Last week, I read that Northeastern University in Boston has decided to drop scholarship football, beginning next season. This will leave the Hub City's two largest undergraduate schools--Boston University is the other--without the sport.
Northeastern plays in the Colonial Athletic Conference; it's members include public and private universities from Rhode Island to Richmond, and the team had not been in a position to succeed. According to Boston.com, the team played off-campus in a 7,000seat stadium more closely resembling a high school facility with aluminum stands and inadequate locker room facilities on-site. The costs of operating a losing program with poor facilities were approximately $3 million, mainly for salaries and scholarships. Attendance averaged 1,600 fans per game, far from sufficient to support a program with 65 scholarship athletes.
The savings from dropping football will not be immediate. The university made scholarship commitments to continuing students, which they intend to honor. There may be buy-out clauses in the coaches contracts, and potentially agreements to maintain the off-campus field that must be honored. So, it's difficult to estimate the true savings from dropping football until all of the expenses of the football program have disappeared.
The list of urban privately-supported universities that have dropped scholarship football includes not only Boston University, but also George Washington, DePaul, Drexel, Marquette, NYU and Xavier (OH), among others.
However, it is also interesting that in recent years the urban public universities such as Cincinnati,Georgia Tech, Louisville, Houston, Minnesota, Pitt, Temple have increased their commitment to the sport, while it has also been embraced at a lower scholarship division by Georgia State and the University of North Carolina-Charlotte. Public schools have two advantages: they can use public power to acquire land for athletic facilies and use public money to build and manage them.
I fully understand Northeastern's major reason to drop the sport: the cost of fielding a competitive team had become too rich for the administration's blood. And why spend more when so few people bother to show up at the games? With approximately 13,000 undergraduates, Northeastern is not a small school. However, most of those students are enrolled in cooperative education programs that keep them off-campus.
A competitive program at this level would require a 10,000 seat stadium, on campus or easily accessible to mass transit. At least a quarter of those seats would have to be filled by students; scholarship athletes want to play in front of an enthusiastic audience. I don't believe that the Northeastern athletic department could have made the numbers work. They made the right decision to move on.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The MBA and the Entrepreneur: A Fresh Viewpoint by G.L. Hoffman
G.L. Hoffman is a serial entrepreneur and his two children are smarter than he is, University of Chicago MBA and a Harvard grad student. He is chairman of www.LINKUP.com and a blogger/contributor to USNEWS and WORLD REPORT and FastCompany. He talks often about startups. I would like to thank him for this guest post for Educated Quest.
For every entrepreneur who has an MBA, there must be a thousand who do not. So, having an MBA is certainly not a prerequisite for a successful entrepreneurial career. This is obvious.
However, if one has the time, money and desire to learn, almost any MBA course...whether full time, parttime, online, or abbreviated can be crucial to developing a skill set that will put you into a position with a greater likelihood of success.
I think what is needed is not a shortened version on the traditional MBA course, but a new way to thinking about teaching entrepreneurship. It could be associated with a university, but maybe not. I see Seth Godin had a multi-week course that brought selected entrepreneurs together. I am betting that more new companies will be started out of that group than any other similar group. I think there are countless other Seth Godin's out there, capable of teaching a small group of wanna be entrepreneurs.
Shoot, I could even teach one, and may well do so in the future. I wrote a little mini book with 100 tips and ideas that entrepreneurs use and know. Each one has a small paragraph of explanation and examples. For 20 lessons at night, for two hours each, I could teach a course that covered five of these tips in detail each night, and call upon experts and others to elaborate on them. If this was a class of 20 people, who I got to select based upon my own as-yet un-determined criteria, I think half of them would end up starting a company or doing better in one that they have already started. They would learn as much the others as from my team of experts and me. It would be a ten week course.
The cost of this "mini-course" would be $3,000. The booklet itself costs $9.95 and will form the basic lesson plan of the course. Leaving $2,990.05 of "value" that is created by the classroom interacting with each other, debating and learning, and thinking about the other stories we are sure to experience by being in such an environment.
The materials---the books, the classroom itself, even the environment of the typical college setting---bring little in value. Remember this the next time you consider your MBA choices. The value is in the intangible part.
_____________________
Recent graduates, and other job seekers, might benefit from G.L's advice on how to find a better job. Click here to learn more about his book: Dig Your Job, Keep it or Find a New One, The Not-So-Serious Career Handbook.
For every entrepreneur who has an MBA, there must be a thousand who do not. So, having an MBA is certainly not a prerequisite for a successful entrepreneurial career. This is obvious.
However, if one has the time, money and desire to learn, almost any MBA course...whether full time, parttime, online, or abbreviated can be crucial to developing a skill set that will put you into a position with a greater likelihood of success.
I think what is needed is not a shortened version on the traditional MBA course, but a new way to thinking about teaching entrepreneurship. It could be associated with a university, but maybe not. I see Seth Godin had a multi-week course that brought selected entrepreneurs together. I am betting that more new companies will be started out of that group than any other similar group. I think there are countless other Seth Godin's out there, capable of teaching a small group of wanna be entrepreneurs.
Shoot, I could even teach one, and may well do so in the future. I wrote a little mini book with 100 tips and ideas that entrepreneurs use and know. Each one has a small paragraph of explanation and examples. For 20 lessons at night, for two hours each, I could teach a course that covered five of these tips in detail each night, and call upon experts and others to elaborate on them. If this was a class of 20 people, who I got to select based upon my own as-yet un-determined criteria, I think half of them would end up starting a company or doing better in one that they have already started. They would learn as much the others as from my team of experts and me. It would be a ten week course.
The cost of this "mini-course" would be $3,000. The booklet itself costs $9.95 and will form the basic lesson plan of the course. Leaving $2,990.05 of "value" that is created by the classroom interacting with each other, debating and learning, and thinking about the other stories we are sure to experience by being in such an environment.
The materials---the books, the classroom itself, even the environment of the typical college setting---bring little in value. Remember this the next time you consider your MBA choices. The value is in the intangible part.
_____________________
Recent graduates, and other job seekers, might benefit from G.L's advice on how to find a better job. Click here to learn more about his book: Dig Your Job, Keep it or Find a New One, The Not-So-Serious Career Handbook.
The One Year MBA--An Attractive Proposition?
Whenever I went to Rutgers football home games the university wasted no time in promoting the option of a one-year MBA degree, beginning in June 2010. One year MBA programs are nothing new; the University of Pittsburgh, Southern Methodist, even Northwestern--one of the top programs--have offered one-year options for some time. But they are not for everyone.
The best attraction of a one-year MBA is cost. The cost of a MBA is not only the tuition, fees and living expenses; it is also the income you give up to go to school. So, if you graduate in one year you spend less money and give up less, too.
Sounds good?
It is, if you had a career before you started the program. Imagine you are a young corporate executive, for instance an engineer, sales rep, or accountant in your first managerial position, and you lose your job. If you want to find a new position in the same field you can collect unemployment, manage your job search and complete the MBA, all at the same time. Your pre-MBA resume is the major selling point. Completing the MBA is icing on the cake.
I can also see that a one-year MBA would benefit the entrepreneur or the self-employed who do not intend to pursue a corporate position. You get the fundamentals at the least possible expense, and you can plan your work schedule around the program.
But what if you want to make a career change? In the traditional MBA program, students submit resumes to career services for internships between the first and second year, then for post-graduation employment. The internship is essential if you want to consider a new field.
For example, when I worked on my MBA, I had a summer internship in human resources, then a part-time internship in marketing during the school year. Both experiences helped me secure a job offer before graduation. If I had tried to jump from my public/non-profit management career into a corporate position without the benefit of these internships, I would have been out of luck.
In addition to the internship experience, career-changing MBA students like the choice of electives in their degree program. A one-year program has fewer electives than a two-year program, or it takes you through the core courses: accounting, economics, finance, marketing, among others, at an accelerated pace, so that you can get to the electives. Business programs are very quantitative, so students with limited math backgrounds will need remedial courses in calculus and statistics. And these courses carry no degree credit.
I was 31 when I started my MBA, slightly older than the typical student. But a recent college graduate who jumps directly into a MBA starts with the same disadvantage I had: no full-time private sector work experience. It might be tempting for members of the class of 2010 to put off the job market for an extra year, and hope for better things.
However, inexperienced MBAs face two problems. They compete at a disadvantage against experienced people from very good schools, and they are forced to compete against business undergraduates for entry level jobs.
Whether you go for one year or two, full-time or part-time, a MBA can provide an invaluable education. But keep in mind, different degree options are tailored to different prospective students. A one-year MBA works well for some, but not for all.
The best attraction of a one-year MBA is cost. The cost of a MBA is not only the tuition, fees and living expenses; it is also the income you give up to go to school. So, if you graduate in one year you spend less money and give up less, too.
Sounds good?
It is, if you had a career before you started the program. Imagine you are a young corporate executive, for instance an engineer, sales rep, or accountant in your first managerial position, and you lose your job. If you want to find a new position in the same field you can collect unemployment, manage your job search and complete the MBA, all at the same time. Your pre-MBA resume is the major selling point. Completing the MBA is icing on the cake.
I can also see that a one-year MBA would benefit the entrepreneur or the self-employed who do not intend to pursue a corporate position. You get the fundamentals at the least possible expense, and you can plan your work schedule around the program.
But what if you want to make a career change? In the traditional MBA program, students submit resumes to career services for internships between the first and second year, then for post-graduation employment. The internship is essential if you want to consider a new field.
For example, when I worked on my MBA, I had a summer internship in human resources, then a part-time internship in marketing during the school year. Both experiences helped me secure a job offer before graduation. If I had tried to jump from my public/non-profit management career into a corporate position without the benefit of these internships, I would have been out of luck.
In addition to the internship experience, career-changing MBA students like the choice of electives in their degree program. A one-year program has fewer electives than a two-year program, or it takes you through the core courses: accounting, economics, finance, marketing, among others, at an accelerated pace, so that you can get to the electives. Business programs are very quantitative, so students with limited math backgrounds will need remedial courses in calculus and statistics. And these courses carry no degree credit.
I was 31 when I started my MBA, slightly older than the typical student. But a recent college graduate who jumps directly into a MBA starts with the same disadvantage I had: no full-time private sector work experience. It might be tempting for members of the class of 2010 to put off the job market for an extra year, and hope for better things.
However, inexperienced MBAs face two problems. They compete at a disadvantage against experienced people from very good schools, and they are forced to compete against business undergraduates for entry level jobs.
Whether you go for one year or two, full-time or part-time, a MBA can provide an invaluable education. But keep in mind, different degree options are tailored to different prospective students. A one-year MBA works well for some, but not for all.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Holiday We Share--A Thanksgiving Repost
I'm very much into history and this is a festive week, so I decided to make my last post before the holiday about the history of Thanksgiving in the United States. You can go to the History Channel Web site and read much more, including the descriptions of the first meal, and our unique tradition of football games on our first national holiday.
During the 17th and 18th centuries colonists observed several days of thanksgiving each year in honor of a bountiful harvest, a military victory and the adoption of a state constitution.
Upon taking office in 1789, one of George Washington’s first acts as president was to declare a national day of thanksgiving. The day he declared for Thanksgiving was November 26, the last Thursday of the month. But Washington would not declare another Thanksgiving Day for another six years. It would not be until 1863, when President Lincoln proclaimed the national day of Thanksgiving to be the last Thursday in November. And Lincoln’s successors stuck to the date.
The last Thursday of the month was usually the fourth Thursday of the month. But in 1939, November had five Thursdays. President Roosevelt wanted to declare the next-to-last Thursday of the month Thanksgiving to help extend the Christmas shopping season.
I don’t know if FDR was the first president to commercialize the holiday, but at that time 22 states stuck with the traditional holiday. A presidential declaration was non-binding. But two years later, Congress passed a federal law declaring the official holiday to be the fourth Thursday, and Roosevelt gave his blessing.
The History Channel site will tell you that turkey might not have been the centerpiece of the 17th century day of thanks between the Pilgrims and Native Americans at Plymouth Rock. However, the presidential pardoning of turkeys is a uniquely American tradition, and no one is sure how it got started.
While presidents have been presented with live turkeys for 61 years, the earliest pardon on record was granted by the first President Bush twenty years ago. I guess the other turkeys served their sentences in limbo, spending their final days on the farm confined to an uncertain fate
And as a native New Jerseyan, I am proud to say that the first Thanksgiving Day parades were in the Garden State, in downtown Newark, and not New York. But in 1924, the parade came to the Big Apple, presumably for good.
And one last bit of trivia: the first celebrity parade balloon and the first television star (in black and white) was Felix the Cat. Mickey Mouse would not make his Thanksgiving Day Parade debut for another seven years.
Enjoy your holiday!
During the 17th and 18th centuries colonists observed several days of thanksgiving each year in honor of a bountiful harvest, a military victory and the adoption of a state constitution.
Upon taking office in 1789, one of George Washington’s first acts as president was to declare a national day of thanksgiving. The day he declared for Thanksgiving was November 26, the last Thursday of the month. But Washington would not declare another Thanksgiving Day for another six years. It would not be until 1863, when President Lincoln proclaimed the national day of Thanksgiving to be the last Thursday in November. And Lincoln’s successors stuck to the date.
The last Thursday of the month was usually the fourth Thursday of the month. But in 1939, November had five Thursdays. President Roosevelt wanted to declare the next-to-last Thursday of the month Thanksgiving to help extend the Christmas shopping season.
