The antics of Congress on the health care bill made me think back to the old song "I'm Just a Bill" on Schoolhouse Rock. So, with apologies to those lyricists who meant well, here's a version I did for our times.
I’m just one bill
The big health care bill
Bouncin’ up and down on Capital Hill
And I don’t look so pretty
‘Cause I’m shuffled through committees
Lots of people hate my fat bod
In the capital city
I almost hope and pray I get killed
But today I am still
A fat bill
I’m just one bill
The big health care bill
Spinnin’ round and round on Capital Hill
Where all these brilliant sages
Pumped me up 2,000 pages
While I sit and cause a riot
‘Til they put me on a diet
I almost hope and pray I get killed
But today I am still
A fat bill
I’m just one bill
The big health care bill
Chokin’ in and out on Capital Hill
In a maze of indecisions
Bloated with riders and provisions
To hit me in the gut
And stuff me in the butt
I almost hope and pray I get killed
But today I am still
A fat bill
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
A Future for Rutgers-Camden
Last night I went to a meeting of the Rutgers Club of Greater Philadelphia to listen to a guest speaker: Wendell Pritchett, Chancellor of the Rutgers University Camden campus. A native of Philadelphia, historian and real estate attorney, Pritchett has been the chief executive office of the campus for the past seven months. He reports directly to the president of the Rutgers University system.
I was interested in listening to Dr. Pritchett because he was appointed at an interesting time in educational politics as well as Camden's rebirth. Camden has elected a new mayor, Dana Redd, who is also a graduate of Rutgers-Camden. Democrats and Republicans have high hopes for Redd, including new Governor Chris Christie, who has publicly stated that he would like to take the city off life support.
Having been an urban economic development professional and having done business with colleges, I believe that I can speak to some of the chancellor's challenges.
Camden is one of the nation's poorest cities. It's public school system, police department and finances are managed by the State of New Jersey. Three past mayors have gone to jail. According to FBI statistics, Camden was the third-most dangerous city in the U.S. during 2002, and has been ranked the nation's most dangerous city in 2004, 2005 and 2009 "Most dangerous city" is based on crime statistics in six categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and auto theft.
But, in this landscape, Pritchett and his school have a promising future. Rutgers-Camden is an institution with approximately 6,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Its freshman retention rate, according to U.S. News and World Report is 81%--by comparison the rate at Rutgers main campus in New Brunswick is 90%. The university's average six year graduation rate is 59%; the rate for the main campus is 75%. As the quality of the student body improves these gaps will close.
However, Rutgers-Camden's competition is not so much the main campus in New Brunswick, or Rowan University, also in southern New Jersey, but Philadelphia-area colleges. The campus is only one mile from the heart of downtown Philadelphia. Pritchett said that he would like to compete regionally for students--he said that only one entering freshman came from Philadelphia this past fall--and here he has an opportunity.
Philadelphia's four-year downtown college community is dominated by private institutions such as Drexel, LaSalle, St. Joseph's and the University of Pennsylvania. Temple University is considered to be "state-related," meaning that it receives little to no funding through state government. While Temple's in-state tuition is within $1,000 of Rutgers-Camden's, it is also the fourth-largest urban university in the U.S.
It would be quite easy for a student from a Camden or Philadelphia city high school to feel lost at a school like Temple, and the private schools--which cost over $40,000 per year--are essentially out of reach without significant financial aid.
Pritchett wants to increase overall enrollment at Rutgers-Camden 7,500 students and house 2,000 on campus. If he can keep to those numbers, maintain tuition and increase financial aid, Rutgers-Camden will become a more important regional institution and more often a first choice school.
But I believe that the growth Pritchett seeks will first need to come from transfer students; they are more acclimated to a commuter school. They will need to attract them from the community colleges as well as students who began their education at a Philadelphia-area private school.
While New Jersey community colleges utilize a service called NJTransfer to help two-year students transfer to New Jersey four-year schools, the Community College of Philadelphia has three different transfer agreements: Dual Admissions, which guarantees admission to a partner four-year school assuming good academic progress; Core-to-Core, which assures that core requirements will transfer to one of five four-year schools; and, Program-to-Program, which makes some assurances of advanced standing. Rutgers-Camden is not a partner school in any of those programs, but it should be.
I also realize that its tempting to become more of a research university like Rutgers' sister campuses in Newark and New Brunswick. However, when a school has a size and price advantage over other schools in the region--and top research faculty are very expensive--the emphasis should be more on student services, especially academic counseling, career development and financial aid.
The message must be: work hard and we will do everything we can to help you succeed. Loco parentus , counselors and faculty fulfilling roles as parents, is more relevant to an urban public university than any other four-year school. And the school will need to be as close to tuition-free as possible for the majority of students. It is less conscionable for a state institution to send its graduates into the labor market or onto further education with a sizable debt over their heads than it is for a private school.
An urban public university, especially now as college admissions are at their most competitive, should be selective, and target the best students from within the community who are unlikely to be able to afford a more expensive option. It should be more rigorous than the private schools. It should be more nurturing, too.
I was interested in listening to Dr. Pritchett because he was appointed at an interesting time in educational politics as well as Camden's rebirth. Camden has elected a new mayor, Dana Redd, who is also a graduate of Rutgers-Camden. Democrats and Republicans have high hopes for Redd, including new Governor Chris Christie, who has publicly stated that he would like to take the city off life support.
Having been an urban economic development professional and having done business with colleges, I believe that I can speak to some of the chancellor's challenges.
Camden is one of the nation's poorest cities. It's public school system, police department and finances are managed by the State of New Jersey. Three past mayors have gone to jail. According to FBI statistics, Camden was the third-most dangerous city in the U.S. during 2002, and has been ranked the nation's most dangerous city in 2004, 2005 and 2009 "Most dangerous city" is based on crime statistics in six categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and auto theft.
But, in this landscape, Pritchett and his school have a promising future. Rutgers-Camden is an institution with approximately 6,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Its freshman retention rate, according to U.S. News and World Report is 81%--by comparison the rate at Rutgers main campus in New Brunswick is 90%. The university's average six year graduation rate is 59%; the rate for the main campus is 75%. As the quality of the student body improves these gaps will close.
However, Rutgers-Camden's competition is not so much the main campus in New Brunswick, or Rowan University, also in southern New Jersey, but Philadelphia-area colleges. The campus is only one mile from the heart of downtown Philadelphia. Pritchett said that he would like to compete regionally for students--he said that only one entering freshman came from Philadelphia this past fall--and here he has an opportunity.
Philadelphia's four-year downtown college community is dominated by private institutions such as Drexel, LaSalle, St. Joseph's and the University of Pennsylvania. Temple University is considered to be "state-related," meaning that it receives little to no funding through state government. While Temple's in-state tuition is within $1,000 of Rutgers-Camden's, it is also the fourth-largest urban university in the U.S.
It would be quite easy for a student from a Camden or Philadelphia city high school to feel lost at a school like Temple, and the private schools--which cost over $40,000 per year--are essentially out of reach without significant financial aid.
