As we head into the Christmas season, my last blog for the year is about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear a case as to whether public schools and universities may deny official recognition to student religious groups that limit membership to those who share their core beliefs.
The case, reported in Education Week, among other sources, involves a dispute between the University of California’s Hastings College of Law, in San Francisco, and the law school’s chapter of the Christian Legal Society. The Springfield, Va.-based society promotes a Christian perspective among lawyers and law students.
The law school has refused to allow the Society to maintain an on-campus presence because the Society does not allow non-believers to hold leadership positions and because they refused to agree to the school’s nondiscrimination policy regarding religion and sexual orientation. This case has implications beyond public higher education. K-12 school districts could be impacted by a ruling as well.
While I am not a lawyer, I know that Hastings is a publicly supported law school, subject to California and federal anti-discrimination laws. I also know that law schools have lost a similar court battle to prevent the armed forces from recruiting on campus for their Judge Advocate General programs.
But in this case a legal society is not an organized religion, only a group of law students who share similar religious beliefs. They plan to discuss their interpretation of legal issues, not conduct religious services. If they represented an organized religion they would be given more leeway; public institutions cannot abridge the practice of religion. For instance, you see many churches when you walk on the campus of a large public university.
But this legal society made a mistake, imposing one set of religious values on their membership when it is not a religion, nor a provider of religiously related services. I may not be Christian, but I do know that there are several interpretations of Christian faith. A legal society has no business proselytizing that their religious beliefs are superior, and that they have a superior right to make laws.
I also wonder if it is contradictory for a religious society to deliberately exclude non-believers. The mission of similar groups is typically to win over converts.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Pittsburgh Mayor Drops Plan to Tax Students
This morning I read in USA Today and Inside Higher Education that Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl announced that he will drop his plan to tax college students as a means of covering the costs of city services and resolving an underfunded pension liability.
Instead, the city will receive increased contributions from three sources: Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, the two best endowed institutions, and Highmark, a non-profit health insurer. The amounts of these contributions were not disclosed to the press. However, Carnegie Mellon's president said that his university's contribution was made after the city had taken the tax off the table; it was not a condition for taking the tax off the table.
In past posts, I essentially labeled the effort to tax as one word: extortion. The universities were being asked to pass a tax onto their students, a less-than-reasonable demand in these economic times. The mayor of Providence, Rhode Island attempted to do the same thing; he proposed to tax students $150 per semester.
I realize that universities are property owners and that they use city services, such as water, sewer and public transportation. But higher education institutions are also service providers, much like churches or hospitals, and they subsidize housing units, health care, counseling and security for their student populations. In cities such as Pittsburgh they also operate cultural facilities that open events to the public, and in some places, such as Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, the university hosts practically all of the entertainment and culture on campus.
Pittsburgh's university community did not create the city's pension problem; hosts of mayors and public employee unions passed a burden onto future generations. None of Pittsburgh's institutions is exclusively a public city university. Even Pitt is largely a private school. But sadly, the city lost population and jobs, as its mayors have tried to reinvent its local economy around health care and financial services, and those industries pay lower wages than the manufacturing firms that have left. Any public pension assistance is more likely to come from the state legislature, not the business and university community.
Instead, the city will receive increased contributions from three sources: Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, the two best endowed institutions, and Highmark, a non-profit health insurer. The amounts of these contributions were not disclosed to the press. However, Carnegie Mellon's president said that his university's contribution was made after the city had taken the tax off the table; it was not a condition for taking the tax off the table.
In past posts, I essentially labeled the effort to tax as one word: extortion. The universities were being asked to pass a tax onto their students, a less-than-reasonable demand in these economic times. The mayor of Providence, Rhode Island attempted to do the same thing; he proposed to tax students $150 per semester.
I realize that universities are property owners and that they use city services, such as water, sewer and public transportation. But higher education institutions are also service providers, much like churches or hospitals, and they subsidize housing units, health care, counseling and security for their student populations. In cities such as Pittsburgh they also operate cultural facilities that open events to the public, and in some places, such as Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, the university hosts practically all of the entertainment and culture on campus.
Pittsburgh's university community did not create the city's pension problem; hosts of mayors and public employee unions passed a burden onto future generations. None of Pittsburgh's institutions is exclusively a public city university. Even Pitt is largely a private school. But sadly, the city lost population and jobs, as its mayors have tried to reinvent its local economy around health care and financial services, and those industries pay lower wages than the manufacturing firms that have left. Any public pension assistance is more likely to come from the state legislature, not the business and university community.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Rutgers Entry Into The Big Ten Would Have a Tremendous Non-Sports Benefit
Soon after I pack up to leave for Florida this week, I read that Rutgers, among other schools, is being considered for admission to the Big Ten Conference, which I'll fondly call the Big Ten-Eleven. Check out the 't' in the Big 10 logo, and you'll see why. It's also appropriate because Ten-Eleven in police lingo means identify radio frequency, aka check the signals.
I understand why Rutgers fans would be excited: a chance to play in the Rose Bowl, rebuild a rivalry with Penn State, and join into a larger conference television network. Not to mention Rutgers is a member of the prestigeous Association of American Universities, like the rest of the Big Ten schools, and ranks in at the midpoint academically.
The eleven Big 10 schools are also exceptionally larger than the Big East schools. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, nine schools: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Purdue are among the 15 largest universities in the country in terms of undergraduate enrollment, with Indiana close behind. Rutgers ranks 26th, but has more undergraduates than the other schools on the Big Ten/Eleven radar: Missouri, Pittsburgh and Syracuse. Rutgers, if admitted, would be the third smallest school in the conference, ahead of Iowa and Northwestern. Rutgers presently has the second largest enrollment in the Big East, behind South Florida.
The advantage of being with bigger schools is that they play in bigger stadiums and Rutgers would fare better as a visiting team. Though I'm not sure how excited the other conference members would be about coming to Rutgers; there are only 56,000 seats in our house, fewer than the other three schools under consideration. And our basketball facilities are far smaller, too. C. Vivian Stringer might be happy to coach against Iowa, her former employer, in the winter, and her Knights could be quite competitive. But if the Big Ten-Eleven want a men's basketball buddy, as well as more historical football relationships, they'd be better off inviting Syracuse.
But there is a non-football benefit that makes it worthwhile for Rutgers to join the Big Ten-Eleven. In addition to being a Rutgers graduate, I am also a graduate of the University of Illinois, a Big Ten-Eleven school. From my business experience working with both schools, there is an academic benefit the conference and Rutgers must consider. Big Ten job fairs that could cover jobs from New York to Minneapolis.
Today, universities in the same sports conference already partner to run similar events, and the Big Ten-Eleven-plus Rutgers schools have large, internationally respected pre-professional programs in business and engineering, among other fields. A Big Ten-Eleven plus Rutgers job fair would be a triple win for the employers, students and schools.
So, the benefits of hooking up with the Big Ten-Eleven would trickle down beyond the sports programs. Rutgers would help their partner schools in the New York media market and help their students break into the New York job market. And I know that Rutgers students and graduates would appreciate better access to the Chicago, Philadelphia and Minneapolis job markets, too.
I understand why Rutgers fans would be excited: a chance to play in the Rose Bowl, rebuild a rivalry with Penn State, and join into a larger conference television network. Not to mention Rutgers is a member of the prestigeous Association of American Universities, like the rest of the Big Ten schools, and ranks in at the midpoint academically.
The eleven Big 10 schools are also exceptionally larger than the Big East schools. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, nine schools: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Purdue are among the 15 largest universities in the country in terms of undergraduate enrollment, with Indiana close behind. Rutgers ranks 26th, but has more undergraduates than the other schools on the Big Ten/Eleven radar: Missouri, Pittsburgh and Syracuse. Rutgers, if admitted, would be the third smallest school in the conference, ahead of Iowa and Northwestern. Rutgers presently has the second largest enrollment in the Big East, behind South Florida.