I don’t know if FDR was the first president to commercialize the holiday, but at that time 22 states stuck with the traditional holiday. A presidential declaration was non-binding. But two years later, Congress passed a federal law declaring the official holiday to be the fourth Thursday, and Roosevelt gave his blessing.
The History Channel site will tell you that turkey might not have been the centerpiece of the 17th century day of thanks between the Pilgrims and Native Americans at Plymouth Rock. However, the presidential pardoning of turkeys is a uniquely American tradition, and no one is sure how it got started.
While presidents have been presented with live turkeys for 61 years, the earliest pardon on record was granted by the first President Bush twenty years ago. I guess the other turkeys served their sentences in limbo, spending their final days on the farm confined to an uncertain fate
And as a native New Jerseyan, I am proud to say that the first Thanksgiving Day parades were in the Garden State, in downtown Newark, and not New York. But in 1924, the parade came to the Big Apple, presumably for good.
And one last bit of trivia: the first celebrity parade balloon and the first television star (in black and white) was Felix the Cat. Mickey Mouse would not make his Thanksgiving Day Parade debut for another seven years.
Enjoy your holiday!
A Grassroots Campaign to Save a Bad Student Loan Program
Today, I read a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education that Sallie Mae, one of the nation's largest student loan lenders, is leading a grass roots campaign to save bank-based student loan lending.
In the communities of Fishers and Muncie, Indiana ; Lynn Haven, Florida.; and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Sallie Mae employees led petition drives that collected nearly 187,000 signatures in opposition to President Obama's plan to shift from bank-based lending to direct lending by the federal government. However, Sallie Mae and other lenders will still be major players in the private loan market. And they retain the rights to collect on the loans that they already service.
The major reason for the petition drives, however, is that with the switch from bank-based lending to direct lending, Sallie Mae will not need as many call center workers who work in the U.S. and abroad. Twenty six facilities would be closed. However, Sallie Mae was still one of four lenders to receive a contract from the U.S. Department of Education to service government-funded student loans. So, the number of estimated job losses is in dispute.
I'm not sure if there is an inside story untold, namely that Sallie Mae workers have been dragged into these petition drives based on fears spread by senior executives. I don't know anything about the employment culture within Sallie Mae, but I am somewhat familiar with customer service and call centers. they might be one of the few growth industries left in this country; outsourcing abroad does not work for all sectors of the economy, especially collections.
While Sallie Mae would not be able to originate as many new government guaranteed loans, they are still a major private lender. And, with the rising cost of college still unregulated, they will continue to be a force in that market. The maximum that students may borrow, under the publicly sponsored programs, for an undergraduate degree is $37,500, while four-year public university degrees can cost more than $100,000. Private lending is here to stay and fill the gap.
And obviously, being a lender, institutions such as Sallie Mae are more experienced at collections and debt refinancing than a government agency or guarantee authority. They can do what the credit card companies do when faced with tighter regulations, they can raise fees on delinquent borrowers and borrowers seeking forbearance, a chance to delay payments while unemployed or considerably underemployed. Financial institutions that are too big to fail always find ways to grow income.
I cannot feel sorry for a financial institution whose leadership, which has been under fire for monopoly practices in its industry, hides behind the economic fears of its workers. Especially when they endorsed actions, such as bribes to assure preferred lender status, that put their employees jobs on the line.
In the communities of Fishers and Muncie, Indiana ; Lynn Haven, Florida.; and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Sallie Mae employees led petition drives that collected nearly 187,000 signatures in opposition to President Obama's plan to shift from bank-based lending to direct lending by the federal government. However, Sallie Mae and other lenders will still be major players in the private loan market. And they retain the rights to collect on the loans that they already service.
The major reason for the petition drives, however, is that with the switch from bank-based lending to direct lending, Sallie Mae will not need as many call center workers who work in the U.S. and abroad. Twenty six facilities would be closed. However, Sallie Mae was still one of four lenders to receive a contract from the U.S. Department of Education to service government-funded student loans. So, the number of estimated job losses is in dispute.
I'm not sure if there is an inside story untold, namely that Sallie Mae workers have been dragged into these petition drives based on fears spread by senior executives. I don't know anything about the employment culture within Sallie Mae, but I am somewhat familiar with customer service and call centers. they might be one of the few growth industries left in this country; outsourcing abroad does not work for all sectors of the economy, especially collections.
While Sallie Mae would not be able to originate as many new government guaranteed loans, they are still a major private lender. And, with the rising cost of college still unregulated, they will continue to be a force in that market. The maximum that students may borrow, under the publicly sponsored programs, for an undergraduate degree is $37,500, while four-year public university degrees can cost more than $100,000. Private lending is here to stay and fill the gap.
And obviously, being a lender, institutions such as Sallie Mae are more experienced at collections and debt refinancing than a government agency or guarantee authority. They can do what the credit card companies do when faced with tighter regulations, they can raise fees on delinquent borrowers and borrowers seeking forbearance, a chance to delay payments while unemployed or considerably underemployed. Financial institutions that are too big to fail always find ways to grow income.
I cannot feel sorry for a financial institution whose leadership, which has been under fire for monopoly practices in its industry, hides behind the economic fears of its workers. Especially when they endorsed actions, such as bribes to assure preferred lender status, that put their employees jobs on the line.
Iowa Public Library Board Stands Up for Sex Etc. Magazine
About two weeks ago, I wrote a post about a recent New School University graduate who had developed the concept of a sex education comic book called Not Your Mother's Meat Loaf, a compendium of real-life stories written by teens and college-age students. On the heels of this post comes another story in the Church Report entitled Iowa Parents Lose to Sex Ed Lobby. This story bothered me because I am familiar with the subject of its direction: a Web site called Sex Etc.
Managed by Answer, a privately-sponsored and publicly supported education organization based at Rutgers, Sex Etc is a Web site and a print magazine with teenage writers and a teenage editorial board. While the student writers do not always share real-life stories, they are obviously concerned about the issues. And the student writers do not all share the same points of view with respect to abstinence. If anything, this site has been quite respectful of multiple viewpoints.
However, this storyhas labeled the teen editors and writers as members of the "liberal education establishment." The story is based on a protest by 100 Aims, Iowa parents who objected to the free distribution of the Sex Etc magazine in the teen section of the public library. They asked the library board to remove the magazine, and, in a 6 to 1 vote, the board refused.
This story goes to compare the content of the Sex Etc magazine and Web site, with their biases. Fair enough; this is a Christian news site and we have freedom of the press. However, these quotes stands out:
Answer and Sex, Etc. are clever. They frame their advocacy for sex education – and, in effect, for sexualizing children and (added bonus!) normalizing all manner of sexual proclivity – in language of “rights.” But they’re not just exercising the liberal talent for finding hitherto-unsuspected “rights,” they are playing to the average self-absorbed adolescent’s fantasies of repression.
Answer and Sex, Etc. are bypassing parents to directly target teens and the more ideologically accommodating adults in education and libraries. In Ames, Art Weeks said his mission as a librarian is to “provide information on a variety of topics, especially ones that are most important to people's lives,” your bourgeois niceties be hanged. He, an enlightened educator, seems to see the Sex, Etc. flap as one of those “teachable moments” of which the left is so fond.
I read these and think, Oh c'mon, these are high school kids. They're not the next generation of the liberal left. And they're taking risks. It is not exactly common for high school age kids to openly communicate on such sensitive topics; if anything, this generation of high school students asks for more privacy than my generation did.
It is also not common for students who would write on these subjects to write about them without speaking with their own parents. That a fellow journalist--the author of this story is the Managing Editor for The Culture & Media Institute--would slander them is beyond belief.
I believe very strongly in religious freedom, and that religious leaders should educate their congregations on sex, or any other subject with a moral viewpoint, without government intervention. If the publisher of Sex Etc were to appear at a church library and ask for the opportunity to distribute free copies, I would expect the church to say no, and the publisher to respect that decision.
But a small group of angry parents should not taken as the voice of an entire community because they do not like the content of a free magazine, especially when there are far more explicit materials distributed freely throughout the library without age restrictions. And high school students who write about sex-related issues should not be mislabeled as the future voices of the liberal left, unless they admit that on their own.
Managed by Answer, a privately-sponsored and publicly supported education organization based at Rutgers, Sex Etc is a Web site and a print magazine with teenage writers and a teenage editorial board. While the student writers do not always share real-life stories, they are obviously concerned about the issues. And the student writers do not all share the same points of view with respect to abstinence. If anything, this site has been quite respectful of multiple viewpoints.
However, this storyhas labeled the teen editors and writers as members of the "liberal education establishment." The story is based on a protest by 100 Aims, Iowa parents who objected to the free distribution of the Sex Etc magazine in the teen section of the public library. They asked the library board to remove the magazine, and, in a 6 to 1 vote, the board refused.
This story goes to compare the content of the Sex Etc magazine and Web site, with their biases. Fair enough; this is a Christian news site and we have freedom of the press. However, these quotes stands out:
Answer and Sex, Etc. are clever. They frame their advocacy for sex education – and, in effect, for sexualizing children and (added bonus!) normalizing all manner of sexual proclivity – in language of “rights.” But they’re not just exercising the liberal talent for finding hitherto-unsuspected “rights,” they are playing to the average self-absorbed adolescent’s fantasies of repression.
Answer and Sex, Etc. are bypassing parents to directly target teens and the more ideologically accommodating adults in education and libraries. In Ames, Art Weeks said his mission as a librarian is to “provide information on a variety of topics, especially ones that are most important to people's lives,” your bourgeois niceties be hanged. He, an enlightened educator, seems to see the Sex, Etc. flap as one of those “teachable moments” of which the left is so fond.
I read these and think, Oh c'mon, these are high school kids. They're not the next generation of the liberal left. And they're taking risks. It is not exactly common for high school age kids to openly communicate on such sensitive topics; if anything, this generation of high school students asks for more privacy than my generation did.
It is also not common for students who would write on these subjects to write about them without speaking with their own parents. That a fellow journalist--the author of this story is the Managing Editor for The Culture & Media Institute--would slander them is beyond belief.
I believe very strongly in religious freedom, and that religious leaders should educate their congregations on sex, or any other subject with a moral viewpoint, without government intervention. If the publisher of Sex Etc were to appear at a church library and ask for the opportunity to distribute free copies, I would expect the church to say no, and the publisher to respect that decision.
But a small group of angry parents should not taken as the voice of an entire community because they do not like the content of a free magazine, especially when there are far more explicit materials distributed freely throughout the library without age restrictions. And high school students who write about sex-related issues should not be mislabeled as the future voices of the liberal left, unless they admit that on their own.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sex Education Funding Part of Federal Health Care Debate
Today, I am reading a story in Education Week about the status of federal sex education funding in the latest health care bill.
As the result of compromises within the Senate, Democratic leadership has proposed a bill with $50 million in funding to continue abstinence-based sex education programs and $75 million for comprehensive sex education programs.
According to the story, President Obama had supported the elimination of the abstinence-based programs that had been introduced during the Clinton Administration--when the president developed and moved what was essentially a Republican-directed budget--and continued with the support of George W. Bush.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R. UT) proposed an amendment to restore the funding for abstinence-based programs. His point, according to the story, was that “most parents, when given a choice, want their school-age children to remain abstinent.” I would agree with this point, but I don't believe the Senator would want schools to produce naive children, either
So, if this bill passes, there will be $125 million in funding for the states to choose the program they want. This might be fine for 2010, when states will likely be more fiscally strapped, but should this level of funding go on indefinitely? I have to say no, unless there is a consensus on national policy for teaching comprehensive sex education.
Such a policy should be based on providing as much information, including reasons to abstain and respect for those who do, as possible to parents and students. Empowering citizens to make their own choices is a virtue expressed by politicians on the left as well as on the right.
If the country continues to be as divided on sex education, as it is with abortion, and the states have access to the resources they need, then sex education should be a state, and not a federal issue. If the country is willing to end a culture war by acknowledging agreement on a set of issues--preventing teen pregnancy, exposure to diseases being two examples--then a federal policy would be more effective.
As the result of compromises within the Senate, Democratic leadership has proposed a bill with $50 million in funding to continue abstinence-based sex education programs and $75 million for comprehensive sex education programs.
According to the story, President Obama had supported the elimination of the abstinence-based programs that had been introduced during the Clinton Administration--when the president developed and moved what was essentially a Republican-directed budget--and continued with the support of George W. Bush.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R. UT) proposed an amendment to restore the funding for abstinence-based programs. His point, according to the story, was that “most parents, when given a choice, want their school-age children to remain abstinent.” I would agree with this point, but I don't believe the Senator would want schools to produce naive children, either
So, if this bill passes, there will be $125 million in funding for the states to choose the program they want. This might be fine for 2010, when states will likely be more fiscally strapped, but should this level of funding go on indefinitely? I have to say no, unless there is a consensus on national policy for teaching comprehensive sex education.
Such a policy should be based on providing as much information, including reasons to abstain and respect for those who do, as possible to parents and students. Empowering citizens to make their own choices is a virtue expressed by politicians on the left as well as on the right.
If the country continues to be as divided on sex education, as it is with abortion, and the states have access to the resources they need, then sex education should be a state, and not a federal issue. If the country is willing to end a culture war by acknowledging agreement on a set of issues--preventing teen pregnancy, exposure to diseases being two examples--then a federal policy would be more effective.
Book Review: Gone Tomorrow, A Novel by P.F. Kluge
Shop Indie Bookstores
Gone Tomorrow was one of National Public Radio's Best Books of 2008; it only recently came into paperback. Since I write about stories that are set in an educational settings, I looked forward to a read and review. I was far from disappointed in this story.