Pritchett wants to increase overall enrollment at Rutgers-Camden 7,500 students and house 2,000 on campus. If he can keep to those numbers, maintain tuition and increase financial aid, Rutgers-Camden will become a more important regional institution and more often a first choice school.
But I believe that the growth Pritchett seeks will first need to come from transfer students; they are more acclimated to a commuter school. They will need to attract them from the community colleges as well as students who began their education at a Philadelphia-area private school.
While New Jersey community colleges utilize a service called NJTransfer to help two-year students transfer to New Jersey four-year schools, the Community College of Philadelphia has three different transfer agreements: Dual Admissions, which guarantees admission to a partner four-year school assuming good academic progress; Core-to-Core, which assures that core requirements will transfer to one of five four-year schools; and, Program-to-Program, which makes some assurances of advanced standing. Rutgers-Camden is not a partner school in any of those programs, but it should be.
I also realize that its tempting to become more of a research university like Rutgers' sister campuses in Newark and New Brunswick. However, when a school has a size and price advantage over other schools in the region--and top research faculty are very expensive--the emphasis should be more on student services, especially academic counseling, career development and financial aid.
The message must be: work hard and we will do everything we can to help you succeed. Loco parentus , counselors and faculty fulfilling roles as parents, is more relevant to an urban public university than any other four-year school. And the school will need to be as close to tuition-free as possible for the majority of students. It is less conscionable for a state institution to send its graduates into the labor market or onto further education with a sizable debt over their heads than it is for a private school.
An urban public university, especially now as college admissions are at their most competitive, should be selective, and target the best students from within the community who are unlikely to be able to afford a more expensive option. It should be more rigorous than the private schools. It should be more nurturing, too.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
If I Were a Rich Man Would I Call Patti Stanger?
Last night I needed a break, so I caught the first two episodes of The Millionaire Matchmaker. Why? Sometimes I like to learn more about the lifestyles of people I never meet, including the young, rich and not-so-famous. You would think that the talents that made someone financially successful could help find them a good match, but as the show illustrates, it's not always true.
For those who don't watch the show, Matchmaker is hosted by Patti Stanger, a bubbly brunette who looks fifteen years younger than her stated age of 47. Patti calls herself a third generation matchmaker, and she claims to have a 99 percent success rate. She is also Jewish, so I believe it's safe to call her a yenta, like the matchmaker character in one of my favorite plays, Fiddler on the Roof.
I like the show not only for Patti, but also because it makes me think: what would I be like if I were rich? I wouldn't burst into song like Zero Mostel's Tevye and build a big tall house with chickens, ducks, turkeys and geese in the backyard, but I'd probably be more modest than any of the millionaire bachelors on the show.
So far, none of the millionaires on the first two seasons episodes has a net worth of more than $5 million, yet they're living like athletes and rock stars. I'd imagine that Patti gets lots of calls from financial consultants begging to tell her clients where to move their money. One million to $5 million is not a lot of money in Los Angeles, where Matchmaker airs. It doesn't buy as much as you think in New Jersey either.
If I were rich and eligible for Patti's club, I'd probably have three homes, all condos or townhouses--I'm into low maintenance--near college towns: Princeton, Berkeley and Burlington, Vermont, each with a library room and the appropriate car in each garage. I'd have a female golden retriever and dog-loving people to vacuum up after her, among other household duties. I'd manage the rest of the money with the help of a carefully screened financial planner. I know what some of you might be thinking-boooring! That's probably what Patti et. al. would be thinking, too.
The millionaires Patti features on TV appear to need "something extra" to find the right match. It might be something as simple as a haircut or a new wardrobe for the first date. Or, it might be an attitude transplant. In any case, Patti and crew appear to live by three words that I have taken to be gospel in my brief corporate life: perception is reality.
So, if I were the client, I might not be as anxious as others to see Patti at my front door. I could imagine her looking at my chubby, pale-skin, reddish-brown haired Jewishness and, uh-oh, shaking her head and calling in the cavalry, starting with a personal trainer. I could take the advice and comments well at middle age--I've become more good natured--but not as the 'me' in my late twenties.
Why did I put this piece on an education site? Answer: because of the lessons I've learned worth sharing:
+ Appearance counts, but only to the point where you become too infatuated with yourself.
+ Brains and baubles are like the clutch on manual transmission. You should let them out slowly. Your prospective mate does not want to feel 'less' than you at the get-go.
+ Money is great for buying things, keeping score and keeping you alive. But even an investment in a good yenta doesn't guarantee bliss, unless you give it time and patience. Too many millionaires I watch and read about have neither.
+ All of us age, some better than others, but attitude is more important than money at any age.
For those who don't watch the show, Matchmaker is hosted by Patti Stanger, a bubbly brunette who looks fifteen years younger than her stated age of 47. Patti calls herself a third generation matchmaker, and she claims to have a 99 percent success rate. She is also Jewish, so I believe it's safe to call her a yenta, like the matchmaker character in one of my favorite plays, Fiddler on the Roof.
I like the show not only for Patti, but also because it makes me think: what would I be like if I were rich? I wouldn't burst into song like Zero Mostel's Tevye and build a big tall house with chickens, ducks, turkeys and geese in the backyard, but I'd probably be more modest than any of the millionaire bachelors on the show.
So far, none of the millionaires on the first two seasons episodes has a net worth of more than $5 million, yet they're living like athletes and rock stars. I'd imagine that Patti gets lots of calls from financial consultants begging to tell her clients where to move their money. One million to $5 million is not a lot of money in Los Angeles, where Matchmaker airs. It doesn't buy as much as you think in New Jersey either.
If I were rich and eligible for Patti's club, I'd probably have three homes, all condos or townhouses--I'm into low maintenance--near college towns: Princeton, Berkeley and Burlington, Vermont, each with a library room and the appropriate car in each garage. I'd have a female golden retriever and dog-loving people to vacuum up after her, among other household duties. I'd manage the rest of the money with the help of a carefully screened financial planner. I know what some of you might be thinking-boooring! That's probably what Patti et. al. would be thinking, too.
The millionaires Patti features on TV appear to need "something extra" to find the right match. It might be something as simple as a haircut or a new wardrobe for the first date. Or, it might be an attitude transplant. In any case, Patti and crew appear to live by three words that I have taken to be gospel in my brief corporate life: perception is reality.
So, if I were the client, I might not be as anxious as others to see Patti at my front door. I could imagine her looking at my chubby, pale-skin, reddish-brown haired Jewishness and, uh-oh, shaking her head and calling in the cavalry, starting with a personal trainer. I could take the advice and comments well at middle age--I've become more good natured--but not as the 'me' in my late twenties.
Why did I put this piece on an education site? Answer: because of the lessons I've learned worth sharing:
+ Appearance counts, but only to the point where you become too infatuated with yourself.
+ Brains and baubles are like the clutch on manual transmission. You should let them out slowly. Your prospective mate does not want to feel 'less' than you at the get-go.