The advantage of being with bigger schools is that they play in bigger stadiums and Rutgers would fare better as a visiting team. Though I'm not sure how excited the other conference members would be about coming to Rutgers; there are only 56,000 seats in our house, fewer than the other three schools under consideration. And our basketball facilities are far smaller, too. C. Vivian Stringer might be happy to coach against Iowa, her former employer, in the winter, and her Knights could be quite competitive. But if the Big Ten-Eleven want a men's basketball buddy, as well as more historical football relationships, they'd be better off inviting Syracuse.
But there is a non-football benefit that makes it worthwhile for Rutgers to join the Big Ten-Eleven. In addition to being a Rutgers graduate, I am also a graduate of the University of Illinois, a Big Ten-Eleven school. From my business experience working with both schools, there is an academic benefit the conference and Rutgers must consider. Big Ten job fairs that could cover jobs from New York to Minneapolis.
Today, universities in the same sports conference already partner to run similar events, and the Big Ten-Eleven-plus Rutgers schools have large, internationally respected pre-professional programs in business and engineering, among other fields. A Big Ten-Eleven plus Rutgers job fair would be a triple win for the employers, students and schools.
So, the benefits of hooking up with the Big Ten-Eleven would trickle down beyond the sports programs. Rutgers would help their partner schools in the New York media market and help their students break into the New York job market. And I know that Rutgers students and graduates would appreciate better access to the Chicago, Philadelphia and Minneapolis job markets, too.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Blessings of Going to a Minor Bowl Game
On Saturday Rutgers will play the University of Central Florida in the second annual St. Petersburg Bowl, and I plan to be there. This will be the fifth consecutive bowl for the Scarlet Knights, but only the second against a team from a non-BCS conference.
That makes the game an important "must-win" for Rutgers; teams from non-BCS conferences like the Mid-America Conference or the Conference USA, where Central Florida plays, are not expected to beat BCS conference schools. No doubt Rutgers' coaches and athletic department know that a loss has a negative impact on their fund raising and recruiting, and they will not take Central Florida lightly. Neither should Rutgers fans.
Like Rutgers, Central Florida brings a 8-4 record into this game. But Central Florida went 6-2 in their conference behind the fourth-best rushing defense in the nation (trailing only Texas, Alabama and TCU). This bowl will be Central Florida's third in the past five seasons. It is also their first Florida bowl game, so the fan base in the stands is likely to weigh in their favor.
And, like Rutgers, they beat a nationally ranked opponent late in their season, topping the University of Houston 37-32. They were also tested by the likes of Texas and Miami; no such non-conference opponents appeared on Rutgers schedule. And they have also had an extra week to prepare; their season ended on November 28, while the Scarlet Knights played their last game on December 5th.
I know that Rutgers fans were hoping for a berth in the Gator Bowl or the Meineke Car Care Bowl, but this is the game we got. We're getting a game in a nice warm weather city, with reasonable air fares--mine was less than $250--and an opponent who will give us all we can handle. Aside from playing for a national championship or earning a spot in a game with a big pay day, what more can you ask for?
That makes the game an important "must-win" for Rutgers; teams from non-BCS conferences like the Mid-America Conference or the Conference USA, where Central Florida plays, are not expected to beat BCS conference schools. No doubt Rutgers' coaches and athletic department know that a loss has a negative impact on their fund raising and recruiting, and they will not take Central Florida lightly. Neither should Rutgers fans.
Like Rutgers, Central Florida brings a 8-4 record into this game. But Central Florida went 6-2 in their conference behind the fourth-best rushing defense in the nation (trailing only Texas, Alabama and TCU). This bowl will be Central Florida's third in the past five seasons. It is also their first Florida bowl game, so the fan base in the stands is likely to weigh in their favor.
And, like Rutgers, they beat a nationally ranked opponent late in their season, topping the University of Houston 37-32. They were also tested by the likes of Texas and Miami; no such non-conference opponents appeared on Rutgers schedule. And they have also had an extra week to prepare; their season ended on November 28, while the Scarlet Knights played their last game on December 5th.
I know that Rutgers fans were hoping for a berth in the Gator Bowl or the Meineke Car Care Bowl, but this is the game we got. We're getting a game in a nice warm weather city, with reasonable air fares--mine was less than $250--and an opponent who will give us all we can handle. Aside from playing for a national championship or earning a spot in a game with a big pay day, what more can you ask for?
Government Should Not Define Meaning of 'Gainful Employment'
The U.S. Department of Education introduced a proposal to assess the performance of vocational programs and most course offerings at for-profit and non-profit institutions by linking the prices they charge to their graduates' salaries, according to a story posted last week at Inside Higher Education.
This proposal has two options for considering "gainful employment"
The first option suggested by the department would seek to define the value added by a program -- the difference in annual earnings between a high school graduate and an entry-level worker with a degree or certificate in the same field -- and determine an appropriate price for it.
The other option set forth would be to look at whether the starting annual income in the field was sufficient to repay the average debt obligation of a student with a degree or certificate in that field while still being able to pay living expenses.
The options are not the only issue. The department also wants the authority to impose price controls on the pre-professional degrees offered by these schools.
I understand the concerns on both sides. Consumer advocates want to keep students from overpaying for degrees that have little value, and they want to keep those students from incurring massive debt. The for-profit and vocational school sectors do not want to be signaled out in a discriminatory way when it comes to government financial aid.
The best of the private schools no doubt claim they offer more services and value than similar programs at a public school. It's up to them to prove it in the marketplace, by finding good jobs for good students. During my work in the software business, I visited with several privately funded art and design schools. They run some very expensive programs, not only in tuition and fees, but also computers and supplies. Some graduates become extremely successful artists and designers, while other find new careers. One school, Parsons, has an employer roster that would be the envy of some Ivy League schools, because of its reputation and location in New York City. However, not every Parsons graduate will be hired by one of those employers, and the school wisely does not make such assurances.
But defining "gainful employment" is a wasteful academic exercise. It implies that schools can guarantee financial success, or that the student will be able to repay their debt, when in effect they cannot. We have already seen one incident where a former New York City college student is suing a for-profit college because she believed that their career center did not do all it could to help her find a job. Placing a definition of "gainful employment" into law will open the floodgates for more such frivolous suits.
This proposal has two options for considering "gainful employment"
The first option suggested by the department would seek to define the value added by a program -- the difference in annual earnings between a high school graduate and an entry-level worker with a degree or certificate in the same field -- and determine an appropriate price for it.
The other option set forth would be to look at whether the starting annual income in the field was sufficient to repay the average debt obligation of a student with a degree or certificate in that field while still being able to pay living expenses.
The options are not the only issue. The department also wants the authority to impose price controls on the pre-professional degrees offered by these schools.
I understand the concerns on both sides. Consumer advocates want to keep students from overpaying for degrees that have little value, and they want to keep those students from incurring massive debt. The for-profit and vocational school sectors do not want to be signaled out in a discriminatory way when it comes to government financial aid.
The best of the private schools no doubt claim they offer more services and value than similar programs at a public school. It's up to them to prove it in the marketplace, by finding good jobs for good students. During my work in the software business, I visited with several privately funded art and design schools. They run some very expensive programs, not only in tuition and fees, but also computers and supplies. Some graduates become extremely successful artists and designers, while other find new careers. One school, Parsons, has an employer roster that would be the envy of some Ivy League schools, because of its reputation and location in New York City. However, not every Parsons graduate will be hired by one of those employers, and the school wisely does not make such assurances.
But defining "gainful employment" is a wasteful academic exercise. It implies that schools can guarantee financial success, or that the student will be able to repay their debt, when in effect they cannot. We have already seen one incident where a former New York City college student is suing a for-profit college because she believed that their career center did not do all it could to help her find a job. Placing a definition of "gainful employment" into law will open the floodgates for more such frivolous suits.
Pittsburgh Still Insists on Power to Tax College Students
Last Friday, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette reported that Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has asked for a $5 million-per-year promise from the city's tax-exempt entities in return for the shelving of the proposed 1 percent tuition levy that the mayor calls the Fair Share Tax. I have already written a previous post in opposition to the tax.
It was interesting that the mayor is willing ask for $5 million instead of continuing to push for the $16 million he expected to raise by imposing the tax on students.