The author, P.F. Kluge is best known for the book Eddie and The Cruisers, which later became a film that featured Tom Berenger, Joe Palantonio (Ralph of Sopranos fame), and Ellen Barkin, among others. He also wrote a Life magazine story, The Boys in the Bank, that later became the basis for the movie Dog Day Afternoon starring Al Pacino.
Gone Tomorrow is the story of a writing professor, George Canaris, who is killed by a hit-and-run driver shortly after delivering a farewell address to the Ohio college that has employed him for the past thirty five years, and asked him to step aside in favor of another contemporary writer.
Canaris was a writer much like Margaret Mitchell (Gone With the Wind) and Harper Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird) or Sean Connery's fictional William Forrester in the movie Finding Forrester. He has produced a great book is his youth, but has written nothing of substance since then. Upon Canaris' death, Mark May, a colleague, has been asked to assume the role of literary executer. Canaris had written one last unfinished book, and May is expected to finish it.
While May's character is the narrator at the beginning and end of this story, the late author Canaris narrates the rest. This is a timeline of getting hired, being asked to step aside, and everything in between in his life on campus.
Hired with only a bachelor's degree and a short stint as a personal assistant in Hollywood, Canaris takes a teaching position at this noted school--it is based on nationally respected Kenyon College in Ohio--and adjusts. He takes on no administrative duties, aside from student recommendations and no scholarship. But he does appear concerned as to what his students think of him as an instructor; he even stretches honesty on recommendations to minimize regrets.
This story made me think about life as a student at an isolated liberal arts school. Last summer, I attended a writing program at Colgate University, a similar such institution in upstate New York. Like Kenyon, Colgate is an excellent school in a very small community. I liked the setting, but could not imagine going to a school like this for four years. The community on campus might be stronger at such a school, but I am the type of person who would want some escape, even for a few hours. Canaris, as you will read in this story, is a similar person.
A campus like Colgate or Kenyon is not a place you usually return after graduation. It is too far from home, family or work. You might remember some professors fondly, and even correspond with them by e-mail now and then for a year or two, but eventually your memories of the place fade away. Alumni community is exceptionally difficult to develop and maintain, even in an Internet age. Canaris hits on all of this as he narrates.
Whether you're a student considering a liberal arts education, a graduate of a liberal arts school, or a parent looking at such a school, you will enjoy Gone Tomorrow.
The Good Side of Guarantee Football Games
Last Thursday, I went to a meeting of the Rutgers Touchdown Club, the fan club for the Rutgers Scarlet Knights football team. I admit that I only became a member after my first season with season tickets, but I'm happy to be a fan of a team that has played in bowl games for the past four seasons, and is bowl-eligible again.
Among the speakers at this meeting was Rutgers athletic director Tim Pernetti, a former Scarlet Knights tight end, broadcaster and executive vice president of CBS Sports Network. Pernetti discussed the next season's football schedule, among other topics. And he added that: "our 1-AA (now Championship Subdivision) game will be against Norfolk State." Norfolk State is a historically black school that Rutgers last beat 59-0. The Scarlet Knights scored a school-record 42 points in the second quarter. Pernetti was not the athletic director at that time, and I don't know if he was involved in scheduling next season's clash, but I did not see smiles across the room. However, there are also good reasons for scheduling such a game that deserve equal time.
I'll start this off with a comment by Morgan State coach Donald Hill-Eley. Rutgers played his team last season. When asked if he wanted his team to treat this game as their bowl game, he told a NJ.com reporter:
It's a situation for us where we have young men, whether they turned down major 1-A situations to get to this situation ... it's just the whole atmosphere of the game. To be able to go up against a team like Rutgers, or any 1-A program from that standpoint, and give them an opportunity to experience the scene of the game at that level, it gives them an opportunity to showcase their talents. We're looking forward to it. The young men are definitely excited about and I'm quite sure they're going to give us a lot of effort.
This was not much different than the answer Georgia State coach Bill Curry gave to ESPN the Magazine when asked about playing Alabama.
So, one good reason for guarantee games is that good athletes get exposure to more noted talent and they get a chance to elevate their game to a higher level.
And there are other good reasons to play:
+ The money's good. The $450,000 check that Alabama will pay Georgia State will go a long way to covering the costs of Georgia State's football program. If your sports program is running a deficit, then another school might be willing to help close that financial gap for you.
+ Football programs need the wins. A bowl subdivision team needs six or seven wins to become bowl-eligible and guarantee game wins count just like any other wins, because so many schools play guarantee games. Rutgers, an emerging program, needed the guarantee games to get a seventh win over the past two seasons. And it's better to set the tone for your homecoming with a near-certain win than a possible loss.
+ Back-up players get to play. I cannot imagine the fortitude of a college football player who practices diligently, but never gets to set foot on the field. Guarantee games provide that opportunity to play, and with more than one game, possibly letter.
+ Coaches get to test ideas. Coaches work week to week to add new plays, which they test in controlled scrimmages with their own players. Testing them in a guarantee game is like testing them in an uncontrolled scrimmage. College football is not like the NFL where two teams can scrimmage on the practice field during the pre-season
+ Last season, at least for Rutgers, a guarantee game win stopped a losing streak. In those situations coaches prepare harder to secure a win.
I consider myself to be a fairly bright person, but it's taken me too long to realize that a successful football program has two ingredients: a winning team and a stadium that is always filled to capacity. Guarantee games help most accomplish the first mission. In the best programs such as Alabama and Florida they don't hinder the second one.
Among the speakers at this meeting was Rutgers athletic director Tim Pernetti, a former Scarlet Knights tight end, broadcaster and executive vice president of CBS Sports Network. Pernetti discussed the next season's football schedule, among other topics. And he added that: "our 1-AA (now Championship Subdivision) game will be against Norfolk State." Norfolk State is a historically black school that Rutgers last beat 59-0. The Scarlet Knights scored a school-record 42 points in the second quarter. Pernetti was not the athletic director at that time, and I don't know if he was involved in scheduling next season's clash, but I did not see smiles across the room. However, there are also good reasons for scheduling such a game that deserve equal time.
I'll start this off with a comment by Morgan State coach Donald Hill-Eley. Rutgers played his team last season. When asked if he wanted his team to treat this game as their bowl game, he told a NJ.com reporter:
It's a situation for us where we have young men, whether they turned down major 1-A situations to get to this situation ... it's just the whole atmosphere of the game. To be able to go up against a team like Rutgers, or any 1-A program from that standpoint, and give them an opportunity to experience the scene of the game at that level, it gives them an opportunity to showcase their talents. We're looking forward to it. The young men are definitely excited about and I'm quite sure they're going to give us a lot of effort.
This was not much different than the answer Georgia State coach Bill Curry gave to ESPN the Magazine when asked about playing Alabama.
So, one good reason for guarantee games is that good athletes get exposure to more noted talent and they get a chance to elevate their game to a higher level.
And there are other good reasons to play:
+ The money's good. The $450,000 check that Alabama will pay Georgia State will go a long way to covering the costs of Georgia State's football program. If your sports program is running a deficit, then another school might be willing to help close that financial gap for you.
+ Football programs need the wins. A bowl subdivision team needs six or seven wins to become bowl-eligible and guarantee game wins count just like any other wins, because so many schools play guarantee games. Rutgers, an emerging program, needed the guarantee games to get a seventh win over the past two seasons. And it's better to set the tone for your homecoming with a near-certain win than a possible loss.
+ Back-up players get to play. I cannot imagine the fortitude of a college football player who practices diligently, but never gets to set foot on the field. Guarantee games provide that opportunity to play, and with more than one game, possibly letter.
+ Coaches get to test ideas. Coaches work week to week to add new plays, which they test in controlled scrimmages with their own players. Testing them in a guarantee game is like testing them in an uncontrolled scrimmage. College football is not like the NFL where two teams can scrimmage on the practice field during the pre-season
+ Last season, at least for Rutgers, a guarantee game win stopped a losing streak. In those situations coaches prepare harder to secure a win.
I consider myself to be a fairly bright person, but it's taken me too long to realize that a successful football program has two ingredients: a winning team and a stadium that is always filled to capacity. Guarantee games help most accomplish the first mission. In the best programs such as Alabama and Florida they don't hinder the second one.
How To Pick a College For Your Kid, a Guest Post by G.L. Hoffman
GL Hoffman is a serial entrepreneur and his two children are smarter than he is, University of Chicago MBA and a Harvard grad student. He is chairman of www.LINKUP.com and a blogger/contributor to USNEWS and WORLD REPORT and FastCompany. He talks often about startups. I would like to thank him for this guest post for Educated Quest.
Can there be a more stressful time than our high school student picking a college? For us the answer is no and it may well be even for THEM.
I am a decade away from when that happened to me but the memories are still fresh, sort of like a nagging groin injury that won’t go away.
My Home Blog is called What Would Dad Say, and the kicker text Frequently Wrong, Never in Doubt allows me to be opinionated. If you disagree with me, so be it.
Here is my counter intuitive advice. I don’t care how smart your son or daughter is, how much responsibility they have shown and how they make such good decisions back home in Abilene, Kansas.
They are clueless about picking a college. This is when you earn your stripes as a parent. No one knows your kid like you do. The kid doesn’t know himself like you know him, either. You have to decide for him.
Now, you cannot let him know this. This is where you use every manipulative technique you have ever learned. You cannot say PICK THIS ONE, but you can influence.
These 18-year-olds don’t know much about the real world. Classic case: a dad I knew arranged for his daughter to visit a very nice school, one that anyone would be proud to attend. After a long day at the school, where she was guest hosted by one of the campus leaders, shown everything she had ever thought of, attended a few classes, the whole deal. On the way to the airport, the dad asked her how she thought the visit went and she said, “Hated it.” Hated it, he asked…there was not a clue she had hated it. “Why?” he asked. “Did you notice how those girls we passed on the way to lunch, didn’t even say HELLO? she asked.
Now, maybe she was being insightful, and could pick up on a non-friendly environment, but that is not the point, and you know I am right. Kids this age react and say stupid things. Picking the wrong college just because of a perceived slight happens more than you think.
You have to get out ahead on this project. You know that the school means a lot. It is too darned expensive to leave the decision up to an impressionable kid.
You have my permission to take charge of this process. Don’t wimp out just because a group of non parental counselors tell you that you should.
Destroy this after you read it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent graduates and other job seekers might benefit from G.L's advice on how to find a better job. Click here to learn more about his book: Dig Your Job, Keep it or Find a New One, The Not-So-Serious Career Handbook.
Can there be a more stressful time than our high school student picking a college? For us the answer is no and it may well be even for THEM.
I am a decade away from when that happened to me but the memories are still fresh, sort of like a nagging groin injury that won’t go away.
My Home Blog is called What Would Dad Say, and the kicker text Frequently Wrong, Never in Doubt allows me to be opinionated. If you disagree with me, so be it.
Here is my counter intuitive advice. I don’t care how smart your son or daughter is, how much responsibility they have shown and how they make such good decisions back home in Abilene, Kansas.
They are clueless about picking a college. This is when you earn your stripes as a parent. No one knows your kid like you do. The kid doesn’t know himself like you know him, either. You have to decide for him.
Now, you cannot let him know this. This is where you use every manipulative technique you have ever learned. You cannot say PICK THIS ONE, but you can influence.
These 18-year-olds don’t know much about the real world. Classic case: a dad I knew arranged for his daughter to visit a very nice school, one that anyone would be proud to attend. After a long day at the school, where she was guest hosted by one of the campus leaders, shown everything she had ever thought of, attended a few classes, the whole deal. On the way to the airport, the dad asked her how she thought the visit went and she said, “Hated it.” Hated it, he asked…there was not a clue she had hated it. “Why?” he asked. “Did you notice how those girls we passed on the way to lunch, didn’t even say HELLO? she asked.
Now, maybe she was being insightful, and could pick up on a non-friendly environment, but that is not the point, and you know I am right. Kids this age react and say stupid things. Picking the wrong college just because of a perceived slight happens more than you think.
You have to get out ahead on this project. You know that the school means a lot. It is too darned expensive to leave the decision up to an impressionable kid.
You have my permission to take charge of this process. Don’t wimp out just because a group of non parental counselors tell you that you should.
Destroy this after you read it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent graduates and other job seekers might benefit from G.L's advice on how to find a better job. Click here to learn more about his book: Dig Your Job, Keep it or Find a New One, The Not-So-Serious Career Handbook.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Book and a Movie: The Blind Side by Michael Lewis
Shop Indie Bookstores
I read The Blind Side as soon as it came out, because Micheal Lewis is one of my favorite journalists. Unlike his other books such as Liar's Poker and Moneyball, Blind Side was truely a "made for Hollywood" story. A homeless, tall, overweight, socially promoted but physically gifted young black man comes into the love, and later the legal guardianship, of an exceptionally wealthy white family and becomes a top college football prospect. The true story of this young man, Michael Oher, is fascinating but also freightening.
Oher, who now plays for the NFL's Baltimore Ravens, went from rags to riches not only thanks to a wealthy family, but also a garage mechanic who saw something in his athletic abilities to get him into a private Christian school. Oher was not even sure he wanted to play football, though Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy, Oher's legal guardians, supply ample encouragement.
The book's very good, if you're a football fan who appreciates the finer points of the game. The title, The Blind Side, is for the left tackle, who protects the quarterback's blind side in the game. The left tackle, according to Lewis,is the second-highest paid player on NFL teams.
The book talks about the evolution of the left tackle with anecdotes from the NFL of the eighties. If you're a fan, you'll love the book. But in the movie, all of this is covered at the very beginning in a handful of sentences. If you're a fan you'd probably like the book more than the movie. If you're not, its vice versa.