+ Money is great for buying things, keeping score and keeping you alive. But even an investment in a good yenta doesn't guarantee bliss, unless you give it time and patience. Too many millionaires I watch and read about have neither.
+ All of us age, some better than others, but attitude is more important than money at any age.
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Pregnancy Pact Retells a True Tale
Since I have written a novel focused on sex education, I decided to watch The Pregnancy Pact, Saturday night on Lifetime. The movie is loosely based around the 2007 and 2008 spike in teen pregnancies that occurred at Gloucester High School in Massachusetts.
The best thing I can say about the movie is that it showed Gloucester somewhat accurately--a picturesque New England community that is losing its fishing industry. The rest of the story got drowned in messages through a main character, a video blogger and Gloucester native who returned to her hometown to cover the pregnancy spike story and tries to reconcile personal demons with an ex-boyfriend. This character "uncovers" the possibility of a "pact" between the pregnant girls to carry their babies to term and raise them together. But, like the true story, there is a question of whether a pact really existed in the minds of anyone but some of the girls and the high school's principal.
There were two other issues accurately shown in the movie: the high school's decision to provide on-site daycare so that the young mothers could graduate, and the controversy over distributing condoms.
The birth control issue was overplayed. It did force a school nurse to resign in the movie and in the true story, but more important, the young expectant mothers and the young mothers did not appear to be pushing themselves or their boyfriends to use it. They wanted to get pregnant, and none of the adults understood why. None of the parents even tried to find out, even after the school nurse reported an excessively high number of pregnancy tests, and post pregnancy 'high-fives' than expected.
The day care center issue was big. I asked myself, as I watched the movie: what could the school do if one of the mothers gave birth to a special needs child? And more likely, what if they ran of space for day care if the pregnancy spike continued? Would the school counsel be able to find a new place for these young mothers to go? Or would they be placed in a more precarious position? I hope these questions were put in the minds of others, too.
It seemed like the young women in the true story and the movie saw motherhood as virtuous--there's nothing wrong with that--but they did not understand that it takes more than one person to raise a baby. That fault has to lie with the parents and the school.
There is a good reason why sex education is also called family life education. Whether it is abstinence-only or comprehensive, it should teach middle school and high school students about the responsibilities of raising a child. That, and good testimony from young mothers, should be enough to drive up the use of birth control, and quite possibly decisions to abstain. In either case, teenage pregnancy rates should go down, which people of all political views would like to see.
The Pregnancy Pact did not make for great theater, and I did not know, given that it aired on a Saturday night, if it reached its intended audience. But it may have left messages for adults. I hope it left one: good sex ed is more than just a lecture about abstinence or birth control.
The best thing I can say about the movie is that it showed Gloucester somewhat accurately--a picturesque New England community that is losing its fishing industry. The rest of the story got drowned in messages through a main character, a video blogger and Gloucester native who returned to her hometown to cover the pregnancy spike story and tries to reconcile personal demons with an ex-boyfriend. This character "uncovers" the possibility of a "pact" between the pregnant girls to carry their babies to term and raise them together. But, like the true story, there is a question of whether a pact really existed in the minds of anyone but some of the girls and the high school's principal.
There were two other issues accurately shown in the movie: the high school's decision to provide on-site daycare so that the young mothers could graduate, and the controversy over distributing condoms.
The birth control issue was overplayed. It did force a school nurse to resign in the movie and in the true story, but more important, the young expectant mothers and the young mothers did not appear to be pushing themselves or their boyfriends to use it. They wanted to get pregnant, and none of the adults understood why. None of the parents even tried to find out, even after the school nurse reported an excessively high number of pregnancy tests, and post pregnancy 'high-fives' than expected.
The day care center issue was big. I asked myself, as I watched the movie: what could the school do if one of the mothers gave birth to a special needs child? And more likely, what if they ran of space for day care if the pregnancy spike continued? Would the school counsel be able to find a new place for these young mothers to go? Or would they be placed in a more precarious position? I hope these questions were put in the minds of others, too.
It seemed like the young women in the true story and the movie saw motherhood as virtuous--there's nothing wrong with that--but they did not understand that it takes more than one person to raise a baby. That fault has to lie with the parents and the school.
There is a good reason why sex education is also called family life education. Whether it is abstinence-only or comprehensive, it should teach middle school and high school students about the responsibilities of raising a child. That, and good testimony from young mothers, should be enough to drive up the use of birth control, and quite possibly decisions to abstain. In either case, teenage pregnancy rates should go down, which people of all political views would like to see.
The Pregnancy Pact did not make for great theater, and I did not know, given that it aired on a Saturday night, if it reached its intended audience. But it may have left messages for adults. I hope it left one: good sex ed is more than just a lecture about abstinence or birth control.
Shouldn't the Costs of Statewide Political Campaigns Go Down?
Last week, upon taking office, New Jersey governor Chris Christie signed several executive orders; one curbs political contributions to statewide races by labor unions to $300. This is a follow-up to limitations placed on businesses that do at least $17,500 in business with the state.
I understand Christie's reasons for the order. He blames public employee unions for the size of the state's budget deficit and for retirement benefits that have left the state's pension system underfunded. He wants to neutralize a voice that worked very hard to defeat him. He promised that to his base.
I am not a lawyer, so I do not know if it is unconstitutional to limit union contributions to statewide races, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled that there are no such limits on federal elections.
But Governor Christie's action led me to wonder: with the refinement of Web-based technology, shouldn't the costs of political campaigns go down, so that no one: individual, business, union or political action committee puts more than $300 into a single race?
Charities and other non-profits have been able to reduce their fund raising costs by using e-mails, targeted search-based ads, online payment, interactive chats and video conferences, social networking sites and blogs. Why can't candidates, political parties and political action committees do more of the same?
I realize some costs cannot go away. Since the first democratic--small d, not big D--politicians ran for office, candidates have always had to interact with constituents in person. They have to make an impression on newspaper reporters, too, biased and unbiased reporters alike. And they have always needed an army of volunteers to promote and get out the vote.
In the early twentieth century, the newspapers were called 'the Democrat' or 'The Republic' because they were house organs for the political parties. But today, there are thousands of outlets for news, and the cost of making the news has gone down.
As more voters become Internet-enabled. I would hope that negative television ads could go away for reasons of ineffectiveness. They represent the largest expense for any campaign. I don't know many people who would miss them. And I don't know anyone, rich or not-so-rich, who would mind spending less on politicians. I think they would appreciate that as much as a tax cut.
I understand Christie's reasons for the order. He blames public employee unions for the size of the state's budget deficit and for retirement benefits that have left the state's pension system underfunded. He wants to neutralize a voice that worked very hard to defeat him. He promised that to his base.
I am not a lawyer, so I do not know if it is unconstitutional to limit union contributions to statewide races, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled that there are no such limits on federal elections.
