Moore shoot himself in the foot with his antics in corporate lobbies.

But this piece is not a review, rather it is about an ironic piece of the movie. Segments of the picture included face to face conversations with actor Wallace Shawn. Moore said that Shawn is an actor "who has also studied economics and politics."

Shawn is a short elderly man with long white hair, and a very recognizable voice. As soon as he finished a sentence I said to myself: "oh my god, that's the Grand Nagus!" Luckily nobody was sitting next to me; anyone within earshot might have flashed a dirty look while wondering what I was talking about.

The Grand Nagus is a character from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. He was the leader of the commercially-minded Ferengi Alliance. If you're a Trekker, you'll remember the Ferengi as the troll-like aliens with huge ears and spindly bodies.

The Nagus is both the political leader of the Ferengi as well as the economic leader. Virtually all decisions that affect the Ferengi must meet the approval of the Grand Nagus and His power is supported by the Ferengi Bill of Opportunities and backed by the Board of Liquidators. The Nagus is also the primary enforcer of the Rules of Acquisition. Among the Rules are:

+ Keep your ears open.
+ Small print leads to large risk.
+ Opportunity plus instinct equals profit.
+ Greed is eternal.
+ Anything worth doing is worth doing for money.
+ A deal is a deal ... until a better one comes along.

So, Wallace Shawn played the ultimate capitalist. And check out the Rules. They are capitalism at its purest.