Sandra Bullock plays Leigh Anne Touhy in the movie, outshining everyone by far, although several current and former college football coaches play themselves in their race to recruit Oher. She plays tough love to near perfection, but sometimes over-acts. However, the story from the book has been whittled down into more of a tear-jerking inspirational film to attract a broader audience. However the real Leigh Anne Touhy was not as domineering in the book, nor was the real Sean Touhy, as passive as he was played by Tim McGraw. The real couple were a stronger, and more interesting, tag team in Oher's social development.
There are details in the book that are conspicuously absent in the movie. For one thing, Oher was socially promoted in the private school just as he was in the Memphis public schools. And for another, he did not graduate from high school with the proper grades to accept his college scholarship--the movie says that he worked to get there before graduation--he had to take online character education courses from Brigham Young to raise his high school GPA.
After reading the book and watching the movie I had to wonder what Oher would have done after high school if he had not been a football player.However, to Oher's credit, as of the NFL draft, he was 15 credits shy of earning his degree in criminal justice from Ole Miss. Too many scholarship athletes fail to take advantage of the opportunity.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Community Colleges Manage Early Entry and Transfer to Four-Year Degrees
Today I read a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education about a study that found that six Texas community colleges successfully facilitated the transfer of students from two-year to four-year colleges.
The study, conducted by the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, concluded that these six schools could attribute success to three practices: structured academic pathways that aptly prepare students to enroll at four-year colleges, a student-centered culture that emphasizes personal attention, and culturally sensitive leaders who understand the backgrounds of their students.
The first of these practices, the pathways, is the most interesting. These pathways, according to the story were robust credit-transfer agreements with those institutions, and promoted dual-enrollment programs between their colleges and high schools.
The story mentions one example: a partnership between Trinity Valley Community College and Texas A&M University at Commerce allows students to transfer up to 85 credit hours toward a bachelor of applied arts and science degree. Students then need to complete only 36 hours on the four-year campus.
The story made me wonder: why can't this be a common practice in all states, unless it already is? Students who are serious about earning a bachelor's degree, especially from a publicly supported college, should be able to complete the first two years, possibly more, at any publicly supported community college. There is not enough room for everyone on campus, and the traditional residential college model does not fit well with students who have heavy work or family obligations.
This story also told me that high schools, especially those that serve economically disadvantaged students, do not always have the mechanisms to help their students with the college admissions process. The story mentioned that, in Texas, students can graduate high school with as many as 24 credits towards a college degree, and apply those credits to their high school diploma as well.
I had to wonder if the best "voucher" that we could give to the more dedicated students in the poorest performing schools was subsidized tuition at the community college, in lieu of senior year.
The community colleges not only help their students earn the proper credits, but they also help the students apply them to a bachelor's degree. High school guidance counselors at poor-performing schools would be less capable to do this with their on-campus or online advanced placement courses.
I have written a previous post where I looked into the idea of a three year college degree, but we should consider the value of the senior year in high school, too. Four-year colleges already allow their football recruits to begin classes in the spring, which would normally be the senior year in high school, to get a jump on summer and fall practices as well as the education.
If four-year schools are willing to allow early entry for their football recruits, then why can't community colleges, and possibly four-year public colleges, do the same for other students who are academically ready for college?
The study, conducted by the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, concluded that these six schools could attribute success to three practices: structured academic pathways that aptly prepare students to enroll at four-year colleges, a student-centered culture that emphasizes personal attention, and culturally sensitive leaders who understand the backgrounds of their students.
The first of these practices, the pathways, is the most interesting. These pathways, according to the story were robust credit-transfer agreements with those institutions, and promoted dual-enrollment programs between their colleges and high schools.
The story mentions one example: a partnership between Trinity Valley Community College and Texas A&M University at Commerce allows students to transfer up to 85 credit hours toward a bachelor of applied arts and science degree. Students then need to complete only 36 hours on the four-year campus.
The story made me wonder: why can't this be a common practice in all states, unless it already is? Students who are serious about earning a bachelor's degree, especially from a publicly supported college, should be able to complete the first two years, possibly more, at any publicly supported community college. There is not enough room for everyone on campus, and the traditional residential college model does not fit well with students who have heavy work or family obligations.
This story also told me that high schools, especially those that serve economically disadvantaged students, do not always have the mechanisms to help their students with the college admissions process. The story mentioned that, in Texas, students can graduate high school with as many as 24 credits towards a college degree, and apply those credits to their high school diploma as well.
I had to wonder if the best "voucher" that we could give to the more dedicated students in the poorest performing schools was subsidized tuition at the community college, in lieu of senior year.
The community colleges not only help their students earn the proper credits, but they also help the students apply them to a bachelor's degree. High school guidance counselors at poor-performing schools would be less capable to do this with their on-campus or online advanced placement courses.
I have written a previous post where I looked into the idea of a three year college degree, but we should consider the value of the senior year in high school, too. Four-year colleges already allow their football recruits to begin classes in the spring, which would normally be the senior year in high school, to get a jump on summer and fall practices as well as the education.
If four-year schools are willing to allow early entry for their football recruits, then why can't community colleges, and possibly four-year public colleges, do the same for other students who are academically ready for college?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Vote on Controversial Speaker Tucker Max Might Bring a Campus Together
This afternoon I decided to spend some time working in the library at The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) is five minutes from my home. As I usually do when I use a college library, I read the college newspaper. The current edition of TCNJ's paper, The Signal, has a feature story about an upcoming vote to bring writer Tucker Max to campus.
To their credit, TCNJ's College Union Board has decided to put the matter to a student vote. Max is a controversial choice. Author of the book, I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, Max writes about being drunk, rude, obnoxious, and offensive to women, and he is quite proud of his reputation.. Academically, the man is not an idiot. He graduated from the University of Chicago--noted as the school where fun goes to die--within three years and earned a scholarship to Duke Law School.
However, at TCNJ, Max is considered a "red dot," by at least one university administrator, Jackie Deithch-Stackhouse, coordinator of the Office of Anti-Violence Initiatives. Stackhouse is a leader in the college's Green Dot Initiativem a campus-wide campaign to counter acts of personal violence (red dots) with acts against violence (green dots).
I had to guess that there would need to be many green dots to counter the red dots of a Max speech; the bid for Max to speak is $25,000. Eight organizations on campus have stated their opposition to Max speaking, including the College Democrats and the College Republicans.
I'm surprised that a speaker such as Max was considered by the college's programming board, but this is the second time students are being polled about his coming to campus. The first time the students approved. They're taking the second vote to be sure. I don't blame them; they don't want a $25,000 bomb on their hands.
I have to give the programming board credit for conducting a vote, but I also wonder if, in this case, majority has to rule. It's one thing if the students overwhelming vote no after the opposition have been given adequate time to make their case. Then everyone is happy, including Max, who could then earn a fee from another campus that wants him.
But suppose Max wins 51 percent of the vote, and the students do vote in sufficient numbers. Does it make sense to welcome someone who reportedly offended 49 percent of the student body with no counter-measures? I don't think so.
So, here's a suggestion, since TCNJ and I have already given Tucker Max free publicity. Lower the bid, ask Max to accept (given the publicity he has received), and provide equal funding for more green dots.
Public college campuses are democratic; you cannot simply form a "we don't want to welcome the obnoxious speakers we don't like club," and expect all of your classmates to go along. At the same time, there are causes with worthy messages that deserve equal time.
To their credit, TCNJ's College Union Board has decided to put the matter to a student vote. Max is a controversial choice. Author of the book, I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, Max writes about being drunk, rude, obnoxious, and offensive to women, and he is quite proud of his reputation.. Academically, the man is not an idiot. He graduated from the University of Chicago--noted as the school where fun goes to die--within three years and earned a scholarship to Duke Law School.
However, at TCNJ, Max is considered a "red dot," by at least one university administrator, Jackie Deithch-Stackhouse, coordinator of the Office of Anti-Violence Initiatives. Stackhouse is a leader in the college's Green Dot Initiativem a campus-wide campaign to counter acts of personal violence (red dots) with acts against violence (green dots).
I had to guess that there would need to be many green dots to counter the red dots of a Max speech; the bid for Max to speak is $25,000. Eight organizations on campus have stated their opposition to Max speaking, including the College Democrats and the College Republicans.
I'm surprised that a speaker such as Max was considered by the college's programming board, but this is the second time students are being polled about his coming to campus. The first time the students approved. They're taking the second vote to be sure. I don't blame them; they don't want a $25,000 bomb on their hands.
I have to give the programming board credit for conducting a vote, but I also wonder if, in this case, majority has to rule. It's one thing if the students overwhelming vote no after the opposition have been given adequate time to make their case. Then everyone is happy, including Max, who could then earn a fee from another campus that wants him.
But suppose Max wins 51 percent of the vote, and the students do vote in sufficient numbers. Does it make sense to welcome someone who reportedly offended 49 percent of the student body with no counter-measures? I don't think so.
So, here's a suggestion, since TCNJ and I have already given Tucker Max free publicity. Lower the bid, ask Max to accept (given the publicity he has received), and provide equal funding for more green dots.
Public college campuses are democratic; you cannot simply form a "we don't want to welcome the obnoxious speakers we don't like club," and expect all of your classmates to go along. At the same time, there are causes with worthy messages that deserve equal time.
Book Review: While I'm Falling, a Novel by Laura Moriarty
Shop Indie Bookstores
Perhaps the best compliment that I can pay a writer is that she makes me read a story that I would not ordinarily read. This was the case with While I'm Falling. I picked up this book because of the educational setting--much of the story takes place at the University of Kansas, home of the Jayhawks--but I got much more from the read.
Moriarty's main character in Falling, Veronica Van Holten, is a junior pre-med student and dormitory resident assistant at the University of Kansas. She is not necessarily happy being a pre-med or a resident assistant but she has been drawn into both orbits through her father. Veronica's parents, Dan and Natalie, have decided to divorce, although the divorce has not been settled.
The story is a chain of events triggered by an auto accident. After promising to house sit for a resident advisor and his girlfriend, and dropping them off at the airport, Veronica crashes their car on an ice-covered highway. Desperate, she calls her mother for a ride home, and her mother refuses. Later, it is her mother who needs help; she "crashes" in her daughter's dorm with her aging dog Bowser.
There are a series of tailspins in the lives of Veronica and Natalie; both have been separated from their families and both are lost in their own ways. Veronica's falling through the daily grind of juggling courses, job and problems is quite believable. I assure you that you will know someone with a similar college experience.
Had I read this story as a college sophomore, I might have steered clear of applying to be a R.A. in a dorm. I was actually offered a position though I turned it down in favor of apartment living, a situation that Veronica faced in this story.
This story is very well-paced, neatly tied and easy to follow. While I am neither mother nor daughter, I give it two thumbs up!
Book Review: A Great Idea at the Time, The Rise, Fall and Curious Afterlife of the Great Books by Alex Beam
Shop Indie Bookstores
In April, 1952 the University of Chicago and Encyclopedia Britannica launched the mass-marketing of the Great Books, a body of 443 classical works in the arts, humanities, the social sciences, and the mathematical and physical sciences. Two million was invested on the proposition that knowledge could be brought to the masses.
The venture had early success due to shady salesmanship--encyclopedia salesman were reported to have impersonated University of Chicago professors and employees--but later petered out. Classical works might have made for "colorful furniture," in the words of Robert Maynard Hutchins, noted former president of the University of Chicago, but they were simply too difficult to learn.
Three men, two academics and one a successful advertising executive, were the brains behind the selection and launch of the Great Books. As president of the University of Chicago, Hutchins dropped college football--the university played in the Big Ten until 1949--and tried to offload his undergraduate engineering curriculum on Northwestern. While Chicago was a commuter school for undergraduates through the 1920's and 1930's, it had some of the finest graduate schools in the country. Hutchins also introduced the concepts of a two-year undergraduate degree and early entry after the tenth grade. He also introduced, and taught, a General Honors course based on the Great Books.
The second man, Mortimer Adler, was a Columbia-educated academic who had found intellectual satisfaction through the college's General Honors curriculum, which was based around the Great Books. While he had earned a doctorate in psychology, the university had never awarded him a bachelor's degree, because he had failed to take the required swimming test. Adler co-taught General Honors with Hutchins at Chicago. And as Hutchins star rose in the media, General Honors attracted celebrities to Chicago, most prominently actress Gertrude Stein.
The third man, William Benton, was co-founder of the Benton and Bowles advertising agency. In his "retirement," he became a public relations counsel to Hutchins at Chicago. Benton bought Encyclopedia Britannica on behalf of the university; it would eventually become a $60 million nest egg for the school.
While Beam attributes the early success of the sales of the Great Books to celebrity and hucksterism, he also points out that interest in the Great Books declined st first due to the conservative politics of the middle 50's--the idea of Karl Marx in the curriculum frightened them--and increased interest in multi-culturalism, the inclusion of women and minorities, during the late Sixties and through the Seventies. Adler was the only one of the three to live to see interest in the Great Books decline, but also enter into a curious afterlife. He would live through 2001.
In this book, Beam also points out that education in the Great Books now has its champions among conservatives who tie literacy to an strong understanding of the classics, whereas Adler and Hutchins had been more moderate in their politics. He devotes chapters to modern education at Columbia, which stills teaches the General Honors course, and St. John's College (MD), which built its entire degree program around the Great Books. Columbia and St. John's students exposed to these programs do not, according to Beam, appear to be bother by the domination of works by "dead white males."