But Governor Christie's action led me to wonder: with the refinement of Web-based technology, shouldn't the costs of political campaigns go down, so that no one: individual, business, union or political action committee puts more than $300 into a single race?
Charities and other non-profits have been able to reduce their fund raising costs by using e-mails, targeted search-based ads, online payment, interactive chats and video conferences, social networking sites and blogs. Why can't candidates, political parties and political action committees do more of the same?
I realize some costs cannot go away. Since the first democratic--small d, not big D--politicians ran for office, candidates have always had to interact with constituents in person. They have to make an impression on newspaper reporters, too, biased and unbiased reporters alike. And they have always needed an army of volunteers to promote and get out the vote.
In the early twentieth century, the newspapers were called 'the Democrat' or 'The Republic' because they were house organs for the political parties. But today, there are thousands of outlets for news, and the cost of making the news has gone down.
As more voters become Internet-enabled. I would hope that negative television ads could go away for reasons of ineffectiveness. They represent the largest expense for any campaign. I don't know many people who would miss them. And I don't know anyone, rich or not-so-rich, who would mind spending less on politicians. I think they would appreciate that as much as a tax cut.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Ninety Six NCAA Tournament Teams are 31 Too Many
Recently, I've read that there is talk about expanding the NCAA basketball tournaments--I'm assuming men and women will be treated equally--from 65 to 96 teams. The tournament would still be March Madness. The major difference is that the first and second seeds in each regional would get byes. But one beauty of the current set-up is that no one gets a bye.
To consider the impact of the expansion of the NCAA tournament, you have to look at its history. The first NCAA tournament took place in 1939, and it included eight teams. It was not the first college basketball tournament. The National Invitation Tournament (NIT) tipped off the year before with six teams. At first, it was possible for schools to compete in both tournaments. 1n 1950, City College of New York (CCNY) won both. The following year, the NCAA Tournament expanded to 16 teams, making two tournament play less possible.
The tournament has expanded eight times since then, most recently in 2001, when the "play-in" game was added. It used to be that only the conference champion got the tournament berth; there were no "at-large bids" like there are today. At-Large bids have driven up the number of participating teams more than anything else. In fact, they are the hype behind the selection process. Expanding the tournament means more at-large bids, fewer teams would be wavering on the bubble between in or out.
But here's where the problem lies. The at-large teams would be the teams that played tough schedules, with quality wins against better teams. In effect, the ninth or tenth best team from a power conference, such as the Atlantic Coast Conference or the Big East would have an easier time qualifying for the tournament. Those teams would be seeded higher than a small conference champion. This means fewer chances for an underdog to emerge. That is another beauty of the current set-up--every season an underdog gets their day. The conference tournaments also become more meaningless. If you don't need to win even one game to make the big dance, then why play the tournament at all?
Next, the season is already very long. For example, in 1957, the University of North Carolina Tarheels played 32 games, twenty seven in the regular season and 5 in the NCAA tournament on route to a national championship. The 2009 national champions played 38. They had to play in a conference tournament, which they lost, as well as six NCAA tournament games.
Last, expansion would mean the demise of the NIT. The competition would be so diluted it would not survive. The title means little, other than it makes the finalists feel good, especially those finalists that are dominated by freshmen and sophomores.
I can see why some people like the idea of a 96 team tournament. Good teams on the bubble would get a chance to play on, and that means a lot to their school and their fans. More teams would also have a shot at television money. It's no different than having a football team that regularly plays in minor bowl games. You might not win it all, but you're a winner nonetheless. There's also more gambling action, since there are more games to bet. The bookies have more to gain from an expanded tournament than anyone else.
To consider the impact of the expansion of the NCAA tournament, you have to look at its history. The first NCAA tournament took place in 1939, and it included eight teams. It was not the first college basketball tournament. The National Invitation Tournament (NIT) tipped off the year before with six teams. At first, it was possible for schools to compete in both tournaments. 1n 1950, City College of New York (CCNY) won both. The following year, the NCAA Tournament expanded to 16 teams, making two tournament play less possible.
The tournament has expanded eight times since then, most recently in 2001, when the "play-in" game was added. It used to be that only the conference champion got the tournament berth; there were no "at-large bids" like there are today. At-Large bids have driven up the number of participating teams more than anything else. In fact, they are the hype behind the selection process. Expanding the tournament means more at-large bids, fewer teams would be wavering on the bubble between in or out.
But here's where the problem lies. The at-large teams would be the teams that played tough schedules, with quality wins against better teams. In effect, the ninth or tenth best team from a power conference, such as the Atlantic Coast Conference or the Big East would have an easier time qualifying for the tournament. Those teams would be seeded higher than a small conference champion. This means fewer chances for an underdog to emerge. That is another beauty of the current set-up--every season an underdog gets their day. The conference tournaments also become more meaningless. If you don't need to win even one game to make the big dance, then why play the tournament at all?
Next, the season is already very long. For example, in 1957, the University of North Carolina Tarheels played 32 games, twenty seven in the regular season and 5 in the NCAA tournament on route to a national championship. The 2009 national champions played 38. They had to play in a conference tournament, which they lost, as well as six NCAA tournament games.
Last, expansion would mean the demise of the NIT. The competition would be so diluted it would not survive. The title means little, other than it makes the finalists feel good, especially those finalists that are dominated by freshmen and sophomores.
I can see why some people like the idea of a 96 team tournament. Good teams on the bubble would get a chance to play on, and that means a lot to their school and their fans. More teams would also have a shot at television money. It's no different than having a football team that regularly plays in minor bowl games. You might not win it all, but you're a winner nonetheless. There's also more gambling action, since there are more games to bet. The bookies have more to gain from an expanded tournament than anyone else.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's Seat?
Today marks a year since Barack Obama was inaugurated as our 44th president. And what an odd turn of events we have seen since then. Republican governors have been sworn in in New Jersey and Virginia, and last night, they took a Senate seat that had been in Democratic hands since 1952. A once-safe seat. John F. Kennedy's seat and Ted Kennedy's seat.
I'm embarrassed to be a Democrat this morning. How could Massachusetts Democrats and national party let this happen?
Ted Kennedy was a long-time proponent of health care reform. Yet Democrats talked about passing a flawed and unpopular Senate bill, because they were afraid they'd lose Kennedy's seat? Talk about conceding defeat on two fronts.
Ted Kennedy was a liberal. He never hid from the label, and he successfully worked with senators of the opposite party and ideology. He had his flaws, but Democrats and Republicans alike considered him an effective legislator. Instead of learning from his lessons, Democrats have shunned labels and they become more fragmented. Republicans have won important seats in three blue states. Talk about destroying a great senator's legacy.
I just finished David Plouffe's The Audacity to Win. Barack Obama staged an extremely successful grassroots campaign to win the presidency. His operatives built a database of over 5 million names, all people who wanted to volunteer or contribute to his campaign because they wanted Obama's form of change. Yet that same organization could not help the Democratic Party keep Ted Kennedy's seat.