The mayor acknowledged a $10 million annual contribution from the fund to Pittsburgh Promise, a program created by Ravenstahl to fund college costs for the city’s top high school graduates, but said that the schools had an obligation of $5 million to the city.
I worked in big city economic development and know how the politics work. Asking for mountains and settling for mole hills goes with being a mayor. But this stand-off is ridiculous. It is insensitive to the situations of the individual schools in the Pittsburgh area, as well as the students. It creates odd inequities such as taxing of non-resident students as well as double-charging residents and their parents for city services.
It would have been more appropriate to approach the schools as individuals rather than attempt to tax all of them at once. There are ten colleges in the city, but their financial situations are not the same. And some already discount their services to students with special financial needs; for instance, Carlow University targets older working women who need an education. Sometimes filling a public need is more important than paying an unfair tax.
It was interesting that the mayor is willing ask for $5 million instead of continuing to push for the $16 million he expected to raise by imposing the tax on students.
The mayor acknowledged a $10 million annual contribution from the fund to Pittsburgh Promise, a program created by Ravenstahl to fund college costs for the city’s top high school graduates, but said that the schools had an obligation of $5 million to the city.
I worked in big city economic development and know how the politics work. Asking for mountains and settling for mole hills goes with being a mayor. But this stand-off is ridiculous. It is insensitive to the situations of the individual schools in the Pittsburgh area, as well as the students. It creates odd inequities such as taxing of non-resident students as well as double-charging residents and their parents for city services.
It would have been more appropriate to approach the schools as individuals rather than attempt to tax all of them at once. There are ten colleges in the city, but their financial situations are not the same. And some already discount their services to students with special financial needs; for instance, Carlow University targets older working women who need an education. Sometimes filling a public need is more important than paying an unfair tax.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Gay Marriage: What's a New Jersey Democrat to Do?
Today I read an article in my hometown Trenton Times. Our state senator, Shirley Turner, is supposedly on-the-fence about a vote on upcoming legislation that would legally recognize gay marriage in New Jersey.
Turner, a Democrat, and a vice president at Rider University, is considered to be an uncertain vote; this story said that she leans towards opposing the bill. Black ministers in the Trenton area, including Turner's own pastor, have asked her to vote no, while college students, an extremely large constituency in her district, have asked for her support.
Take a look at this story. Turner's pastor opposes gay marriage based on a vote of 95 percent of his congregation that was taken four years ago. He also believes that the biblical definition of marriage does not apply to same-sex couples. Fair enough, but these are the views of the majority who voted, not all voters, nor even all citizens, nor even all church-goers.
Senator Turner's views on most issues tend towards the left, but it is not surprising for her to listen to her pastor. However, unlike President Obama, who renounced comments from his pastor on other issues, Senator Turner has made no comment. I'm disappointed in Turner for waffling on this issue, but she is not alone.
This legislation is coming to a lame-duck legislature and it has the support of the outgoing Governor Jon Corzine, a Democrat. Corzine's successor, Chris Christie, a conservative Republican, has already said that he would veto a bill if it was passed on to the next legislative session. However, aside from one additional Republican seat in our State Assembly, the composition of our legislature, Assembly and Senate, is essentially unchanged. They should pass the bill before this session is over.
I respect religious objections to gay marriage, and it should be a minister's prerogative to set the conditions by which he or she will perform a marriage. As I have mentioned once before, as an example, it is not unusual for Jewish rabbis to refuse to officiate a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew, unless the non-Jew is willing to convert. But those rabbis do not speak for other rabbis who feel differently.
My brother's wedding--he is Jewish, though his wife is not--was performed by a Reconstructionist rabbi, and it is legally recognized by the State of New York. No rabbi ever stood up to object. Legislation in support of same-sex marriage legally recognizes same-sex marriage. It does not require every minister, or every justice of the peace, to perform a same-sex marriage.
I've stated in previous posts that same-sex couples deserve the same consideration, and that one set of religious views about marriage should not dominate over others. Nor should politicians be placed in the position of defining marriage.
I never understand why the clergy who support same-sex marriage never say that such politicians playing God, because that is exactly what they are doing. It is even more disheartening that clergy who have worked for social equity wish to deny marital rights to others for religious reasons, even for people who do not share their beliefs.
Turner, a Democrat, and a vice president at Rider University, is considered to be an uncertain vote; this story said that she leans towards opposing the bill. Black ministers in the Trenton area, including Turner's own pastor, have asked her to vote no, while college students, an extremely large constituency in her district, have asked for her support.
Take a look at this story. Turner's pastor opposes gay marriage based on a vote of 95 percent of his congregation that was taken four years ago. He also believes that the biblical definition of marriage does not apply to same-sex couples. Fair enough, but these are the views of the majority who voted, not all voters, nor even all citizens, nor even all church-goers.
Senator Turner's views on most issues tend towards the left, but it is not surprising for her to listen to her pastor. However, unlike President Obama, who renounced comments from his pastor on other issues, Senator Turner has made no comment. I'm disappointed in Turner for waffling on this issue, but she is not alone.
This legislation is coming to a lame-duck legislature and it has the support of the outgoing Governor Jon Corzine, a Democrat. Corzine's successor, Chris Christie, a conservative Republican, has already said that he would veto a bill if it was passed on to the next legislative session. However, aside from one additional Republican seat in our State Assembly, the composition of our legislature, Assembly and Senate, is essentially unchanged. They should pass the bill before this session is over.
I respect religious objections to gay marriage, and it should be a minister's prerogative to set the conditions by which he or she will perform a marriage. As I have mentioned once before, as an example, it is not unusual for Jewish rabbis to refuse to officiate a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew, unless the non-Jew is willing to convert. But those rabbis do not speak for other rabbis who feel differently.
My brother's wedding--he is Jewish, though his wife is not--was performed by a Reconstructionist rabbi, and it is legally recognized by the State of New York. No rabbi ever stood up to object. Legislation in support of same-sex marriage legally recognizes same-sex marriage. It does not require every minister, or every justice of the peace, to perform a same-sex marriage.
I've stated in previous posts that same-sex couples deserve the same consideration, and that one set of religious views about marriage should not dominate over others. Nor should politicians be placed in the position of defining marriage.
I never understand why the clergy who support same-sex marriage never say that such politicians playing God, because that is exactly what they are doing. It is even more disheartening that clergy who have worked for social equity wish to deny marital rights to others for religious reasons, even for people who do not share their beliefs.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
One Dream Should Drive a Flagship University's Mission
Last night, I read an article in Newsweek by Education Sector policy director Kevin Carey about the spiraling cost of higher education in California. The University of California regents have recently approved a 32 percent tuition hike, divided over the next two semesters, and more and more students are being shut out of a university or a community college education in the state.
Carey lays the causes of this dilemma at the door: the state's inability to tax does not content with it's ability to spend, expensive building programs, over-ambitious athletic programs, over-emphasis on merit versus need-based scholarships, and expensive marketing campaigns. I've talked about some of these issues myself, in previous posts. But I think the problem goes a little further.
Over this past year, I kept giving thought to the question of accessibility versus affordability: who is entitled to a college education, and who is not? The word 'entitled' is important here, as President Obama has previously asked that Pell Grants, which help reduce the cost of education to individual students, be reconsidered as an 'entitlement.'
But admission to the University of California through the last 1960's, or the City University of New York of the 1950's and 1960's were never meant to be 'entitlements' for every high school senior. They were meant to be highly competitive schools as well as an affordable option for the brightest students when their families could not afford to pay private college tuition. That is what a flagship public school should be, above all other things.
The University of California's (UC) proposed tuition increase will not affect students in families with household incomes less than $70,000 per year, because they will pay no tuition at all. According to the university system, about a third of their students will qualify under an aid program called the Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan.
I dug further into the numbers. Using the figures reported by the schools to the U.S. News guide and data on the UC and the UC Merced Web site, The UC system has approximately 222,000 students, and approximately 169,000 are full-time undergraduates, the financial aid eligible population. One-third represents approximately 56,000 students.