A Great Idea at the Time, provides a great example of what might happen when prominent academics take the lead in education reforms, and find their ideas grasped by people with greater, as well as lesser, motives.
It Takes a Queen to Call for Education Reform in the U.K.
Today, I read on Telegraph.com about the Queen's Speech which announces proposals for education reform in the United Kingdom. These proposals include a set of legal rights for students and parents, as well as:
+ Five hours of PE and high-quality cultural activities.
+ Force schools to give children one-to-one instruction if they fall behind in the basics.
+ New powers to intervene to shut or take over failing schools.
+ All schools will be required to publish an annual “report card” much like the Adequate Yearly Progress reports required under No Child Left Behind.
+ Introduction of sex education into primary schools.
+ Parents who home school their children will be required to register with local councils.
+ The requirement of a 'license to teach' subject to renewal every five years.
While only the last of these proposals is unique to the U.K., it is interesting to note that the Queen's Speech was delivered under the rule of a more liberal Labour government; similar policies were advanced by the a conservative Bush Administration in the U.S., though they will likely be continued under a more moderate to liberal Obama Administration. It is also interesting, as I read the Telegraph story, that conservatives in the U.K. oppose these proposals.
The five year "check-up" for teachers is an interesting concept, though teachers, according to the story, are subject to reviews just as teachers are in the U.S. If the "check-up" is a license renewal, as opposed to continuing education, it might end up becoming counter-productive.
Imagine that you, as a licensed driver, had to take the same test you took five years ago to keep your license. You would feel resentful of the state government because they are asking you to devote time to relearning what you forgot, and there would be no guarantee that you would remember the driving rules in the event of an emergency.
The same could be true for teachers. Imagine having the daily and after-school responsibilities of teaching in an era of No Child Left Behind, including added assessments and tests. Then, imagine having to take time to re-learn and regurgitate what you had to know to pass your licensing exams the first time. If you were that teacher you would resent it, too.
I can understand asking teachers who have been reassigned into positions where they were not fully qualified--for example, a middle school teacher who was reassigned from secondary schools earlier in their career, or a humanities teacher who took the lead in teaching sex education. In those cases, a teacher should take responsibility for becoming certified in their new assignment as soon as possible, preferably after a year or two. But asking teachers to cram in their past education and take a brain dump is not an assurance that they will become better teachers.
+ Five hours of PE and high-quality cultural activities.
+ Force schools to give children one-to-one instruction if they fall behind in the basics.
+ New powers to intervene to shut or take over failing schools.
+ All schools will be required to publish an annual “report card” much like the Adequate Yearly Progress reports required under No Child Left Behind.
+ Introduction of sex education into primary schools.
+ Parents who home school their children will be required to register with local councils.
+ The requirement of a 'license to teach' subject to renewal every five years.
While only the last of these proposals is unique to the U.K., it is interesting to note that the Queen's Speech was delivered under the rule of a more liberal Labour government; similar policies were advanced by the a conservative Bush Administration in the U.S., though they will likely be continued under a more moderate to liberal Obama Administration. It is also interesting, as I read the Telegraph story, that conservatives in the U.K. oppose these proposals.
The five year "check-up" for teachers is an interesting concept, though teachers, according to the story, are subject to reviews just as teachers are in the U.S. If the "check-up" is a license renewal, as opposed to continuing education, it might end up becoming counter-productive.
Imagine that you, as a licensed driver, had to take the same test you took five years ago to keep your license. You would feel resentful of the state government because they are asking you to devote time to relearning what you forgot, and there would be no guarantee that you would remember the driving rules in the event of an emergency.
The same could be true for teachers. Imagine having the daily and after-school responsibilities of teaching in an era of No Child Left Behind, including added assessments and tests. Then, imagine having to take time to re-learn and regurgitate what you had to know to pass your licensing exams the first time. If you were that teacher you would resent it, too.
I can understand asking teachers who have been reassigned into positions where they were not fully qualified--for example, a middle school teacher who was reassigned from secondary schools earlier in their career, or a humanities teacher who took the lead in teaching sex education. In those cases, a teacher should take responsibility for becoming certified in their new assignment as soon as possible, preferably after a year or two. But asking teachers to cram in their past education and take a brain dump is not an assurance that they will become better teachers.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Mississippi Governor Proposes to Consolidate Three Historically Black Schools
Today I read that Mississippi governor Haley Barbour proposes to consolidate the state's three Historically Black Colleges and Universities into a single school. According to his budget proposal, Alcorn State University and Mississippi Valley State University would be merged with Jackson State University. I am left to presume that Jackson, as the state capital, would be the flagship campus for the combined school.
Governor Barbour proposes the merger as a cost savings, but he says that no campuses will be closed; the savings would be administrative. I would also guess that cost savings would be found in intercollegiate athletics and corporate identity for the individual schools.
I took a look at the U.S. News numbers for the three schools. Jackson State, with approximately 6,100 undergraduates, has the largest student body, and admits slightly more than sixty percent of all applicants. Alcorn State has approximately 2,700 undergraduates and admits 85 percent of all applicants. Mississippi Valley State has approximately 2,500 students and admits 24 percent of all applicants.
I went to the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning site to see what the undergraduate enrollments were at the start of the decade. In 2000, Jackson State had approximately 4,900 undergraduate students, Alcorn State had 2,400 and Mississippi Valley State had approximately 2,100 enrolled. So, while the country, and Mississippi's economy, have had their ups and downs, enrollment in these three historically black schools has increased.
Governor Barbour has every right to suggest cost savings, just as citizens have a right to question his proposals. From a distance, I can assume that he has already had to cut state support to these schools; practically every governor has faced this dilemma while trying to balance a budget. I can also assume that the historically black schools received their share of cuts.
If these three schools were losing students--Delta State, by comparison has seen its enrollment decline--I could understand a rationale for more cuts. But they have more students, not fewer, and therefore, they do not have fewer needs for academic and student services. You might be able to centralize the office of the president, as well as the president's direct reports, but you would still need people to provide hands-on assistance on campus.
So, there would be some cost savings: one president, one management team for three schools. One admissions office. One fundraising office to raise money for all three campuses. But these schools also have identities that have been developed over time, especially in sports.
Are the cost savings worth taking away their history? And would a centralized development operation raise as much, or more money, to support these three schools as individual offices would? I have no ties to Mississippi or the history of these schools, so I cannot provide answers. I'd love to see a reply from someone who can.
Governor Barbour proposes the merger as a cost savings, but he says that no campuses will be closed; the savings would be administrative. I would also guess that cost savings would be found in intercollegiate athletics and corporate identity for the individual schools.
I took a look at the U.S. News numbers for the three schools. Jackson State, with approximately 6,100 undergraduates, has the largest student body, and admits slightly more than sixty percent of all applicants. Alcorn State has approximately 2,700 undergraduates and admits 85 percent of all applicants. Mississippi Valley State has approximately 2,500 students and admits 24 percent of all applicants.
I went to the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning site to see what the undergraduate enrollments were at the start of the decade. In 2000, Jackson State had approximately 4,900 undergraduate students, Alcorn State had 2,400 and Mississippi Valley State had approximately 2,100 enrolled. So, while the country, and Mississippi's economy, have had their ups and downs, enrollment in these three historically black schools has increased.
Governor Barbour has every right to suggest cost savings, just as citizens have a right to question his proposals. From a distance, I can assume that he has already had to cut state support to these schools; practically every governor has faced this dilemma while trying to balance a budget. I can also assume that the historically black schools received their share of cuts.
If these three schools were losing students--Delta State, by comparison has seen its enrollment decline--I could understand a rationale for more cuts. But they have more students, not fewer, and therefore, they do not have fewer needs for academic and student services. You might be able to centralize the office of the president, as well as the president's direct reports, but you would still need people to provide hands-on assistance on campus.
So, there would be some cost savings: one president, one management team for three schools. One admissions office. One fundraising office to raise money for all three campuses. But these schools also have identities that have been developed over time, especially in sports.
Are the cost savings worth taking away their history? And would a centralized development operation raise as much, or more money, to support these three schools as individual offices would? I have no ties to Mississippi or the history of these schools, so I cannot provide answers. I'd love to see a reply from someone who can.
Pittsburgh Mayor Proposes to Tax College Students
Yesterday, I read that the City of Pittsburgh wants to charge students a one percent tuition tax to help local government balance its budget. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a community college student would be assessed $27 per year and University of Pittsburgh student would be assessed $135 per year. There are 100,000 college students in the Steel City. The tax is expected to generate $16 million.
Colleges and universities are typically non-profit institutions. While they do not pay property taxes, they make financial contributions in lieu of them to cover city services. They may also collect and pay parking and entertainment taxes to cities. The schools also operate their own campus security forces and subsidize student housing. But this time, the city is essentially forcing a tuition increase on college students; no doubt this is how the schools would collect the city-imposed tax.
The University of Pittsburgh, the largest four-year institution in the city, has already issued a press release opposing the tax. The press release stated that the university already pays more than $4 million in taxes and fees and authorizes its campus police, budgeted at $3.6 million to work with the city on major events such as the G-20 Summit.
I do not like this proposal. For one thing, not all students attending Pittsburgh area schools come from Pittsburgh; they do not have the right to vote in local elections, and neither do their parents. For another, independent students or students from low and moderate income families are a population that can least afford to be taxed. Not to mention, they are already asked to pay higher tuition and parking fees each year before paying the tax. And resident independent students and parents already pay city taxes; this is in effect an added charge to go to college . It might also be considered double billing for city services.
I checked out the Web site of Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who is the primary mover behind the tax; the City Counsel has taken no position yet. According to his biography, Mayor Ravenstahl has balanced the last three budgets, built a savings account of nearly $100 million, and watched the City's bond rating get upgraded four times in two years. He finished the term of the previous mayor, who died in office and was elected to a term of his own in May. I had to ask: where did all the money go since he won?
The city and the university community need to strike a balance between their current payments and taxing the students. While the schools can restructure payments to contribute more in better times, they cannot hit the students in the term bill now.
Colleges and universities are typically non-profit institutions. While they do not pay property taxes, they make financial contributions in lieu of them to cover city services. They may also collect and pay parking and entertainment taxes to cities. The schools also operate their own campus security forces and subsidize student housing. But this time, the city is essentially forcing a tuition increase on college students; no doubt this is how the schools would collect the city-imposed tax.
The University of Pittsburgh, the largest four-year institution in the city, has already issued a press release opposing the tax. The press release stated that the university already pays more than $4 million in taxes and fees and authorizes its campus police, budgeted at $3.6 million to work with the city on major events such as the G-20 Summit.
I do not like this proposal. For one thing, not all students attending Pittsburgh area schools come from Pittsburgh; they do not have the right to vote in local elections, and neither do their parents. For another, independent students or students from low and moderate income families are a population that can least afford to be taxed. Not to mention, they are already asked to pay higher tuition and parking fees each year before paying the tax. And resident independent students and parents already pay city taxes; this is in effect an added charge to go to college . It might also be considered double billing for city services.
I checked out the Web site of Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who is the primary mover behind the tax; the City Counsel has taken no position yet. According to his biography, Mayor Ravenstahl has balanced the last three budgets, built a savings account of nearly $100 million, and watched the City's bond rating get upgraded four times in two years. He finished the term of the previous mayor, who died in office and was elected to a term of his own in May. I had to ask: where did all the money go since he won?
The city and the university community need to strike a balance between their current payments and taxing the students. While the schools can restructure payments to contribute more in better times, they cannot hit the students in the term bill now.
Book Review: Why cant U teach me 2 read?: Three Students and a Mayor Put Our Schools to the Test by Beth Fertig
Shop Indie Bookstores
This book, written by a senior reporter for WNYC Radio, the nation's largest public radio station, is one of the more thoughtful looks at how the New York City public school school system tries to cope in the era of No Child Left Behind.
Beth Fertig's story focuses around the educational needs, as well as the reading abilities of three students: Yamilka, Alejandro and Antonio who, despite learning disabilities, had been socially promoted through high school. Working through Advocates for Children, a non-profit legal services corporation, each had won the right to use privately-funded legal services to diagnose, and hopefully advance, their ability to read.
Fertig covers some familiar and new ground in this book. She discusses proven and newly developed methods of reading instruction, for example Phonics, Whole Language and Balanced Literacy as well as the costs and issues associated with private tutoring. She explains everything in a very readable way; this book is not so overloaded with academic jargon that it will turn away parents and others concerned about education or literacy.
Fertig also presents the numerous problems that schools and elected officials have faced in raising student achievement from technology that falls into disuse to politically developed rating systems that do not consider the uniqueness of the students and teachers in schools, to the emphasis on testing and assessments to measure knowledge.
Fertig takes a neutral role; she does not take positions on any methods or political viewpoints, rather she presents advantages and disadvantages through the stories of her three students and other interview subjects. She does not declare New York City's efforts to be a failure, nor a smashing success. However, she does not call for a return to the past, a movement away from testing, as teachers do.
I learned a great deal from this book about the complexities of running a large public school system, as well as the challenges of allowing more autonomy to principals--New York City does not have an elected school board as many cities and towns do, and there are fewer layers of management than before--to improve the quality of education at their schools. I also learned that there is no perfect method of reading instruction for children who cannot read at grade level, only methods that fit budgets and the enthusiasm of the teachers who must use them.
This book is very worthwhile for parents, not only those with children in a big city public school system, but also those who raise children with a learning disability. The public schools do not always provide sufficient options, and cannot take care of students into adulthood. Private instruction is exceptionally expensive, but school systems end up paying the costs. They are the price for past failures.