What does this say for the potential for social networking in the mid-term elections? How do they bring independent voters into the fold? I envision hundreds of red state Democrats quaking in their boots. If the national party cannot protect Ted Kennedy's seat, how will they help protect mine? The social networking efforts of the Obama campaign were extraordinary, but can they help hold the Senate?
I was excited this time last year. The nation had elected a charismatic young Democrat, a full turn from the politics of the previous eight years. Only two years in the Senate, he was practically an outsider. But he had the style, and the organization, to help rebuild the Democratic Party. And he brought them to a super-majority. Even Ronald Reagan could not do that for the Republicans, and he won two races in landslides.
As much as I disliked George W. Bush's presidency, I have to say one thing for the Senate Republicans. They were loyal. They got their agenda through Congress without a super-majority. Bush might not have brought change I liked, but he was a change agent. Obama, who campaigned as an outsider, trusted Congressional Democrats to come up with a health care bill he could sign, not something you'd expect a change agent to do. In business, change starts at the very top; it doesn't percolate from the bottom, even in companies known to be paternal. Maybe Bush learned something from that Harvard MBA after all.
I would have preferred to see Obama sell his health plan, just as Reagan sold his tax cuts and his early budgets, then Congress pass the items on which they could reach prompt agreement. President Obama did a great job selling the stimulus package because, for the most part, it was his bill. But too many agendas are wrapped up in health care; there should have been only one on the Democratic side--Obama's.
I don't know what message the voters of Massachusetts were trying to send. Were they mad at the White House, or were they mad at the Democratic Congress that seems quite out-of-step with their president? But I believe this much: to lose Ted Kennedy's seat is a disgrace. It breaks my heart.
I'm embarrassed to be a Democrat this morning. How could Massachusetts Democrats and national party let this happen?
Ted Kennedy was a long-time proponent of health care reform. Yet Democrats talked about passing a flawed and unpopular Senate bill, because they were afraid they'd lose Kennedy's seat? Talk about conceding defeat on two fronts.
Ted Kennedy was a liberal. He never hid from the label, and he successfully worked with senators of the opposite party and ideology. He had his flaws, but Democrats and Republicans alike considered him an effective legislator. Instead of learning from his lessons, Democrats have shunned labels and they become more fragmented. Republicans have won important seats in three blue states. Talk about destroying a great senator's legacy.
I just finished David Plouffe's The Audacity to Win. Barack Obama staged an extremely successful grassroots campaign to win the presidency. His operatives built a database of over 5 million names, all people who wanted to volunteer or contribute to his campaign because they wanted Obama's form of change. Yet that same organization could not help the Democratic Party keep Ted Kennedy's seat.
What does this say for the potential for social networking in the mid-term elections? How do they bring independent voters into the fold? I envision hundreds of red state Democrats quaking in their boots. If the national party cannot protect Ted Kennedy's seat, how will they help protect mine? The social networking efforts of the Obama campaign were extraordinary, but can they help hold the Senate?
I was excited this time last year. The nation had elected a charismatic young Democrat, a full turn from the politics of the previous eight years. Only two years in the Senate, he was practically an outsider. But he had the style, and the organization, to help rebuild the Democratic Party. And he brought them to a super-majority. Even Ronald Reagan could not do that for the Republicans, and he won two races in landslides.
As much as I disliked George W. Bush's presidency, I have to say one thing for the Senate Republicans. They were loyal. They got their agenda through Congress without a super-majority. Bush might not have brought change I liked, but he was a change agent. Obama, who campaigned as an outsider, trusted Congressional Democrats to come up with a health care bill he could sign, not something you'd expect a change agent to do. In business, change starts at the very top; it doesn't percolate from the bottom, even in companies known to be paternal. Maybe Bush learned something from that Harvard MBA after all.
I would have preferred to see Obama sell his health plan, just as Reagan sold his tax cuts and his early budgets, then Congress pass the items on which they could reach prompt agreement. President Obama did a great job selling the stimulus package because, for the most part, it was his bill. But too many agendas are wrapped up in health care; there should have been only one on the Democratic side--Obama's.
I don't know what message the voters of Massachusetts were trying to send. Were they mad at the White House, or were they mad at the Democratic Congress that seems quite out-of-step with their president? But I believe this much: to lose Ted Kennedy's seat is a disgrace. It breaks my heart.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
One Way to Cut Government Spending and Improve Schools--Drop High School Exit Exams
How do you, if you're a parent, feel if your child had to take a test to graduate from high school, where, if she fails, she will not get their high school diploma?
According to the non-partisan, non-profit, Washington D.C-based, Center on Education Policy (CEP), twenty four states require high school students to pass a graduation exam before they can receive their diploma.
There are several reasons why politicians and education officials like exit examinations. If given at the proper time, they can be used to identify students who need help. They can also be used to evaluate the performance of an entire student body, but this assumes that teachers and students are adequately prepared for the test.
Today, according to CEP, eighteen states provide professional development to teachers to raise pass rates on the exams, and fourteen states provide technical assistance for student remediation programs.
Which makes me wonder: if state governments are less capable of providing such assistance to teachers and students in a weak economy, then why have exit exams at all?
The CEP also points out that nineteen states offer alternate pathways to graduation for students who have difficulty passing the exam, and twenty two offer specific alternate pathways for students with disabilities.
Which also makes me wonder: if you need to provide a mechanism for students to get around the test, then why bother giving the test in the first place?
CEP also reported that none of the states that require an exit examination begin testing in the twelth grade. Their schools test based on knowledge acquired before the tenth or eleventh grade.
Does this mean that a tenth or eleventh grader who passes these exams knows everything that a high school graduate is expected to know?
If so, then why not hand those diplomas to those students who have already passed the exit exam and completed all of their course requirements? As long as they are 16 or older, they'd have the option of going to work. Or let them spend their senior year in college courses or a job preparation program.
I'm surprised that politicians of both parties have taken up the cause of exit exams. They add expenses and bureaucracy, for one thing, and, for another, they don't set meaningful standards for a school. High schools should not be working to reach a minimum level of competence; they should be working to produce superior students, with as little pain as possible to the taxpayers.
So here's my suggestion for replacing these tests. Use the SAT II examinations in Language Arts and Mathematics as the exams for all students who have completed eleventh grade English and Algebra II. These count for something. A high score improves the chances of being accepted to college, possibly a better school for students who do not have excellent grades. Preparation books and tutoring are widely available. Parents already pay for these exams, and there are fee waivers for low income families. Not to mention one organization can administer these tests for the whole country.
I know there's the issue of a passing score. Here's my thought. College bound students typically need to score 500 or better on these examinations; a score of 650 or better usually indicates superior performance. Students who score below 500 would have the option of receiving additional tutoring to raise their score, and they could take the test again; the opportunity to get into college or jobs that require a test score would be incentive enough. Repeat testers would not be considered failures, just repeat testers who improved or did not improve.