But their free ride will be funded on the backs of the rest of the students and their families. That causes resentment within a university community, and a fractured student body is more dangerous than a fractured faculty or administration. This is as much the root of the student protests at UC campuses as the tuition increase. Activists know that students do not need to be wealthy to be considered privileged.
The assurances of a program such as the Blue and Gold plan should be at the heart of the mission of every good public university. Those assurances represent opportunity: work hard, earn good grades and you will go to a top college and graduate with little debt and little resentment from your classmants. That is a motivational tool and an American Dream. But the costs for disadvantaged students to attain their dreams at public universities should be shared by all taxpaying citizens and corporations.
Carey lays the causes of this dilemma at the door: the state's inability to tax does not content with it's ability to spend, expensive building programs, over-ambitious athletic programs, over-emphasis on merit versus need-based scholarships, and expensive marketing campaigns. I've talked about some of these issues myself, in previous posts. But I think the problem goes a little further.
Over this past year, I kept giving thought to the question of accessibility versus affordability: who is entitled to a college education, and who is not? The word 'entitled' is important here, as President Obama has previously asked that Pell Grants, which help reduce the cost of education to individual students, be reconsidered as an 'entitlement.'
But admission to the University of California through the last 1960's, or the City University of New York of the 1950's and 1960's were never meant to be 'entitlements' for every high school senior. They were meant to be highly competitive schools as well as an affordable option for the brightest students when their families could not afford to pay private college tuition. That is what a flagship public school should be, above all other things.
The University of California's (UC) proposed tuition increase will not affect students in families with household incomes less than $70,000 per year, because they will pay no tuition at all. According to the university system, about a third of their students will qualify under an aid program called the Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan.
I dug further into the numbers. Using the figures reported by the schools to the U.S. News guide and data on the UC and the UC Merced Web site, The UC system has approximately 222,000 students, and approximately 169,000 are full-time undergraduates, the financial aid eligible population. One-third represents approximately 56,000 students.
But their free ride will be funded on the backs of the rest of the students and their families. That causes resentment within a university community, and a fractured student body is more dangerous than a fractured faculty or administration. This is as much the root of the student protests at UC campuses as the tuition increase. Activists know that students do not need to be wealthy to be considered privileged.
The assurances of a program such as the Blue and Gold plan should be at the heart of the mission of every good public university. Those assurances represent opportunity: work hard, earn good grades and you will go to a top college and graduate with little debt and little resentment from your classmants. That is a motivational tool and an American Dream. But the costs for disadvantaged students to attain their dreams at public universities should be shared by all taxpaying citizens and corporations.
Book Review: The Best of the Best: Becoming Elite at an American Boarding School by Ruben A. Gaztambide-Fernandez
Shop Indie Bookstores
The Best of the Best is an on-the-site report about student life in an elite boarding school, elite meaning that the school attracts the top one percent of all boarding school students. The author, to protect identities, has named the subject of his story The Weston School. He developed a model that he called the five E's of elite schooling: Exclusion, Engagement, Excellence, Entitlement and Envisioning. The author observed his model over the course of two years.
The Weston School in this story is a mix between a top co-ed liberal arts college--Amherst or Williams, for example--and a public high school in a well-to-do community like the West Beverly High of Beverly Hills 90210 fame. The course catalog includes the usual high school fare, but also many core requirements and electives for college majors. A student could conceivably leave Weston with a year of advanced placement credits.
The public high school aspect of the Weston school extends most to the student body. If you saw the movie Mean Girls, starring Lindsey Lohan, you might remember a cartoon cafeteria map; an amusing tale of where the "cool kids," "the popular crowd,"'the 'misfits',"" the nerds,""the jocks," and so on. If you saw the movie, then read this book, you would see that The Weston School has the same cliques.
But the major differences between the Weston School student body and that public high school are the students who attend through programs such as Prep-for- Prep--these programs provide rigorous instruction to inner city and rural youths to help them gain admission to top private schools--and the post graduate students who attend to shape up their transcripts, and build up the school's athletic teams.
The Prep-for-Prep students face the academic hurdles well, but the social competition is difficult. However, becoming a post graduate student at a place like Weston is like jumping a car from third to sixth gear; the students have barely enough academic background to get started, so they must ramp up their study habits to handle college. The rest of the students know why the post-grads are there, and the reasons (athletics, for example) are treated with disdain by some.
I perceive that parents considering boarding schools are one audience for this book; the author attempts to relate the setting at Weston to the schools in movies such as Dead Poets Society, School Ties and The Emperor's Club, as well as Curtis Sittenfeld's novel, Prep.
After reading Best of the Best, I saw that truth and fiction were not too far apart. I also saw that I would have problems sending my children away to school; parental bonding is not a part of this educational process, though parental politics is.
Special to Educated Quest: From Educator to Chaplain to Children's Book Author to Radio Host, The Journey of Carol Kasser
Known to children as "Bubbie the Book Lady," Dr. Carol Kasser is a storyteller and crafts artisan who appears at schools and libraries throughout the Philadelphia metropolitan area. An author of 14 books, and now host of her own radio show, Bubbie's World, Dr. Kasser has a varied and interesting biography as an educator, Jewish chaplain, author and impending publisher, as well as entertainer. I would like to thank her for this special post for Educated Quest.
What was the impetus for Bubbie the Book Lady? What made you decide to work independently as opposed to being a faculty member at a school?
The impetus for Bubbie the Book Lady tritely enough was my grandchildren. I have been writing textbooks and the occasional magazine article for children since the 1980's, but I started writing in earnest when my grandchildren were born. The first book I wrote was only published for them, but when I read some of the stories in their schools and got positive feedback from the teachers and students, Bubbie the Book Lady was born. I was a classroom English teacher for 20 years (at the Community College of Philadelphia). But I feel that I can reach more children by doing programs with different libraries and school districts, and now through my radio show Bubbie's World (wnjc1360am or wnjc1360.com), Sundays 6:30 p.m.
Tell us about your completed books(other than those upcoming). Is there a single underlying purpose behind them?
My books fall into three categories based on my two previous careers and my current career as Bubbie the Book Lady. The first books are ESL textbooks co-written with Ann Silverman: American Cultural Encounters(now out of print) and Stories We Brought With Us (in its 3rd edition with thje Pearson Education division of Longman).
The second books are on aging and spirituality and stem from my 15 years as a geriatric chaplain with the Jewish Chaplaincy and Healing Service. Those books include Manna For the Soul( an intro to liberal Jewish spirituality), Reflections: Readings of Spirituality, Gratitude and Love(readings for comfort and healing), and Soul to Soul: A Manual of Compassionate Caregiving(written with Joan Phillips for those involved in caregiving for aging family members).
Most of my recent books are children's books including I Brought Home a Skunk, Miss Kayla's Tea Party, Just Give Me a Box(written with Diane Morris to provide parent-child craft projects from boxes found around the house), Broccoliosaur Stories(stories about Rabe, the broccoli-eating dinosaur), The Halloween Ghost and Other Stories, Animal Tales, and What Holiday is It?(a child's intro to Jewish holidays).
The common theme is that all of the books are meant to educate as well as entertain. The same is true for my one young adult novel(actually aimed at Junior High aged students) Bulb-head. I have education programs for all of these books and a study guide for Bulb-head. All of my books and the programs that stem from them are meant to entertain as well as encourage children to think and to use their imagination and creativity.
Please talk about your upcoming projects for 2010.
I am in discussion with Matt Hendrickson of YFN cable to make a t.v. version of Bubbie's World beginning in 2010. I am also launching my webpage Bubbiesbooks.com in 2010 to sell my books as downloads. If that is successful, Bubbie's Book will eventually become an e-publisher for other authors, as well. I am trying to get my character the Broccoliosaur into schools as the "Smokey the Bear" for nutrition.
You have recently started a radio show? What will the content be, who is the audience and how do you plan to promote the show?
The radio show Bubbie's World is aimed at children 3-8. It is an educational program with puppets, crafts, stories, songs etc. to to teach alphabet, numbers, nutrition, geography while fostering creativity by inviting the audience to send in art crafts and some writing relating to each show. Children can become "Friends of the Broccoliosaur" by filling out a meal journal and circling the 5 fruits and vegetables they ate each day.