Thirty Minutes of Fame
Yesterday, I was interviewed by literary publicist Sabrina Sumsion on Blog Talk Radio about my recent novel, Defending College Heights, and Internet marketing. Listen to the interview and let me know if you have opinions or book marketing tips to share.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Are the Minor Bowl Games Worth It?
Today I see that Rutgers is ranked 25th in the AP and CBS Sportsline polls, and is just short in some others. I'm a fan, but also a realist, Rutgers will be back bowling in a minor bowl this winter. For the past four years Rutgers has played in a minor bowl, winning the last three in a row.
An invitation to play in the Meineke Car Care Bowl or the St. Petersburg Bowl seems like a nice reward for a winning season, but it has its costs. These minor bowl games are not always big pay days; in fact, the participating schools can lose money if they bring too large an entourage to the game.
Last season, Rutgers presumably lost $184,000 participating in the Papa John's Bowl in Birmingham, Alabama. The payout for the bowl game was $300,000, with the Big East Conference supplying $1 million for the football team's expenses. The payout was dedicated to transporting the band, cheerleaders and faculty and staff to the game. It was also, according to a Star Ledger story, used to pay bonuses to the football coaches.
It's silly to point fingers and say who is responsible; there's plenty of blame to go around, possibly with the reporting. Coaches bonuses, I would think, would be part of the athletic department budget, so other coaches of revenue sports could earn them, too. Your school would look silly going to a football game without the band and cheerleaders. And we don't know how big an entourage is big enough when your school does not have a football tradition that has run for generations.
It's also easy to read stories like thisand wonder why some of these games are even played. The Pape John's Bowl drew approximately 39,000 fans; that's less than Rutgers draws for a regular season game, even in this weak economy. The payout is just too low to bother, especially since it must be shared with the other teams in the conference, and each school must buy tickets, too.
For this season, Rutgers likely destinations are the Meineke Car Care Bowl or the St. Petersburg Bowl. Both have an expected payout of $1 million, versus the $300,000 for the Papa Johns. The International Bowl, another possible destination, has a payout of $750,000.
If they come out ahead financially, as well as on the scoreboard, that's wonderful. And it's also inexpensive advertising for the school, instead of a financial loss.
An invitation to play in the Meineke Car Care Bowl or the St. Petersburg Bowl seems like a nice reward for a winning season, but it has its costs. These minor bowl games are not always big pay days; in fact, the participating schools can lose money if they bring too large an entourage to the game.
Last season, Rutgers presumably lost $184,000 participating in the Papa John's Bowl in Birmingham, Alabama. The payout for the bowl game was $300,000, with the Big East Conference supplying $1 million for the football team's expenses. The payout was dedicated to transporting the band, cheerleaders and faculty and staff to the game. It was also, according to a Star Ledger story, used to pay bonuses to the football coaches.
It's silly to point fingers and say who is responsible; there's plenty of blame to go around, possibly with the reporting. Coaches bonuses, I would think, would be part of the athletic department budget, so other coaches of revenue sports could earn them, too. Your school would look silly going to a football game without the band and cheerleaders. And we don't know how big an entourage is big enough when your school does not have a football tradition that has run for generations.
It's also easy to read stories like thisand wonder why some of these games are even played. The Pape John's Bowl drew approximately 39,000 fans; that's less than Rutgers draws for a regular season game, even in this weak economy. The payout is just too low to bother, especially since it must be shared with the other teams in the conference, and each school must buy tickets, too.
For this season, Rutgers likely destinations are the Meineke Car Care Bowl or the St. Petersburg Bowl. Both have an expected payout of $1 million, versus the $300,000 for the Papa Johns. The International Bowl, another possible destination, has a payout of $750,000.
If they come out ahead financially, as well as on the scoreboard, that's wonderful. And it's also inexpensive advertising for the school, instead of a financial loss.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Book Review: How I Became a Quant, Insights from 25 of Wall Street's Elite by Richard R. Lindsey and Barry Schachter
Shop Indie Bookstores
Two weeks ago, I wrote a post about careers in the STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I had read a report that attempted to prove that the U.S. did not have a shortage of STEM professionals, but rather that they had left STEM fields for business careers in marketing, finance and production, as well as general management. One counter-argument I read was that senior corporate executives complain that they cannot get enough American-born engineering doctorates to work for their firms. This book I just finished, How I Became a Quant, gave some example why.
How I Became a Quant discusses the careers of 25 Wall Street analysts, traders, and investment managers, all of whom held doctoral degrees before accepting positions with financial institutions. Seven of these men and women hold a doctorate in a STEM field, another has only a bachelor's degree in mathematics. The rest had advanced degrees in business and finance.
The quants who began their careers in a STEM field listed several reasons why they made their career move, for example:
+ I did not like working on applications for the military.
+ In academia, you switch from your interests to the proposals that you know can be funded, even if they are not your interests.
+ Academics live from short-term proposal to short-term proposal.
+ I did not like how professors and research worked--or did not work--together.
+ I did not like pure mathematics.
+ The only women (in this technology company) at the time were secretaries.
+ There was little room for creativity in the corporate environment.
+ Corporations had too many policies and too many layers of management to censor ideas.
Today, the academic community has actually become more accommodating to the quants who prefer not to study in a STEM field. There are numerous undergraduate and graduate programs in quantitative finance and financial engineering. No doubt the quants who came before them have spun several generations of bright financiers who might have become STEM professionals in another era.
Sounding Off on Guarantee Football Games
Fourteen months ago, I wrote a syndicated post about Georgia State University's entry into college football. I took the position that the school should be considered for membership in the Big East Conference by 2017.
I reasoned that after seven years of play the university might want to take their game up a notch, and that the Big East would benefit greatly by entering in the Atlanta media market. Two other conferences, the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Southeastern Conference, do extremely well in this market.
Then last night I picked up a copy of ESPN The Magazine. I wanted to read their basketball stories. As I got closer to the end of the magazine, I caught a story: Georgia State will play Alabama in the last road game of their very first season. That's right. The University of Alabama, undefeated and ready to compete for conference and national titles this season. The home of legendary coach Paul "Bear" Bryant--their stadium is partly named for him--winner of six national championships.
What on earth were they thinking?
Georgia State, according to this story, is guaranteed $450,000 to show up at Bryant-Denny Stadium. Bill Curry, the Georgia State coach, and the former head coach at Alabame, says, and I quote the story:
"It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, We won't deprive our young players of seeing how it feels,"
I know how I'd feel. Sick.
I come at this from a slightly different perspective as a Rutgers football season ticket holder. Our team was on the losing end of an 80-7 debacle during Greg Schiano's first season as head coach--and we played West Virginia, an in-conference opponent.
I doubt that Coach Schiano had anything to feel good about after that game, or that any of his players saw positives from this disaster. Best case, they learned how hard they had to work before they could become competitive. But a football team does not need to be sent through that type of humiliation in a non-conference game.
Other things I hate about guarantee games:
+ Fans do not see a competitive contest. There is nothing exciting about being on either side of a blow-out game. Especially if you paid the other team to take the beating.
+ Fans pass on these games. If you want to give up your tickets you can't sell them for face value. Rutgers added to this problem by selling tickets to the guarantee games as a two-for-one special. Pay $40 and you got another seat free. I renewed my season tickets in January, eight months before the season opener, and I get penalized for being loyal to my team?
+ The money spent to guarantee the win could be spent elsewhere. Athletic programs across the country are facing decisions to cut budgets by eliminating non-revenue sports. Even a football power such as Alabama is not immune from the pressure to make cuts. If I attended Alabama I would prefer that the $450,000 be directed to keep some sports that would otherwise be cut. Those athletes deserve their chance to compete.
+ If a sports program is running a deficit--Alabama is probably one of the profitable programs--then spending in the hundreds of thousands for a guarantee game is immoral. If my alma mater went into the academic budget to subsidize a program that paid for guarantee games, I would reconsider my contributions to that school.
If the so-called bowl subdivision schools cannot agree on a play-off to determine a national champion, then I suggest a refinement to the ranking system. Drop a team three places in the ranking for every guarantee game--we'll call this a non-bowl-subdivision team for now--on their schedule. So, if Florida inks a game with Charleston Southern, for example, they start off ranked fourth instead of first.
On second thought, that might be difficult to enforce, because so many top football schools play guarantee games. So, here's another thought: lose the game and, regardless of your end-of-season record, you drop out of the top 25 and do not go to a bowl. That will give the opponent more motivation to play better and spoil your season. If you're anxious to reap the spoils of victory, then be prepared to handle the humiliation of defeat.
I reasoned that after seven years of play the university might want to take their game up a notch, and that the Big East would benefit greatly by entering in the Atlanta media market. Two other conferences, the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Southeastern Conference, do extremely well in this market.
Then last night I picked up a copy of ESPN The Magazine. I wanted to read their basketball stories. As I got closer to the end of the magazine, I caught a story: Georgia State will play Alabama in the last road game of their very first season. That's right. The University of Alabama, undefeated and ready to compete for conference and national titles this season. The home of legendary coach Paul "Bear" Bryant--their stadium is partly named for him--winner of six national championships.
What on earth were they thinking?
Georgia State, according to this story, is guaranteed $450,000 to show up at Bryant-Denny Stadium. Bill Curry, the Georgia State coach, and the former head coach at Alabame, says, and I quote the story:
"It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, We won't deprive our young players of seeing how it feels,"
I know how I'd feel. Sick.
I come at this from a slightly different perspective as a Rutgers football season ticket holder. Our team was on the losing end of an 80-7 debacle during Greg Schiano's first season as head coach--and we played West Virginia, an in-conference opponent.
I doubt that Coach Schiano had anything to feel good about after that game, or that any of his players saw positives from this disaster. Best case, they learned how hard they had to work before they could become competitive. But a football team does not need to be sent through that type of humiliation in a non-conference game.
Other things I hate about guarantee games:
+ Fans do not see a competitive contest. There is nothing exciting about being on either side of a blow-out game. Especially if you paid the other team to take the beating.
+ Fans pass on these games. If you want to give up your tickets you can't sell them for face value. Rutgers added to this problem by selling tickets to the guarantee games as a two-for-one special. Pay $40 and you got another seat free. I renewed my season tickets in January, eight months before the season opener, and I get penalized for being loyal to my team?
+ The money spent to guarantee the win could be spent elsewhere. Athletic programs across the country are facing decisions to cut budgets by eliminating non-revenue sports. Even a football power such as Alabama is not immune from the pressure to make cuts. If I attended Alabama I would prefer that the $450,000 be directed to keep some sports that would otherwise be cut. Those athletes deserve their chance to compete.
+ If a sports program is running a deficit--Alabama is probably one of the profitable programs--then spending in the hundreds of thousands for a guarantee game is immoral. If my alma mater went into the academic budget to subsidize a program that paid for guarantee games, I would reconsider my contributions to that school.
If the so-called bowl subdivision schools cannot agree on a play-off to determine a national champion, then I suggest a refinement to the ranking system. Drop a team three places in the ranking for every guarantee game--we'll call this a non-bowl-subdivision team for now--on their schedule. So, if Florida inks a game with Charleston Southern, for example, they start off ranked fourth instead of first.
On second thought, that might be difficult to enforce, because so many top football schools play guarantee games. So, here's another thought: lose the game and, regardless of your end-of-season record, you drop out of the top 25 and do not go to a bowl. That will give the opponent more motivation to play better and spoil your season. If you're anxious to reap the spoils of victory, then be prepared to handle the humiliation of defeat.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Book Review: Don't Follow Me, I'm Lost, A Memoir of Hampshire College in the Twilight of the '80's by Richard Rushfield
Shop Indie Bookstores
Located in Amherst,Massachusetts, and founded in 1970, Hampshire College was an experiment in higher education that has lived on to this day. What made Hampshire unique, then and now, was the freedom to self-design your college degree program. While Hampshire offers a longer list of majors than most small liberal arts schools, it is known for placing few restrictions on a choice of major. The 100 (Exploratory) and 200 (Foundational) courses are open to all students. Hampshire is also part of a much larger Five College community; students can also take classes at two women's colleges: Smith and Mount Holyoke, at Amherst, one of the leading traditional liberal arts schools in the country, and at the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts.
But that's the quick tour, circa 2009. Richard Rushfield's Hampshire experience was much different. Rushfield, who grew up in a very insulated environment in Southern California, came to Hampshire for two reasons: he wanted to have his own room in college and he had met this girl in a black skirt and red leggings named Malaria who asked him to imagine that everyone in the party around him was dead.
The Hampshire College Rushfield writes about is dysfunctional. The school offers a January term, but cuts back on service so much to discourage students from attending. Resident assistants have the authority to remove, and accept, students into student housing; the most common units are called Mods, labeled by number. Campus buildings are named for what they resemble: the Airport, for instance is the name of a student lounge, because the furniture looks like an airport terminal. The dining hall is named for the former food services company that managed it.
Rushfield describes himself as a social misfit before college, then he goes on to describe Hampshire as a college of social misfits. The misfits do not necessarily conform to any group the college has institutionalized, rather they form their own subcultures. Rushfield, who is thrown out of his first dorm assignment for defacing posters with a Magic Marker, later becomes a member of the more notorious cliques, the Supreme Dicks. The misfits do not exactly succeed at forming a cohesive college community in this memoir, which was someone interesting.
Yet this school, at that time, also had hangers-on. Rather than throw out students for poor academic progress, Hampshire had students who lived on campus for more than four years. One Supreme Dick, who was forced to graduate, was entering his second decade as an undergraduate. And he found faculty willing to go along with his continued stay in school.