Then how would you evaluate the high schools based on this testing process? You would evaluate based on the percentage that scored superior. If your school's percentage of superior students is greater than the percentage for all students taking the exam, your school is marked Superior by the testing company. States would advertise increases in the number of Superior schools, rather than the number that have "improved" from the previous year.
I realize not all students can be superior, otherwise none of them would be. But I also believe that teachers and principals would rather fight for excellence than try to protect themselves from being labeled as failures.
According to the non-partisan, non-profit, Washington D.C-based, Center on Education Policy (CEP), twenty four states require high school students to pass a graduation exam before they can receive their diploma.
There are several reasons why politicians and education officials like exit examinations. If given at the proper time, they can be used to identify students who need help. They can also be used to evaluate the performance of an entire student body, but this assumes that teachers and students are adequately prepared for the test.
Today, according to CEP, eighteen states provide professional development to teachers to raise pass rates on the exams, and fourteen states provide technical assistance for student remediation programs.
Which makes me wonder: if state governments are less capable of providing such assistance to teachers and students in a weak economy, then why have exit exams at all?
The CEP also points out that nineteen states offer alternate pathways to graduation for students who have difficulty passing the exam, and twenty two offer specific alternate pathways for students with disabilities.
Which also makes me wonder: if you need to provide a mechanism for students to get around the test, then why bother giving the test in the first place?
CEP also reported that none of the states that require an exit examination begin testing in the twelth grade. Their schools test based on knowledge acquired before the tenth or eleventh grade.
Does this mean that a tenth or eleventh grader who passes these exams knows everything that a high school graduate is expected to know?
If so, then why not hand those diplomas to those students who have already passed the exit exam and completed all of their course requirements? As long as they are 16 or older, they'd have the option of going to work. Or let them spend their senior year in college courses or a job preparation program.
I'm surprised that politicians of both parties have taken up the cause of exit exams. They add expenses and bureaucracy, for one thing, and, for another, they don't set meaningful standards for a school. High schools should not be working to reach a minimum level of competence; they should be working to produce superior students, with as little pain as possible to the taxpayers.
So here's my suggestion for replacing these tests. Use the SAT II examinations in Language Arts and Mathematics as the exams for all students who have completed eleventh grade English and Algebra II. These count for something. A high score improves the chances of being accepted to college, possibly a better school for students who do not have excellent grades. Preparation books and tutoring are widely available. Parents already pay for these exams, and there are fee waivers for low income families. Not to mention one organization can administer these tests for the whole country.
I know there's the issue of a passing score. Here's my thought. College bound students typically need to score 500 or better on these examinations; a score of 650 or better usually indicates superior performance. Students who score below 500 would have the option of receiving additional tutoring to raise their score, and they could take the test again; the opportunity to get into college or jobs that require a test score would be incentive enough. Repeat testers would not be considered failures, just repeat testers who improved or did not improve.
Then how would you evaluate the high schools based on this testing process? You would evaluate based on the percentage that scored superior. If your school's percentage of superior students is greater than the percentage for all students taking the exam, your school is marked Superior by the testing company. States would advertise increases in the number of Superior schools, rather than the number that have "improved" from the previous year.
I realize not all students can be superior, otherwise none of them would be. But I also believe that teachers and principals would rather fight for excellence than try to protect themselves from being labeled as failures.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Teachable Moments from James Cameron's Avatar
If you got past the title of this post, you're probably wondering what I've been smoking. But I love a good science fiction movie for the special effects and its approach to human-alien relations. Some movies do a better job than others--Star Trek pictures assume the aliens know "Federation Standard," aka English, which is silly--and Avatar is one of the best.
Avatar was as much an education for me, as it was fun. I won't retell the story here and spoil it for you, but I'll share some of what I learned. When it comes to developing an imaginary world, Avatar is the best sci-fi movie ever made.
Cameron developed a planet, Pandora--remember the magic box where all sorts of dangers popped out, and only hope was left inside--that was a cross between once-unexplored Indian territory and the mineral-rich African continent, both about to be fully exploited. The humans try to get along at first, but greed gets in the way of normalized relations with the natives.
Pandora's bi-pedal inhabitants, the Na'vi, are much like Indian warriors, and the 22nd century humans negotiate with them in the same ways as they negotiated with the Indians six or seven centuries before. This time the home team survives quite nicely without technology. They can breath the air, the human's can't, and they've mixed up a lethal neurotoxin that can kill their human enemies in seconds.
So, what were some of the lessons learned that might be useful in classrooms?
+ The Na'vi are the first fictional civilization developed to fullfil Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. They hit the entire chart from bottom to top in a single movie. It took seven years of Star Trek The Next Generation episodes to fully develop the Klingons.
+ A diety or prophet does not need to take the same form as its worshippers. Eywa, the Na'vi diety, is a tree with crystal-like branches. Eywa is a everlasting living being as well as a religious symbol. The movie could spark interesting discussion about the issues of worshipping a living being versus a long-deceased one.
+ Exploitation and rape are not the best growth strategies in unfamiliar places. It takes a mercenary to die for a material cause, not a hero. And greed leads people to do irrational things. Greed leads this 22nd society so much that mercenaries are thrown away as if they're free resources. It also prevents the humans from thinking about developing an antidote to the Na'vi's neurotoxin. So much for the value of human life as well as Na'vi and animal life.
+ In order to understand an unfamiliar culture you have to do more than learn their language. You have to learn to respect thair customs and values, too. That was the purpose of the avatar project, to understand the natives by becoming one of them.
+ While it's hard to argue with the success of a billion dollar blockbuster, you have to wonder how such an expensive movie could be completed without a franchise. I don't see any Na'vi action figures, costumes, fan fiction or bedroom wear. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Avatar was as much an education for me, as it was fun. I won't retell the story here and spoil it for you, but I'll share some of what I learned. When it comes to developing an imaginary world, Avatar is the best sci-fi movie ever made.
Cameron developed a planet, Pandora--remember the magic box where all sorts of dangers popped out, and only hope was left inside--that was a cross between once-unexplored Indian territory and the mineral-rich African continent, both about to be fully exploited. The humans try to get along at first, but greed gets in the way of normalized relations with the natives.
Pandora's bi-pedal inhabitants, the Na'vi, are much like Indian warriors, and the 22nd century humans negotiate with them in the same ways as they negotiated with the Indians six or seven centuries before. This time the home team survives quite nicely without technology. They can breath the air, the human's can't, and they've mixed up a lethal neurotoxin that can kill their human enemies in seconds.
So, what were some of the lessons learned that might be useful in classrooms?
+ The Na'vi are the first fictional civilization developed to fullfil Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. They hit the entire chart from bottom to top in a single movie. It took seven years of Star Trek The Next Generation episodes to fully develop the Klingons.
+ A diety or prophet does not need to take the same form as its worshippers. Eywa, the Na'vi diety, is a tree with crystal-like branches. Eywa is a everlasting living being as well as a religious symbol. The movie could spark interesting discussion about the issues of worshipping a living being versus a long-deceased one.