I have a promotions specialist doing e-mail, newspaper advertising, and the show is advertised on YFN Cable and WNJC. I also belong to a host of networking groups Network Now and the Women's Business Forum as well as The Writers Coffeehouse. I belong to SCBWI (The Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators), NAJC the National Association of Jewish Chaplains, and SSCBWI(Shomer Shabbas Book Writers and Illustrators-a Jewish writers group). I am starting to use the social media- Facebook, Twitter also.
What advice would you give to budding authors who would like to write children's books or educational materials for the K-6 age group?
Sadly, my advice to budding authors is: keep your day job. Seriously, I advise budding authors to try educational books, middle grade or young adult books first because there is a glut in the picture book market. I also recommend that they write a few magazine or e-zine articles for the "creds" even though they don;t pay well. Advice that I give but don;t follow myself is get your name out there by blogging. I don;t seem to be disciplined enough to keep a blog going, but I think it is great practice for those more disciplined than I am.
What was the impetus for Bubbie the Book Lady? What made you decide to work independently as opposed to being a faculty member at a school?
The impetus for Bubbie the Book Lady tritely enough was my grandchildren. I have been writing textbooks and the occasional magazine article for children since the 1980's, but I started writing in earnest when my grandchildren were born. The first book I wrote was only published for them, but when I read some of the stories in their schools and got positive feedback from the teachers and students, Bubbie the Book Lady was born. I was a classroom English teacher for 20 years (at the Community College of Philadelphia). But I feel that I can reach more children by doing programs with different libraries and school districts, and now through my radio show Bubbie's World (wnjc1360am or wnjc1360.com), Sundays 6:30 p.m.
Tell us about your completed books(other than those upcoming). Is there a single underlying purpose behind them?
My books fall into three categories based on my two previous careers and my current career as Bubbie the Book Lady. The first books are ESL textbooks co-written with Ann Silverman: American Cultural Encounters(now out of print) and Stories We Brought With Us (in its 3rd edition with thje Pearson Education division of Longman).
The second books are on aging and spirituality and stem from my 15 years as a geriatric chaplain with the Jewish Chaplaincy and Healing Service. Those books include Manna For the Soul( an intro to liberal Jewish spirituality), Reflections: Readings of Spirituality, Gratitude and Love(readings for comfort and healing), and Soul to Soul: A Manual of Compassionate Caregiving(written with Joan Phillips for those involved in caregiving for aging family members).
Most of my recent books are children's books including I Brought Home a Skunk, Miss Kayla's Tea Party, Just Give Me a Box(written with Diane Morris to provide parent-child craft projects from boxes found around the house), Broccoliosaur Stories(stories about Rabe, the broccoli-eating dinosaur), The Halloween Ghost and Other Stories, Animal Tales, and What Holiday is It?(a child's intro to Jewish holidays).
The common theme is that all of the books are meant to educate as well as entertain. The same is true for my one young adult novel(actually aimed at Junior High aged students) Bulb-head. I have education programs for all of these books and a study guide for Bulb-head. All of my books and the programs that stem from them are meant to entertain as well as encourage children to think and to use their imagination and creativity.
Please talk about your upcoming projects for 2010.
I am in discussion with Matt Hendrickson of YFN cable to make a t.v. version of Bubbie's World beginning in 2010. I am also launching my webpage Bubbiesbooks.com in 2010 to sell my books as downloads. If that is successful, Bubbie's Book will eventually become an e-publisher for other authors, as well. I am trying to get my character the Broccoliosaur into schools as the "Smokey the Bear" for nutrition.
You have recently started a radio show? What will the content be, who is the audience and how do you plan to promote the show?
The radio show Bubbie's World is aimed at children 3-8. It is an educational program with puppets, crafts, stories, songs etc. to to teach alphabet, numbers, nutrition, geography while fostering creativity by inviting the audience to send in art crafts and some writing relating to each show. Children can become "Friends of the Broccoliosaur" by filling out a meal journal and circling the 5 fruits and vegetables they ate each day.
I have a promotions specialist doing e-mail, newspaper advertising, and the show is advertised on YFN Cable and WNJC. I also belong to a host of networking groups Network Now and the Women's Business Forum as well as The Writers Coffeehouse. I belong to SCBWI (The Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators), NAJC the National Association of Jewish Chaplains, and SSCBWI(Shomer Shabbas Book Writers and Illustrators-a Jewish writers group). I am starting to use the social media- Facebook, Twitter also.
What advice would you give to budding authors who would like to write children's books or educational materials for the K-6 age group?
Sadly, my advice to budding authors is: keep your day job. Seriously, I advise budding authors to try educational books, middle grade or young adult books first because there is a glut in the picture book market. I also recommend that they write a few magazine or e-zine articles for the "creds" even though they don;t pay well. Advice that I give but don;t follow myself is get your name out there by blogging. I don;t seem to be disciplined enough to keep a blog going, but I think it is great practice for those more disciplined than I am.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Book Review: The President's Team by Michael Connelly
Shop Indie Bookstores
This Saturday will be the 110th Army-Navy football game; it is one of the oldest rivalries in sports. While Army football has been in a rebuilding mode for several years, Navy will be playing in a bowl game for the seventh consecutive season. But in 1963, Navy contended for the national championship.
The President's Team is two stories: one of John F. Kennedy's relationship with the Navy and the Naval Academy, the other a week-by-week account of a very successful season. On New Year's Day, 1964, Navy, led by junior Heisman Trophy quarterback Roger Staubach, and ranked second in the nation, played the University of Texas in the Cotton Bowl. It was Navy's second major bowl game in four seasons. On New Year's Day, 1961, another Heisman winner, Joe Bellino, led Navy into the Orange Bowl against Missouri.
President Kennedy had a stronger connection to the 1960 team than the 1963 team. Bellino, the running back, was a native of Massachusetts; he would later play for the Boston Patriots after he completed his military obligation. While Kennedy was president-elect on the day of the 1960 Army game, and on New Years Day 1961, he invited Bellino and teammates to the White House after he was sworn in.
Kennedy, however, followed the exploits of the 1963 team quite closely, and had met the team before the big game. Staubach was supposed to appear on the cover of Life on November 29, but the issue never ran. Kennedy had been assassinated and the Army-Navy Game was postponed until December 7. Navy barely beat Army that season, but they secured the Cotton Bowl bid with a 9-1 record. In addition to beating Army, a must-win game, they also defeated a Pitt team ranked third in the nation. Their only loss: to SMU in the Cotton Bowl stadium, where they would later face first-ranked Texas.
According to the book, there was trepidation among the Navy players; they felt uncomfortable going to Dallas for the bowl game so shortly after the president had been assassinated there. Connelly writes that players visited Dealy Plaza before the game. And, concerned about a bomb threat, the new president, Lyndon Johnson did not attend. Navy went on to lose the game 28-6, though the Midshipmen remained second in the AP and UPI polls.
While Navy lost to Army during Staubach's senior year, the team produced many outstanding leaders. Twenty three of the forty four players were on the Superintendent's List for academic achievement. Five earned the rank of admiral, and one, Tom Lynch, later became superintendent of the academy. The coach, Wayne Hardin, however, was fired after the Army game; even he had previously admitted that Army was always the must-win game. Staubach, as serious football fans know, became a Hall of Fame quarterback with the Dallas Cowboys. His nicknames: Captain Comeback and Captain America. However, it must have been a sense of deja vu for him, to be drafted by the team in the city where he had experienced his only losses during his Heisman season.
There are many subplots within the chapters about Kennedy and each Navy game that were quite interesting; one tells the story of a Maryland player, Darryl Hill, who was the first African-American football player for Navy. He later transferred and became the first black football player for Maryland.
The President's Team is a very good read for any football fan, especially one with a connection to the Navy.
Post Script: Lincoln University Obesity Course Made Optional
Last week, I wrote a post about Lincoln University's decision to require students with a body mass index of 30 or higher to take a fitness and nutrition course as a graduation requirement. Today, Inside Higher Education reported that the course is now optional.