This story made Hampshire look like a college where the "drop-in" and "tune-out," remnants of the 60's meets up with the music of the 80's--Rushfield admits knowing little about the Greatful Dead before coming to school there--where a faculty that had, in the past, tried to be "hip," but was now losing touch with its students.
Whether you like this book or not will depend on your college experience. If you lived to party, you might find a few stories that stretch beyond your imagination. If you stayed away from the parties, you'll wonder how the author ever graduated.
I took a look at student reviews of the Hampshire of today. I read only a small sample of comments, though many were also in Rushfield's memoir. For instance, a positive was the freedom to explore interests, but the negatives included intellectual snobbery, professors with excessively liberal political views, too many slackers and stoners in the student body, and the unattractive non-traditional Seventies architecture.
But to be fair to the school, I'm posting a link to their Web site. Hampshire was an experiment that has now lasted forty years. If you believe a liberal, with a capital as well as a small L, education is in the cards for you or your son/daughter then you should look at all sides of the story before you plunk down the money. Hampshire, like so many private colleges, has approached the $50,000 price tag.
Remember the 442nd on Veteran's Day
Today is Veteran's Day and I am reading a Washington Post story about Muslims in the U.S. military. According to the story, 3,557 members of the 1.4 million-member U.S. armed forces describe themselves as Muslim.
While there have been few complaints of religious discrimination actually filed; the writer learns that Muslims in the military face taunts and ethnic slurs; some relate to the enemies these men and women have sworn to fight.
Since today is a holiday to celebrate our military--Veteran's Day was originally Armistice Day, signifying the end of World War I--I was curious to find out how other soldiers of the past might have fared at war when they had to fight people of similar ancestry, or volunteered for service after the American government had imprisoned people of their own ancestry. That took me to stories of the Japanese Americans who fought for our country as members of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team during World War II.
The 442nd Regimental Combat Team was the most decorated unit for its size and length of service, in the entire history of the U.S. Military. The 4,000 men who initially came in April 1943 had to be replaced nearly 3.5 times. In total, about 14,000 men served, ultimately earning 9,486 Purple Hearts , 21 Medals of Honor and an unprecedented eight Presidential Unit Citations.
While the 442nd was a successful unit, there were prejudices that had to be overcome before these Japanese-Americans were allowed to fight.
The 442nd was comprised of Hawaiian-born Japanese-Americans nicknamed "Buddhaheads" and mainland Japanese-Americans. The Buddhaheads had represented the largest ethnic group in the Hawaiian islands; many were serving in the Hawaii National Guard or in the University of Hawaii ROTC program before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. While these men, Nisei soldiers, aided American wounded and gave blood after the bombing, and Nisei cadets in the University of Hawaii’s ROTC guarded vulnerable areas against enemy attacks, they were not asked to fight. In fact, the ROTC cadets were discharged and labeled "enemy aliens."
On the mainland, Japanese-American families were sent to internment camps. More than 110,000 Japanese-Americans, sixty percent of them being American citizens, were forcibly relocated from their homes, businesses and farms in the western states.
And yet, men from Hawaii and the mainland chose to fight. Over 10,000 from Hawaii alone volunteered, though only 1,500 were asked for at the start.
When I consider how our president and military treated the Japanese-Americans at the onset of World War II--the men of the 442nd were not deployed until May, 1944, only sixteen months before the war ended--I have to wonder how we treat the Muslims who choose to serve. Those 3,557 men and women are making the same difficult choices that Japanese-American Nisei had to make nearly 70 years ago. They might not be as decorated in battle, but they still deserve our respect for their service.
For more information about the 442nd, including oral histories told by Japanese-American veterans, visit the Go For Broke National Education Center.
While there have been few complaints of religious discrimination actually filed; the writer learns that Muslims in the military face taunts and ethnic slurs; some relate to the enemies these men and women have sworn to fight.
Since today is a holiday to celebrate our military--Veteran's Day was originally Armistice Day, signifying the end of World War I--I was curious to find out how other soldiers of the past might have fared at war when they had to fight people of similar ancestry, or volunteered for service after the American government had imprisoned people of their own ancestry. That took me to stories of the Japanese Americans who fought for our country as members of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team during World War II.
The 442nd Regimental Combat Team was the most decorated unit for its size and length of service, in the entire history of the U.S. Military. The 4,000 men who initially came in April 1943 had to be replaced nearly 3.5 times. In total, about 14,000 men served, ultimately earning 9,486 Purple Hearts , 21 Medals of Honor and an unprecedented eight Presidential Unit Citations.
While the 442nd was a successful unit, there were prejudices that had to be overcome before these Japanese-Americans were allowed to fight.
The 442nd was comprised of Hawaiian-born Japanese-Americans nicknamed "Buddhaheads" and mainland Japanese-Americans. The Buddhaheads had represented the largest ethnic group in the Hawaiian islands; many were serving in the Hawaii National Guard or in the University of Hawaii ROTC program before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. While these men, Nisei soldiers, aided American wounded and gave blood after the bombing, and Nisei cadets in the University of Hawaii’s ROTC guarded vulnerable areas against enemy attacks, they were not asked to fight. In fact, the ROTC cadets were discharged and labeled "enemy aliens."
On the mainland, Japanese-American families were sent to internment camps. More than 110,000 Japanese-Americans, sixty percent of them being American citizens, were forcibly relocated from their homes, businesses and farms in the western states.
And yet, men from Hawaii and the mainland chose to fight. Over 10,000 from Hawaii alone volunteered, though only 1,500 were asked for at the start.
When I consider how our president and military treated the Japanese-Americans at the onset of World War II--the men of the 442nd were not deployed until May, 1944, only sixteen months before the war ended--I have to wonder how we treat the Muslims who choose to serve. Those 3,557 men and women are making the same difficult choices that Japanese-American Nisei had to make nearly 70 years ago. They might not be as decorated in battle, but they still deserve our respect for their service.
For more information about the 442nd, including oral histories told by Japanese-American veterans, visit the Go For Broke National Education Center.
The U.K. Moves on Sex Ed Policy Where the U.S. Fears to Tread
Today I read a story on LifeSiteNews that religious schools in the United Kingdom will be required to teach about homosexuality and contraception in the classroom.
The Labour government announced that parents will have no right to remove their children over the age of 15 from explicit sex education programs in schools. In addition, all children need to receive at least one year of sex education as teenagers before the age of consent at 16 - meaning that parents lose the right to opt-out for children over 15.
From reading the story, Ed Balls, U.K. Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, is trying to balance religious issues with the need for better sex education and the need to stress tolerance. In addition, the Family Planning Association (FPA), the U.K. affiliate of Planned Parenthood, asked for, and received, a mandate to repeal a parent's right to opt-out of sex education classes for their children.
According to the story, opt-out had been a part of national education policy for the past 13 years. The writer added that the Labour government granted the FPA's demand despite the fact that their own public consultation found that nearly 80 per cent of respondents believed parents should retain the right to withdraw their children at any age.
Government works differently in the U.K. than in the U.S., though public opinions, at least in this story, appear to be quite similar; comprehensive sex education in public schools, parental rights to "opt-out," and the inclusion/exclusion of homosexuality as a curricular subject are common issues in both countries.
But no U.S. politician would dare propose to regulate a sex education curriculum in parochial schools. While I am not a lawyer, I could surmise that separation of church and state has something to do with that. But there is a more fundamental issue: parents send their children to parochial school because they want their children to have a religious education. I would also presume that no parochial school teach or administrator would want to go against the leadership of their church. A U.K. ministry has taken some very dangerous steps against these life and work decisions.
I'll be curious to see how long these new sex ed policies hold up in the U.K. My guess is that they'll last until a Tory, the opposing party, government returns to power. As is the case in the U.S., it is not unusual for a conservative government to overturn liberal policies and programs, first through executive order, then by legislation if necessary.
At the same time, in an odd way, I felt proud to be an American as I read this story. While I lean towards support of comprehensive sex education, and that tolerance should be ingrained as part of everyday life, I also believe in a parent's right to choose a religious school for their children. That choice is part of the meaning of religious freedom. I also believe that if parents have serious objections to material in a sex education class for religious reasons, they should have the option to withdraw their child from reading that material. That too, is a reinforcement of religious freedom.
The Labour government announced that parents will have no right to remove their children over the age of 15 from explicit sex education programs in schools. In addition, all children need to receive at least one year of sex education as teenagers before the age of consent at 16 - meaning that parents lose the right to opt-out for children over 15.
From reading the story, Ed Balls, U.K. Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, is trying to balance religious issues with the need for better sex education and the need to stress tolerance. In addition, the Family Planning Association (FPA), the U.K. affiliate of Planned Parenthood, asked for, and received, a mandate to repeal a parent's right to opt-out of sex education classes for their children.
According to the story, opt-out had been a part of national education policy for the past 13 years. The writer added that the Labour government granted the FPA's demand despite the fact that their own public consultation found that nearly 80 per cent of respondents believed parents should retain the right to withdraw their children at any age.
Government works differently in the U.K. than in the U.S., though public opinions, at least in this story, appear to be quite similar; comprehensive sex education in public schools, parental rights to "opt-out," and the inclusion/exclusion of homosexuality as a curricular subject are common issues in both countries.
But no U.S. politician would dare propose to regulate a sex education curriculum in parochial schools. While I am not a lawyer, I could surmise that separation of church and state has something to do with that. But there is a more fundamental issue: parents send their children to parochial school because they want their children to have a religious education. I would also presume that no parochial school teach or administrator would want to go against the leadership of their church. A U.K. ministry has taken some very dangerous steps against these life and work decisions.
I'll be curious to see how long these new sex ed policies hold up in the U.K. My guess is that they'll last until a Tory, the opposing party, government returns to power. As is the case in the U.S., it is not unusual for a conservative government to overturn liberal policies and programs, first through executive order, then by legislation if necessary.
At the same time, in an odd way, I felt proud to be an American as I read this story. While I lean towards support of comprehensive sex education, and that tolerance should be ingrained as part of everyday life, I also believe in a parent's right to choose a religious school for their children. That choice is part of the meaning of religious freedom. I also believe that if parents have serious objections to material in a sex education class for religious reasons, they should have the option to withdraw their child from reading that material. That too, is a reinforcement of religious freedom.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Should All High School Students Go to College?
Yesterday, I read this debate in the Chronicle of Higher Education between several education policy experts over the value of a college degree. This debate is a worthwhile read for all parents, whether you are committed to a college education for your children, or on the fence. The piece is accompanied by the results of a parent's survey.
One conclusion that I can make from reading the story and the survey results is that affordability, as well as perceived return on investment, are the major reservations about a college education. After reading the story and the survey results, looking into your financial situation and your son/daughter's academic prowess and intellectual curiosity, you might want to ask, and answer, these six questions as a family.
+ What interests does your son/daughter have that might be considered academic or intellectual exercises? (For example, auto mechanics, band, chorus, computers, drama, speech and debate)outside of the classroom?
+ Which of these interests has your son/daughter delved into on a weekly basis--something they cannot be without?
+ Could these interests be pursued without going to college (a traditional four-year school)?
+ Could those interests help your son/daughter qualify for a scholarship or an employment opportunity while he/she is in college?
+ What would it take, if the college cannot award grant or scholarship money, for your family to pay for each of those schools?
+ Can you step in to pay student loans after graduation if your son/daughter cannot?
What are the points behind these questions?
+ People are happiest doing the things they like to do.
+ There are hundreds of colleges for every level of academic performance, but few for every intellectual interest.
+ Parents need to help their son/daughter find their interests before college in order to get a good return on their investment in a college education.
+ There are many lucrative professions that do not require a four-year college degree, but offer alternative paths to an education.
+ If you're going to struggle to pay for college, it becomes less of a struggle when your son/daughter knows what they want to do with their degree.
One conclusion that I can make from reading the story and the survey results is that affordability, as well as perceived return on investment, are the major reservations about a college education. After reading the story and the survey results, looking into your financial situation and your son/daughter's academic prowess and intellectual curiosity, you might want to ask, and answer, these six questions as a family.
+ What interests does your son/daughter have that might be considered academic or intellectual exercises? (For example, auto mechanics, band, chorus, computers, drama, speech and debate)outside of the classroom?
+ Which of these interests has your son/daughter delved into on a weekly basis--something they cannot be without?
+ Could these interests be pursued without going to college (a traditional four-year school)?
+ Could those interests help your son/daughter qualify for a scholarship or an employment opportunity while he/she is in college?
+ What would it take, if the college cannot award grant or scholarship money, for your family to pay for each of those schools?
+ Can you step in to pay student loans after graduation if your son/daughter cannot?
What are the points behind these questions?
+ People are happiest doing the things they like to do.
+ There are hundreds of colleges for every level of academic performance, but few for every intellectual interest.
+ Parents need to help their son/daughter find their interests before college in order to get a good return on their investment in a college education.
+ There are many lucrative professions that do not require a four-year college degree, but offer alternative paths to an education.
+ If you're going to struggle to pay for college, it becomes less of a struggle when your son/daughter knows what they want to do with their degree.
U of Wisconsin-Madison Ties Democracy to a Student Surcharge
This summer, I spent a week at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, one of the nation's finest state universities, and one of the nicest college communities anywhere. This was a special trip for me. Not only was I going for education--I was enrolled in a week-long writing program--but I also had a chance to visit a school that I had considered more than thirty years before. But if I had come to Madison during the late 1970's to tour the school, I probably would have gone there.