+ Exploitation and rape are not the best growth strategies in unfamiliar places. It takes a mercenary to die for a material cause, not a hero. And greed leads people to do irrational things. Greed leads this 22nd society so much that mercenaries are thrown away as if they're free resources. It also prevents the humans from thinking about developing an antidote to the Na'vi's neurotoxin. So much for the value of human life as well as Na'vi and animal life.
+ In order to understand an unfamiliar culture you have to do more than learn their language. You have to learn to respect thair customs and values, too. That was the purpose of the avatar project, to understand the natives by becoming one of them.
+ While it's hard to argue with the success of a billion dollar blockbuster, you have to wonder how such an expensive movie could be completed without a franchise. I don't see any Na'vi action figures, costumes, fan fiction or bedroom wear. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Future Sales Executives of America
I've read and posted several stories on education and school-to-work transitions, but lately there's been a question stuck in my mind? Who is going to want all of these better educated high school and college graduates and what will they be expected to do for a living?
There's an interesting book by Daniel Pink entitled A Whole New Mind. I finished the book several months ago, but it stayed on my shelves. Pink concludes that "right brain" creativity and problem-solving skills will be needed by future workers to help them prevent their jobs from being outsourced.
I have had the opportunity to hear Pink speak twice; he adds that much white collar work including accounting, computer programming, laboratory testing--anything that involves routine processes--is a target to be outsourced, and sometimes, it can be done without help. Pink used the example of do-it-yourself divorce sites in his talks. Stock brokerage is another example; you can do the research to buy and sell your own stocks and funds without the help of a broker.
But not all of these right-brain thinkers will self-select the most difficult technical fields. Many will become liberal arts graduates, as always. And those who do not want to further education are quite likely to end up in a face-to-face sales position, if they want a job where they can make their own security. Fortunately, these jobs are not going away. And we need bright people to sell products that have become more complex, along with better reward systems. Those who enjoy customer contact can play valuable roles in talent management and product development.
An astute liberal arts college that wants to make a name for itself should collect the job descriptions for every entry-level and second-level sales position from popular employers, the ones of the most interest to students. Most likely, these organizations will be requesting people with superior interpersonal and writing skills and some strengths in basic analytical skills (interpreting a spreadsheet or statistical report). In some cases, insurance companies are one example, applicants are tested. The colleges should see these tests.
While the mission of colleges is not to produce employees for employers, the competancies that employers expect from their entry level salespeople should be the minimum that a college must develop within each of their students. It is in every college's best interest to help develop the Future Sales Executives of America.They are likely to become something more.
There's an interesting book by Daniel Pink entitled A Whole New Mind. I finished the book several months ago, but it stayed on my shelves. Pink concludes that "right brain" creativity and problem-solving skills will be needed by future workers to help them prevent their jobs from being outsourced.
I have had the opportunity to hear Pink speak twice; he adds that much white collar work including accounting, computer programming, laboratory testing--anything that involves routine processes--is a target to be outsourced, and sometimes, it can be done without help. Pink used the example of do-it-yourself divorce sites in his talks. Stock brokerage is another example; you can do the research to buy and sell your own stocks and funds without the help of a broker.
But not all of these right-brain thinkers will self-select the most difficult technical fields. Many will become liberal arts graduates, as always. And those who do not want to further education are quite likely to end up in a face-to-face sales position, if they want a job where they can make their own security. Fortunately, these jobs are not going away. And we need bright people to sell products that have become more complex, along with better reward systems. Those who enjoy customer contact can play valuable roles in talent management and product development.
An astute liberal arts college that wants to make a name for itself should collect the job descriptions for every entry-level and second-level sales position from popular employers, the ones of the most interest to students. Most likely, these organizations will be requesting people with superior interpersonal and writing skills and some strengths in basic analytical skills (interpreting a spreadsheet or statistical report). In some cases, insurance companies are one example, applicants are tested. The colleges should see these tests.
While the mission of colleges is not to produce employees for employers, the competancies that employers expect from their entry level salespeople should be the minimum that a college must develop within each of their students. It is in every college's best interest to help develop the Future Sales Executives of America.They are likely to become something more.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Obama's Planned Funds for Math and Science Education Could Have Been Better Spent
Yesterday President Obama announced a public-private partnership to train new math and science teachers as leaders of 121 U.S. public universities committed to bringing an additional 2,500 graduates into these disciplines. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, there are 7,500 graduates with math or science education degrees each year. But $250 million is a lot of money to get an additional 2,500 teachers into the workplace each year over the next four or five years.
I'm all for such partnerships, but will this one really work? Some of these new teachers will likely replace the teachers who are expected to retire, and some of them will leave the profession after they complete their employment obligations. A loan forgiveness program or a grant program is usually tied to a period of successful employment. Besides, I am not sure that the problem is too few teachers. The larger problem is too few incentives and resourses for those who want to stay in the field.
I know a fair number of teachers, and they didn't remain in the field for the money or the tenure. They're teaching because they believe it's the job they enjoy most. But it's sickening to read that teachers need to go into their own pockets or dig around undercover to find grants to do their jobs. It's even less possible to do this in the sciences; computers, programs and lab equipment are more expensive than text books.
Here's what I believe Obama and Education Secretary Duncan should have proposed: a science equity fund to bring the upgrade the resources of weaker schools. If schools are serious about teaching the sciences, then they need better equipment. A partnership that would bring vendors and public money together to help teachers who are already committed to teaching would do more to improve science education and teacher retention. The student teachers who would see the partnership in action are more likely to be enthusiastic about their first permanent assignments. They would see that their school and their government were in their corner.
The federal government has been involved in a public-private partenership, Reading is Fundamental, to encourage young children from disadvantaged families to read. The cost of that partnership has been approximately $25 million a year to bring new books into the hands of young readers in the school. I would think that $250 million leveraged with private money and in-kind contributions could go along way to upgrading the resources a science teacher needs to teach effectively.
I'm all for such partnerships, but will this one really work? Some of these new teachers will likely replace the teachers who are expected to retire, and some of them will leave the profession after they complete their employment obligations. A loan forgiveness program or a grant program is usually tied to a period of successful employment. Besides, I am not sure that the problem is too few teachers. The larger problem is too few incentives and resourses for those who want to stay in the field.
I know a fair number of teachers, and they didn't remain in the field for the money or the tenure. They're teaching because they believe it's the job they enjoy most. But it's sickening to read that teachers need to go into their own pockets or dig around undercover to find grants to do their jobs. It's even less possible to do this in the sciences; computers, programs and lab equipment are more expensive than text books.
Here's what I believe Obama and Education Secretary Duncan should have proposed: a science equity fund to bring the upgrade the resources of weaker schools. If schools are serious about teaching the sciences, then they need better equipment. A partnership that would bring vendors and public money together to help teachers who are already committed to teaching would do more to improve science education and teacher retention. The student teachers who would see the partnership in action are more likely to be enthusiastic about their first permanent assignments. They would see that their school and their government were in their corner.