According to the story, national publicity about the required course led to a faculty vote on Friday, December 4th. The vote was to keep the course, encourage students in need to take it, but make it optional.
I don't know if my post had any influence on the university's decision, but this might have been an excellent indication of the power of the online community.
According to the story, national publicity about the required course led to a faculty vote on Friday, December 4th. The vote was to keep the course, encourage students in need to take it, but make it optional.
I don't know if my post had any influence on the university's decision, but this might have been an excellent indication of the power of the online community.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Be Willing to Pay for Better Driver Education
I subscribe to three of the major car magazines: Automobile, Car and Driver and Motor Trend. Yesterday was a rare first: all three magazines arrived in my mail box, each with a picture of the next generation of my car, a VW GTI, on the cover. Naturally, I put aside my work-related reading to read about cars. I've been doing this regularly for 32 years, since I got my driver's license.
In past posts I've stated that one of the most important things you get out of high school is your driver's license. It was, and still is, at least for me, a symbol of freedom. I can start my car and drive anywhere undisturbed, as long as I obey, or can afford to obey, traffic laws.
This month's Automobile has an interesting story called Rate the States, as to which--in their words--are a motorist's mecca or a driver's hell. Sadly, my home state of New Jersey is way down south on most lists, including the final ranking. But one table drew my attention, and it was one where New Jersey is far from the bottom: the cost of driving.
It costs six dollars a year to renew a driver's license, about middle of the pack for all fifty states, and we show up high on toll roads. But our gas taxes were lower than all but Alaska and Wyoming. Before insurance, it is cheaper to drive in New Jersey than 34 other states.
However, we score very high on aggravation: forty nine percent of our roads are substandard and we have almost 98 cars per mile, more than any state except California. We have more cops per mile than any state except California, too. And, from personal experience, I can tell you that New Jersey cops love to write citations.
This imbalance of low gas taxes and high aggravation tells me two things: we need to raise our gas tax to maintain better roads, and better driver education. Maybe we should implement a special fee schedule for younger drivers: get a major speeding ticket, or a DWI the first time, and your license renewal jumps to fifty bucks. Then put this money into better driver education in the schools.
The primary mission of our schools is life skills, as well as knowledge. Driver education is certainly one of those skills, and it becomes a target for budget cuts because private instruction is available. However, if we live in a place with so many cars, and so many roads in need of repair, we should be willing to pay for more rigorous driving instruction, too. Besides, we'd rather see those cops fighting crimes instead of writing tickets.
In past posts I've stated that one of the most important things you get out of high school is your driver's license. It was, and still is, at least for me, a symbol of freedom. I can start my car and drive anywhere undisturbed, as long as I obey, or can afford to obey, traffic laws.
This month's Automobile has an interesting story called Rate the States, as to which--in their words--are a motorist's mecca or a driver's hell. Sadly, my home state of New Jersey is way down south on most lists, including the final ranking. But one table drew my attention, and it was one where New Jersey is far from the bottom: the cost of driving.
It costs six dollars a year to renew a driver's license, about middle of the pack for all fifty states, and we show up high on toll roads. But our gas taxes were lower than all but Alaska and Wyoming. Before insurance, it is cheaper to drive in New Jersey than 34 other states.
However, we score very high on aggravation: forty nine percent of our roads are substandard and we have almost 98 cars per mile, more than any state except California. We have more cops per mile than any state except California, too. And, from personal experience, I can tell you that New Jersey cops love to write citations.
This imbalance of low gas taxes and high aggravation tells me two things: we need to raise our gas tax to maintain better roads, and better driver education. Maybe we should implement a special fee schedule for younger drivers: get a major speeding ticket, or a DWI the first time, and your license renewal jumps to fifty bucks. Then put this money into better driver education in the schools.
The primary mission of our schools is life skills, as well as knowledge. Driver education is certainly one of those skills, and it becomes a target for budget cuts because private instruction is available. However, if we live in a place with so many cars, and so many roads in need of repair, we should be willing to pay for more rigorous driving instruction, too. Besides, we'd rather see those cops fighting crimes instead of writing tickets.
Does Political Correctness Have A Place at an Education School?
Today I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education that the University of Minnesota's education school is considering a faculty panel's proposal to require students in its education school to doubt the United States is a meritocracy and to demonstrate an understanding of concepts such as "white privilege."
Understandably, the proposal has come under attack from political conservatives. Teachers would be instructed around political statements which they may or may not believe.
I would be less concerned about such proposals if they were within the content of an economics, history, philosophy or political science course; the course catalog should give you a choice of viewpoints. But this is a statement that teaching professionals would be expected to bring into the job market.
I realize what the proposal writers were trying to do: to help teachers become more sensitive to the diversity of their students and be non-judgmental, not assuming a student's race is a reflection of their skills and abilities. But the intentions could have been better expressed.
I cannot imagine another pre-professional program imposing such a statement. This is akin to telling prospective engineers or accountants that the profit motive of business is unethical. While it is true that business leaders have made unethical decisions, the lack of ethics among individual executives is not an economic philosophy.
This is also akin to telling prospective engineers that the use of STEM skills for war makes a lesser engineer, although decisions about employment and political philosophy are personal decisions. Professors can say whatever they want about a military-industrial complex, but they would have no business condemning a student's personal decisions.
I have absolutely no objection to multi-cultural education or world religion courses for all students; schools should foster an environment where people can learn about each other, and use such material to develop their reading comprehension. Nor would I have an issue with political science or philosophy classes in high school where liberal and conservative viewpoints are openly discussed. But I do have a problem when a public university intends to send its education graduates out the door with a doctrine behind them.
Understandably, the proposal has come under attack from political conservatives. Teachers would be instructed around political statements which they may or may not believe.
I would be less concerned about such proposals if they were within the content of an economics, history, philosophy or political science course; the course catalog should give you a choice of viewpoints. But this is a statement that teaching professionals would be expected to bring into the job market.
I realize what the proposal writers were trying to do: to help teachers become more sensitive to the diversity of their students and be non-judgmental, not assuming a student's race is a reflection of their skills and abilities. But the intentions could have been better expressed.
I cannot imagine another pre-professional program imposing such a statement. This is akin to telling prospective engineers or accountants that the profit motive of business is unethical. While it is true that business leaders have made unethical decisions, the lack of ethics among individual executives is not an economic philosophy.
This is also akin to telling prospective engineers that the use of STEM skills for war makes a lesser engineer, although decisions about employment and political philosophy are personal decisions. Professors can say whatever they want about a military-industrial complex, but they would have no business condemning a student's personal decisions.
I have absolutely no objection to multi-cultural education or world religion courses for all students; schools should foster an environment where people can learn about each other, and use such material to develop their reading comprehension. Nor would I have an issue with political science or philosophy classes in high school where liberal and conservative viewpoints are openly discussed. But I do have a problem when a public university intends to send its education graduates out the door with a doctrine behind them.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Lincoln University Obesity Policy is Discriminatory
This week there are several stories about a new fitness course at Lincoln University (PA) mandated for students with a Body Mass Index of 30 or higher, which is considered obese. The news is not the existance of the class, but that it is required of a select group of students. If they do not pass this class, or an equivalent, then they do not graduate.
It is not unusual for colleges to require physical education. Cornell, my brother's alma mater, required students to pass a swimming test to earn their degree. I have also reported about Hartwick, a private liberal arts college in upstate New York, that requires physical education courses of every student, even those pursuing a three-year degree.
What is different, and discriminatory, is that the Lincoln University course does not apply to everyone. The school is trying to take a high road against the dangers of obesity in black America--Lincoln is a historically black school--by refusing to graduate obese students.
Requesting a body-mass index, however, is not an academic record, but a medical record. In forcing a fitness course on obese students, Lincoln might be violating student privacy rights--medical records are private, and word would get out about obese students--as well as practicing selective discrimination. The university is also springing the requirement on students who are well into their education; it is not like they were told in advance of making a commitment to attend Lincoln.