Why am I reminiscing about a university I never got to visit until my late 40's? Well, today I read about the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates, a unique approach to tuition increases at Wisconsin's flagship university. Basically, the students were asked to support a tuition increase in exchange for an opportunity to work with faculty and administrators to solve well-known campus problems.
In May, 2009, students supported tuition surcharge of $1,000 for in-state residents and $3,000 for out-of-state students, payable in increments over the next four years, in exchange for having a say over how the money was spent. Students who come from households with incomes below $80,000 are exempt from the surcharge.
For Wisconsin residents, for the 2009-10 academic year, the supplemental tuition charge will be $250; for 2010-11, it will be $500; for 2011-12, it will be $750, and for 2012-13, it will be $1,000.
For non-residents, for the 2009-10 academic year, the supplemental tuition charge will be $750; for 2010-11, it will be $1,500; for 2011-12, it will be $2,250, and for 2012-13, it will be $3,000.
The surcharge is expected to collect $10 million in new revenues annually for financial aid, additional faculty, international programs and student services. To date, $3.8 million has been collected and allocated. Half of the monies collected will be allocated to new programs and new faculty, and half to financial aid.
A total of 29 proposals, essentially applications for funds, were submitted. They were reviewed first by a student committee, then a joint committee of students, faculty and administrators. The highest rated proposals were approved for finding, along with additional faculty lines for the liberal arts and business schools.
Proposals approved for funding included:
+ A campuswide information system for academic advisers
+ An online tutorial for international students
+ Expanded international internship opportunities
+ More internationalized curricula
+ Short-term study abroad programs
The Madison Initiative is a rare idea for a public university: to trust the students to become involved in decisions on how their money is spent for a greater good. It is also a chance to support programs that provide an immediate, rather than a future benefit. It is also an opportunity for students, parents and the public at large to learn what it takes to sustain a quality education at a very large school.
I suspect that college administrators and student governments at other large universities will be watching UW-Madison's progress. The Madison Initiative has made a large, and supposedly democratic institution, even more democratic than before. And this time students will learn that with greater powers comes greater responsibility.
Why am I reminiscing about a university I never got to visit until my late 40's? Well, today I read about the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates, a unique approach to tuition increases at Wisconsin's flagship university. Basically, the students were asked to support a tuition increase in exchange for an opportunity to work with faculty and administrators to solve well-known campus problems.
In May, 2009, students supported tuition surcharge of $1,000 for in-state residents and $3,000 for out-of-state students, payable in increments over the next four years, in exchange for having a say over how the money was spent. Students who come from households with incomes below $80,000 are exempt from the surcharge.
For Wisconsin residents, for the 2009-10 academic year, the supplemental tuition charge will be $250; for 2010-11, it will be $500; for 2011-12, it will be $750, and for 2012-13, it will be $1,000.
For non-residents, for the 2009-10 academic year, the supplemental tuition charge will be $750; for 2010-11, it will be $1,500; for 2011-12, it will be $2,250, and for 2012-13, it will be $3,000.
The surcharge is expected to collect $10 million in new revenues annually for financial aid, additional faculty, international programs and student services. To date, $3.8 million has been collected and allocated. Half of the monies collected will be allocated to new programs and new faculty, and half to financial aid.
A total of 29 proposals, essentially applications for funds, were submitted. They were reviewed first by a student committee, then a joint committee of students, faculty and administrators. The highest rated proposals were approved for finding, along with additional faculty lines for the liberal arts and business schools.
Proposals approved for funding included:
+ A campuswide information system for academic advisers
+ An online tutorial for international students
+ Expanded international internship opportunities
+ More internationalized curricula
+ Short-term study abroad programs
The Madison Initiative is a rare idea for a public university: to trust the students to become involved in decisions on how their money is spent for a greater good. It is also a chance to support programs that provide an immediate, rather than a future benefit. It is also an opportunity for students, parents and the public at large to learn what it takes to sustain a quality education at a very large school.
I suspect that college administrators and student governments at other large universities will be watching UW-Madison's progress. The Madison Initiative has made a large, and supposedly democratic institution, even more democratic than before. And this time students will learn that with greater powers comes greater responsibility.
Monday, November 9, 2009
A Sex Ed Comic Book
When I was doing research for my first novel, The Sex Ed Chronicles, I briefly examined the materials used in sex education classes during the late 1970's and early 1980's, while I was in high school and college.
While I saw nothing "wrong" with the materials used in those classes--they were no less appropriate than academic texts used in other classes--I wondered if students would pay attention. However, more than three years after I graduated from my central New Jersey high school, parents protested against the materials used in the sixth grade curriculum; several topics were considered taboo.
Today I read that a New School University (NY) graduate designed and refined a sex education comic book called "Not Your Mother's Meatloaf" for a senior year project. With a printing budget of $300, the editor, Liza Bley, researched sex education courses, then conducted field trips across New Jersey and New York city to interview sex educators, visit sex toy shops, and talk with students who had completed sex education classes.
Bley learned through these interviews that literature on sexual education was built on a hollow foundation: for all those pages of precautions and reels of film, there wasn’t a single actual story. “Personal sexual experience,” she says, “is not a narrative that’s shown anywhere in sex education.”
So, she contacted students to collect experiences and got everything from accounts of lost virginity, to dating conservative Christians and drunken hook-ups. On the back of the book is the definitive one-liner: “Experiences, Not Answers.” A year and a half later, Bley has distributed 400 copies to health centers, LGBTQ support centers, and zine libraries throughout the country. A blog exists to collect and continue new stories.
I have not read the comic yet, but I did go to a sales page at Microcosm Publishing, a vendor of online zines. My only concern, so far, is that the comic appears to be "for women only." I don't know if that was the editor's intentions, but one problem with tradition sex education is that it is too often positioned as a woman's issue. But give Bley and Co. credit. They developed a tool that can successfully reach a female audience 12 and over through effective stories. That is no small accomplishment.
While I saw nothing "wrong" with the materials used in those classes--they were no less appropriate than academic texts used in other classes--I wondered if students would pay attention. However, more than three years after I graduated from my central New Jersey high school, parents protested against the materials used in the sixth grade curriculum; several topics were considered taboo.
Today I read that a New School University (NY) graduate designed and refined a sex education comic book called "Not Your Mother's Meatloaf" for a senior year project. With a printing budget of $300, the editor, Liza Bley, researched sex education courses, then conducted field trips across New Jersey and New York city to interview sex educators, visit sex toy shops, and talk with students who had completed sex education classes.
Bley learned through these interviews that literature on sexual education was built on a hollow foundation: for all those pages of precautions and reels of film, there wasn’t a single actual story. “Personal sexual experience,” she says, “is not a narrative that’s shown anywhere in sex education.”
So, she contacted students to collect experiences and got everything from accounts of lost virginity, to dating conservative Christians and drunken hook-ups. On the back of the book is the definitive one-liner: “Experiences, Not Answers.” A year and a half later, Bley has distributed 400 copies to health centers, LGBTQ support centers, and zine libraries throughout the country. A blog exists to collect and continue new stories.
I have not read the comic yet, but I did go to a sales page at Microcosm Publishing, a vendor of online zines. My only concern, so far, is that the comic appears to be "for women only." I don't know if that was the editor's intentions, but one problem with tradition sex education is that it is too often positioned as a woman's issue. But give Bley and Co. credit. They developed a tool that can successfully reach a female audience 12 and over through effective stories. That is no small accomplishment.
Pre-teen Beauty Pageants, Self Esteem and Sex Education
Today I'm reading the headline post on Salon.com entitled Little Darlings
Inside the Elaborate, Disturbing and Downright Riveting World of Child-Beauty Pageants. The piece was not so much of a shock to me--I have seen the movie Little Miss Sunshine which features a pre-teen pageant--but the fact that pre-teen beauty is a $5 billion industry did, as did information about some of the phoniness, including fake teeth called "flippers" that mask baby teeth.
Much of the news coverage about sex education deals with health issues and the act of sexual intercourse; very little is discussed about the topics younger people should learn. But when I read a story like this, I wonder if body image and self-esteem should be two of these topics.
It disturbs me that a seven-year old girl is being told she is more beautiful than other seven year old girls because she was made up to look more like an adult, or a Las Vegas showgirl, to impress adult judges. I admit, I have never been a father, or even a brother, to a seven year old girl, but why are parents prematurely engraving a message that looks are everything? Children do not start school on equal footing academically, so why do parents want to have their daughters on unequal footing socially, too?
I will not try to answer those questions. But I will point out an example of a company that has been trying. Dove, best known for soap and moisturizing creams, among other products, has operated Campaigns for Real Beauty for five years. The current charitable focus of the campaign is a partnership with the Girl Scouts USA to raise the self esteem of girls and young women ages 8 to 17. Some of the tools used to build self esteem are interactive, too.
You have to give a beauty products company credit for taking a global lead on this issue and building true confidence in girls and young women. As I read this Salon story about pre-teen pageants, I hope that others will follow their lead.
Inside the Elaborate, Disturbing and Downright Riveting World of Child-Beauty Pageants. The piece was not so much of a shock to me--I have seen the movie Little Miss Sunshine which features a pre-teen pageant--but the fact that pre-teen beauty is a $5 billion industry did, as did information about some of the phoniness, including fake teeth called "flippers" that mask baby teeth.
Much of the news coverage about sex education deals with health issues and the act of sexual intercourse; very little is discussed about the topics younger people should learn. But when I read a story like this, I wonder if body image and self-esteem should be two of these topics.
It disturbs me that a seven-year old girl is being told she is more beautiful than other seven year old girls because she was made up to look more like an adult, or a Las Vegas showgirl, to impress adult judges. I admit, I have never been a father, or even a brother, to a seven year old girl, but why are parents prematurely engraving a message that looks are everything? Children do not start school on equal footing academically, so why do parents want to have their daughters on unequal footing socially, too?
I will not try to answer those questions. But I will point out an example of a company that has been trying. Dove, best known for soap and moisturizing creams, among other products, has operated Campaigns for Real Beauty for five years. The current charitable focus of the campaign is a partnership with the Girl Scouts USA to raise the self esteem of girls and young women ages 8 to 17. Some of the tools used to build self esteem are interactive, too.
You have to give a beauty products company credit for taking a global lead on this issue and building true confidence in girls and young women. As I read this Salon story about pre-teen pageants, I hope that others will follow their lead.
Right to Empty Holster Protest Upheld by Federal District Court
In my current novel, Defending College Heights, two of the issues I attempted to address were campus protests and campus security. I have written previous posts about the Virginia Tech massacre and the federal Clary Act, but last week, a federal district court decision caught my eye.
On Friday, November 6, the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Texas ruled that two community college students could wear empty holsters on campus public spaces--but not in classrooms--in a protest to support the student's right to bear arms on campus. Texas law forbids students to carry concealed weapons on a college campus. The students, however, would have only distributed pamphlets declaring their position on the issue.
The greater issue here, however, was the student's right to protest in areas outside places that their school, Tarrant County Community College, labels as Free Speech Zones. Students, according to the court decision, who wish to organize a protest, must notify the college administration of their intentions 24 hours in advance.
The students argue that, due to the unique nature of their protest--two persons wearing empty holsters--the Free Speech Zones did not apply. They added that the college administration had no set standards to grant permits, and that the college did not have the right to deny access to public forums such as streets, sidewalks and park areas. The fact these areas are on a campus does not make them less public, they argued. In addition, the students added that their protest did not interfere with the daily comings and goings of the student population, including but not limited to classes.
This, to me, is a split victory. The students right to express their views in public was upheld, however their right to wear the "colors" of their protest in class was not. I can imagine that the protesters will take off from class, or find others to join their cause, to express their views in the public spaces.
I cannot imagine that any of the protesters would take the time to get changed before class, as if they had to comply with a grade school dress code. When I was in college, I would see students wear buttons for causes or political candidates. I might have asked one or two of them a question, but these students never asked for classroom time to make their point.
If the students were foolish enough to disrupt a class to make their point, then punishment would be merited. However, I doubt that a smart activist would, pardon the pun, shoot himself in the foot, so that he could run the risk of being kicked off campus.
On Friday, November 6, the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Texas ruled that two community college students could wear empty holsters on campus public spaces--but not in classrooms--in a protest to support the student's right to bear arms on campus. Texas law forbids students to carry concealed weapons on a college campus. The students, however, would have only distributed pamphlets declaring their position on the issue.
The greater issue here, however, was the student's right to protest in areas outside places that their school, Tarrant County Community College, labels as Free Speech Zones. Students, according to the court decision, who wish to organize a protest, must notify the college administration of their intentions 24 hours in advance.
The students argue that, due to the unique nature of their protest--two persons wearing empty holsters--the Free Speech Zones did not apply. They added that the college administration had no set standards to grant permits, and that the college did not have the right to deny access to public forums such as streets, sidewalks and park areas. The fact these areas are on a campus does not make them less public, they argued. In addition, the students added that their protest did not interfere with the daily comings and goings of the student population, including but not limited to classes.
This, to me, is a split victory. The students right to express their views in public was upheld, however their right to wear the "colors" of their protest in class was not. I can imagine that the protesters will take off from class, or find others to join their cause, to express their views in the public spaces.
I cannot imagine that any of the protesters would take the time to get changed before class, as if they had to comply with a grade school dress code. When I was in college, I would see students wear buttons for causes or political candidates. I might have asked one or two of them a question, but these students never asked for classroom time to make their point.
If the students were foolish enough to disrupt a class to make their point, then punishment would be merited. However, I doubt that a smart activist would, pardon the pun, shoot himself in the foot, so that he could run the risk of being kicked off campus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)