The fairest thing to do is to mandate a single course in fitness or nutrition for all students, or a set of mini-courses scheduled throughout a student's education. For instance, freshman year might focus on meal choices--preventing the legendary Freshman 15 is a laudable goal that would help any student--and other mini-courses could focus on maintaining fitness within tight schedules of classes, study, part-time work, and extra curricular activities. Practically anyone who has gone to college can tell you that fitness gets sacrificed in the pursuit of grades or a social life.
Then again, the school could also provide more nutritional fare in their dining facilities. They cannot be the cause and solution to a problem at the same time.
It is not unusual for colleges to require physical education. Cornell, my brother's alma mater, required students to pass a swimming test to earn their degree. I have also reported about Hartwick, a private liberal arts college in upstate New York, that requires physical education courses of every student, even those pursuing a three-year degree.
What is different, and discriminatory, is that the Lincoln University course does not apply to everyone. The school is trying to take a high road against the dangers of obesity in black America--Lincoln is a historically black school--by refusing to graduate obese students.
Requesting a body-mass index, however, is not an academic record, but a medical record. In forcing a fitness course on obese students, Lincoln might be violating student privacy rights--medical records are private, and word would get out about obese students--as well as practicing selective discrimination. The university is also springing the requirement on students who are well into their education; it is not like they were told in advance of making a commitment to attend Lincoln.
The fairest thing to do is to mandate a single course in fitness or nutrition for all students, or a set of mini-courses scheduled throughout a student's education. For instance, freshman year might focus on meal choices--preventing the legendary Freshman 15 is a laudable goal that would help any student--and other mini-courses could focus on maintaining fitness within tight schedules of classes, study, part-time work, and extra curricular activities. Practically anyone who has gone to college can tell you that fitness gets sacrificed in the pursuit of grades or a social life.
Then again, the school could also provide more nutritional fare in their dining facilities. They cannot be the cause and solution to a problem at the same time.
Notre Dame Needs a Turn Around Artist--and Jon Gruden is the Best Available
Set the clock back 45 years. Imagine a school, all male, religious, in the cold of the Midwest seeking a football coach to return their team to past glories of the 1920's. To succeed a coach immortalized in a 1940's movie, whose name almost graced a new line of Studebakers proposed during the 1930's, and whose most successful successor had been one of his former players?
How many coaches would take that job? I don't know. I would imagine that some would relish the challenge, while others would believe that they had a better chance of winning a national championship by staying where they were.
In 1964, that school was Notre Dame. They hired Ara Parseghian, a non-alumnus--he went to the Cradle of Coaches, Miami of Ohio--who turned around the football fortune of Northwestern, then and now considered the academic powerhouse of the Big Ten. How did he show up on Notre Dame's radar? He beat them four times in four tries. Within three years, Parseghian turned the Notre Dame program around. He went 9-1 his first season, and developed a Heisman-winning quarterback and won three national championships in eleven seasons.
The Era of Ara was not only a return to glory, it was proof that Notre Dame needed an experienced turn-arund artist to win quickly. This was also the time that Notre Dame gained prominence as an academic school and went co-ed (starting in 1973).
Parseghian was succeeded by Dan Devine, another turn-around artist. A former head coach at Arizona State and Missouri, he already had an undefeated season (1958) and an Orange Bowl victory (1960) as well as a division title in his first season (1975) as head coach of the Green Bay Packers. At Green Bay, he was the first coach to succeed the legend of Vince Lombardi; the previous head coach Phil Bengsten had been a long-time Lombardi assistant. Devine, like Parseghian, was noted as a turn-around artist, and he won a national championship in his second season (1977).
Notre Dame would not win another title until 1988, two years after Lou Holtz came to South Bend. Holtz had built a reputation as a turn-around artist, too, rebuilding programs at William and Mary, North Carolina State, Arkansas and Minnesota into winner, although he had a misstep with the New York Jets.
Tyrone Willingham's accomplishments before coming to Notre Dame were nothing to sneeze at either. He came from Stanford, the academic powerhouse of the Pac Ten and succeeded Bill Walsh, another coaching legend. In seven seasons his Stanford teams won four bowl games and the Pac Ten title (1999). While he was not necessarily a turn-around artist, he had the right credentials, a winning record at an academically-oriented school and NFL coaching experience, to make him a logical choice. He was fired after three seasons, though his first season, a ten win campaign, showed promise.
And the same thing happened to Charlie Weis, a promising first sesson, failure afterwards. While Weis was an alumnus, he was not a former player. And he had never been a head coach anyplace except at a New Jersey high school. But he had Super Bowl rings from the Giants and Patriots. Besides, what quarterback prospect would not want to be coached by the man who developed Tom Brady?
Based on history any coach who takes this job is expected to win right away. There will be less patience with the new coach than there was with Willingham or Weis. So, if I'm a head coach at a emerging program, like Brian Kelly, I must ask myself: do I have a better chance of winning a national championship where I am, or at Notre Dame?
That's a fair question: if Boise State and TCU had played an interconference game. Kelly might have the third or fourth ranked team in the country while Notre Dame is not in the top forty. And Kelly, unlike Devine and Willingham, has never been asked to replace a legend.
So here's my choice for the next Notre Dame coach: Jon Gruden. He has family ties to Notre Dame, he built two Super Bowl teams that faced each other, and it won't require a multi-million dollar buy-out to hire him. He also knows what it's like to work for a legend (Walsh) and succeed one (Tony Dungy).
Gruden has the fire of Parseghian and he won't be afraid to take the snaps from center in practice. He also has a better chance of rebuilding Notre Dame than rebuilding the Buffalo Bills or the Cleveland Browns.
How many coaches would take that job? I don't know. I would imagine that some would relish the challenge, while others would believe that they had a better chance of winning a national championship by staying where they were.
In 1964, that school was Notre Dame. They hired Ara Parseghian, a non-alumnus--he went to the Cradle of Coaches, Miami of Ohio--who turned around the football fortune of Northwestern, then and now considered the academic powerhouse of the Big Ten. How did he show up on Notre Dame's radar? He beat them four times in four tries. Within three years, Parseghian turned the Notre Dame program around. He went 9-1 his first season, and developed a Heisman-winning quarterback and won three national championships in eleven seasons.
The Era of Ara was not only a return to glory, it was proof that Notre Dame needed an experienced turn-arund artist to win quickly. This was also the time that Notre Dame gained prominence as an academic school and went co-ed (starting in 1973).
Parseghian was succeeded by Dan Devine, another turn-around artist. A former head coach at Arizona State and Missouri, he already had an undefeated season (1958) and an Orange Bowl victory (1960) as well as a division title in his first season (1975) as head coach of the Green Bay Packers. At Green Bay, he was the first coach to succeed the legend of Vince Lombardi; the previous head coach Phil Bengsten had been a long-time Lombardi assistant. Devine, like Parseghian, was noted as a turn-around artist, and he won a national championship in his second season (1977).
Notre Dame would not win another title until 1988, two years after Lou Holtz came to South Bend. Holtz had built a reputation as a turn-around artist, too, rebuilding programs at William and Mary, North Carolina State, Arkansas and Minnesota into winner, although he had a misstep with the New York Jets.
Tyrone Willingham's accomplishments before coming to Notre Dame were nothing to sneeze at either. He came from Stanford, the academic powerhouse of the Pac Ten and succeeded Bill Walsh, another coaching legend. In seven seasons his Stanford teams won four bowl games and the Pac Ten title (1999). While he was not necessarily a turn-around artist, he had the right credentials, a winning record at an academically-oriented school and NFL coaching experience, to make him a logical choice. He was fired after three seasons, though his first season, a ten win campaign, showed promise.
And the same thing happened to Charlie Weis, a promising first sesson, failure afterwards. While Weis was an alumnus, he was not a former player. And he had never been a head coach anyplace except at a New Jersey high school. But he had Super Bowl rings from the Giants and Patriots. Besides, what quarterback prospect would not want to be coached by the man who developed Tom Brady?
Based on history any coach who takes this job is expected to win right away. There will be less patience with the new coach than there was with Willingham or Weis. So, if I'm a head coach at a emerging program, like Brian Kelly, I must ask myself: do I have a better chance of winning a national championship where I am, or at Notre Dame?
That's a fair question: if Boise State and TCU had played an interconference game. Kelly might have the third or fourth ranked team in the country while Notre Dame is not in the top forty. And Kelly, unlike Devine and Willingham, has never been asked to replace a legend.
So here's my choice for the next Notre Dame coach: Jon Gruden. He has family ties to Notre Dame, he built two Super Bowl teams that faced each other, and it won't require a multi-million dollar buy-out to hire him. He also knows what it's like to work for a legend (Walsh) and succeed one (Tony Dungy).
Gruden has the fire of Parseghian and he won't be afraid to take the snaps from center in practice. He also has a better chance of rebuilding Notre Dame than rebuilding the Buffalo Bills or the Cleveland Browns.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
It's Not So Easy to Get Into the Cal State System Anymore
Today I read a story on Inside Higher Education that budget cuts in California have led admissions offices at fourteen schools in the California State University system to close applications as of midnight November 30.
This is the first time that I have ever read of a public university system closing applications so early; most university systems wait until January, while some take applications as late as the summer.
The Cal State system is huge. According to this story, the 23 campuses collectively enroll over 450,000 students. With the exception of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, nationally known for cooperative education and engineering education, these schools are largely regional. But they have become known as the places where the working class go on the college.
Until now, these schools have not been exceptionally selective. Now, they must become more competitive, and they have prepared a list of "impacted majors," setting introductory course and grade requirements for admission to select degree programs, including, to my surprise, political science. A poli-sci major needs not only admission to the university, but also grades of C or better in english composition and communications, in addition to two lower-level classes.
During the late 1940s and through the 1950's, New York City had a city university system that operated along these lines. Back then, a free public education was the reward for a bright student from a working class family. Of course, the schools were smaller, as well, but the idea was straightforward. The best and brightest students would always have an opportunity to go to college, regardless of family income. But they had to do their high school work first.
Unfortunately, during the 1960's and through the 1970's the admissions standards of New York's city university were broadened to offer admission to all students who preformed to a lower standard. That was a fiscal and academic disaster from which they have retreated. The Cal State system is facing the same problems today. The State of California cannot afford to maintain them as open admissions institutions any longer.
But these developments might be a good thing. A regional public university should place some academic standards on its applicants, and not offer an open admissions policy. They should not bring in students unprepared for college and force them into remedial courses for no degree credit. At the same time, there should be some competition to get into the more popular majors, especially the demanding pre-professional programs. A competitive program with brighter and more aggressive students is more likely to attract recruiting employers.
When I read the story I had to ask: is this a more effective public policy than No Child Left Behind? I realize that new requirements have been sprung on unsuspecting students, but consider this: those who are becoming more aware of college in their sophomore years will know what they need to do to get in. The idea that they could "always go to the local Cal State campus" becomes a thing of the past. And the high school students, their teachers, their parents, and the colleges will be the better for it.
This is the first time that I have ever read of a public university system closing applications so early; most university systems wait until January, while some take applications as late as the summer.
The Cal State system is huge. According to this story, the 23 campuses collectively enroll over 450,000 students. With the exception of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, nationally known for cooperative education and engineering education, these schools are largely regional. But they have become known as the places where the working class go on the college.
Until now, these schools have not been exceptionally selective. Now, they must become more competitive, and they have prepared a list of "impacted majors," setting introductory course and grade requirements for admission to select degree programs, including, to my surprise, political science. A poli-sci major needs not only admission to the university, but also grades of C or better in english composition and communications, in addition to two lower-level classes.
During the late 1940s and through the 1950's, New York City had a city university system that operated along these lines. Back then, a free public education was the reward for a bright student from a working class family. Of course, the schools were smaller, as well, but the idea was straightforward. The best and brightest students would always have an opportunity to go to college, regardless of family income. But they had to do their high school work first.
Unfortunately, during the 1960's and through the 1970's the admissions standards of New York's city university were broadened to offer admission to all students who preformed to a lower standard. That was a fiscal and academic disaster from which they have retreated. The Cal State system is facing the same problems today. The State of California cannot afford to maintain them as open admissions institutions any longer.
But these developments might be a good thing. A regional public university should place some academic standards on its applicants, and not offer an open admissions policy. They should not bring in students unprepared for college and force them into remedial courses for no degree credit. At the same time, there should be some competition to get into the more popular majors, especially the demanding pre-professional programs. A competitive program with brighter and more aggressive students is more likely to attract recruiting employers.
When I read the story I had to ask: is this a more effective public policy than No Child Left Behind? I realize that new requirements have been sprung on unsuspecting students, but consider this: those who are becoming more aware of college in their sophomore years will know what they need to do to get in. The idea that they could "always go to the local Cal State campus" becomes a thing of the past. And the high school students, their teachers, their parents, and the colleges will be the better for it.
Book Review: Where Men Win Glory, The Odyssey of Pat Tillman by Jon Krakauer
Shop Indie Bookstores
Where Men Win Glory is a story that begins on parallel tracks, telling the history of U.S. military action in Afghanistan alternately with the young life of former NFL player Pat Tillman. The tracks converge after Tillman begins his service in Afghanistan; he been previously deployed to Iraq.
The circumstances of Tillman's death by "friendly fire" by men in his own Ranger platoon have already been widely reported, so have attempts by the military and the Bush Administration to use Tillman's death to garner more support for their actions. Tillman's mother has already written her story of the family's resentments to the Army and former President Bush in her own book. There is no need to add comment here.
Where Men Win Glory takes additional steps and adds new facts, including:
+ Tillman, while respected and fit, was not necessarily the best conditioned for Ranger training because he had been a professional football player.
+ Tillman was not what one might call a "gung-ho" soldier. He was a good soldier, but none Krakauer's sources said that he had used the same ethnic slurs that U.S. soldiers use to describe the enemy. He was not there to kill, but because he believed that it was important to serve, even as he questioned U.S. involvement in Iraq.
+ Because Tillman had seen combat so early in his enlistment, he had the opportunity to leave the Army before his enlistment expired. The Seattle Seahawks, among other teams, were ready to offer him a new contract to return to football. Tillman's wife Marie had settled in the Seattle area while her husband was deployed. However, Tillman chose to fulfill the terms of his enlistment.
+ Tillman's bloodied Ranger uniform, as well as a journal he had kept during his deployment, were destroyed before he was buried, and before the investigation into the cause of his death had been completed. It was possible, based on the interviews Krakauer conducted with various sources, that Tillman might have written comments into the journal that constituted a lack of enthusiasm with military service.
+ While the men who shot Tillman were removed from the Rangers, they were not court-martialed or discharged. They were reassigned within the regular Army. The commanding officers responsible for the mission where Tillman was killed were promoted and reassigned to new duties.
+ Pete Geren, Secretary of the Army under former President Bush, was reappointed by President Barack Obama. It was Geren who had come clean about the details of Tillman's death by friendly fire, aka fraticide, more than three years alter. But Geren did not admit that the Army had attempted to cover up the details, only "errors and a failure of leadership."
+ There was a lack of interest on the part of the Bush White House in investigations into other incidents of fraticide. Given the limited number of males eligible for military service at this time, I would be quite concerned about incidents where troops in the theatre have accidently shot their own men. Not only would I be concerned about the deaths, but also the nation's ability to replace the deceased.
Setting aside the cause of death and the attempts to cover it up, Pat Tillman must be considered a hero. He walked away from a lucrative future to volunteer to give his life in the cause of military service.
Tillman could have left that service legally, and without resentment, but chose to honor his enlistment. He could have also chosen to begin his service as an officer--he had a college degree and would have successfully completed Officer Candidate School--but entered as a private instead. He also sought to become a Ranger, one of the elite who put boots on the ground.
I recommend Where Men Win Glory for anyone who is curious about the military or considering military service. While the Army is unlikely to push it as recommended reading, it does paint a picture of what it means to serve, as well as what happen after a soldier is deployed to Afghanistan. This book might dissuade some from joining the Army, but at least they are prepared to handle the truth. The Tillman family did not get the same consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)