The federal government has been involved in a public-private partenership, Reading is Fundamental, to encourage young children from disadvantaged families to read. The cost of that partnership has been approximately $25 million a year to bring new books into the hands of young readers in the school. I would think that $250 million leveraged with private money and in-kind contributions could go along way to upgrading the resources a science teacher needs to teach effectively.
Advocate for 18 Year Old Drinking Law Becomes a College President Again
Today I read a story in Inside Higher Education that John McCardell, formerly president of Middlebury College (VT) has been named president of Sewanee, also known as the University of the South. It is not unusual for college presidents to change institutions, or to have a non-academic position on their resumes between presidencies, as McCardell did.
What is unusual for a college president is that McCardell believes that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. In a September, 2004 op-ed in the New York Times, McCardell called the 21 year-old drinking age "bad social policy and terrible law." He likened the policy to policy to Prohibition and said that it had not reduced the drinking problem on campus. Instead, it had led to binge drinking behind closed doors and more problems for campus law enforcement. Appearing on the Colbert Report, McCardell added that 135 other college presidents share his view on the drinking age.
McCardell also believed that it made no sense that persons 18 to 21 could legally vote or be sent to war, but could not legally drink. Another major point he adds is that the 26th Amendment to the Constitution states, “The right of citizens of the US, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged…on account of age.”
In between the time he left Middlebury and accepted the presidency of Sewanee, McCardell founded an organization called Choose Responsibly and served as its first president and became a national spokesperson on this issue, unusual for a college president, too. Today's news story also mentioned that Sewanee hired McCardell with the understanding that he would continue to be a spokesperson on this issue.
McCardell's stature as a past,and now current, college president makes this a cause to be taken seriously. Today, state governments can lose ten percent of their federal highway funds if their drinking age is younger than 21. This is a silly policy, as drunken behavior occurs on and off road, and states with the most fatalities need better roads. In addition, drunken behavior can be more easily enforced and resolved when it is out in the open, as opposed to when it is behind closed doors.
Choose Responsibly also advocates the concept of a drinking license, in addition to a driver's license, be required to purchase alcoholic beverages. The license is earned upon completing an alcohol education program, and is taken away if its possessor violates state alcoholic beverage laws.
But the greater idea is that eighteen year olds should be trusted to behave and to learn from their mistakes. It is better to make them at the start of a college or a first job than later in life when a degree or a family are closer to becoming a reality.
What is unusual for a college president is that McCardell believes that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. In a September, 2004 op-ed in the New York Times, McCardell called the 21 year-old drinking age "bad social policy and terrible law." He likened the policy to policy to Prohibition and said that it had not reduced the drinking problem on campus. Instead, it had led to binge drinking behind closed doors and more problems for campus law enforcement. Appearing on the Colbert Report, McCardell added that 135 other college presidents share his view on the drinking age.
McCardell also believed that it made no sense that persons 18 to 21 could legally vote or be sent to war, but could not legally drink. Another major point he adds is that the 26th Amendment to the Constitution states, “The right of citizens of the US, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged…on account of age.”
In between the time he left Middlebury and accepted the presidency of Sewanee, McCardell founded an organization called Choose Responsibly and served as its first president and became a national spokesperson on this issue, unusual for a college president, too. Today's news story also mentioned that Sewanee hired McCardell with the understanding that he would continue to be a spokesperson on this issue.
McCardell's stature as a past,and now current, college president makes this a cause to be taken seriously. Today, state governments can lose ten percent of their federal highway funds if their drinking age is younger than 21. This is a silly policy, as drunken behavior occurs on and off road, and states with the most fatalities need better roads. In addition, drunken behavior can be more easily enforced and resolved when it is out in the open, as opposed to when it is behind closed doors.
Choose Responsibly also advocates the concept of a drinking license, in addition to a driver's license, be required to purchase alcoholic beverages. The license is earned upon completing an alcohol education program, and is taken away if its possessor violates state alcoholic beverage laws.
But the greater idea is that eighteen year olds should be trusted to behave and to learn from their mistakes. It is better to make them at the start of a college or a first job than later in life when a degree or a family are closer to becoming a reality.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Should High School Students Serve on School Boards?
Today I read that a recent Baltimore area high school graduate is making his second race for a school board seat. It made me wonder: should a high school student who has just turned voting age be allowed to serve as a voting member of a school board?
At first, I'd say yes. We live in a country with democratic elections that have minimal requirements. Gather the proper number of signatures and you're on the ballot. There's no education standard for most public offices, including school boards. I'm sure there are plenty of eighteen year old high school students in most communities who have the intellectual capacity to serve on a school board and juggle their school and work schedules to be a valued contributor.
But high school students are still under the auspices of teacher-student relationships. A student who is elected to the school board in April or May is placed in position of voting on employment decisions that must be resolved by the end of June. If I were the president of the local teacher's union I would not want to see a student participating in those decisions. And if I were a school administrator, I would not want to place students in the position of having to accept or reject resources for teachers.
Personally, I do not think students should serve on a board in a voting or non-voting role, for precisely those reasons. If students have an issue with school policy or the conduct of teachers or school officials, then the board should allow collective voices to be heard. It is more appropriate for students to play the role of lobbyists and investigative presenters than it is for them to play judge and jury.
At first, I'd say yes. We live in a country with democratic elections that have minimal requirements. Gather the proper number of signatures and you're on the ballot. There's no education standard for most public offices, including school boards. I'm sure there are plenty of eighteen year old high school students in most communities who have the intellectual capacity to serve on a school board and juggle their school and work schedules to be a valued contributor.
But high school students are still under the auspices of teacher-student relationships. A student who is elected to the school board in April or May is placed in position of voting on employment decisions that must be resolved by the end of June. If I were the president of the local teacher's union I would not want to see a student participating in those decisions. And if I were a school administrator, I would not want to place students in the position of having to accept or reject resources for teachers.
Personally, I do not think students should serve on a board in a voting or non-voting role, for precisely those reasons. If students have an issue with school policy or the conduct of teachers or school officials, then the board should allow collective voices to be heard. It is more appropriate for students to play the role of lobbyists and investigative presenters than it is for them to play judge and jury.
How to Earn College Credit in High School, Guest Post by Education Writer Adrienne Carlson
Adrienne Carlson, regularly writes on the topic of accelerated online degrees at AcceleratedOnlineDegree.org . The opinions expressed in this post are the unedited opinions of the author. Adrienne welcomes your comments and questions at her email address: adrienne.carlson1@gmail.com. I would like to thank her for this post, special to Educated Quest. S.N.
Getting a head start over the competition is always good, and what better way to start your college experience than with a few credits already under your belt? Earning college credit while you’re still in high school is not something all of us would do under normal circumstances, but it is an option that can be exercised if you want to speed through college and earn your degree in less than four years or if you want to prepare yourself for college even before you set foot on campus. So if you’re looking to get ahead while still in school, here’s how you can do so:
• Enroll in advanced placement courses: These courses are conducted by the College Board and are on offer during your final year of high school. They involve a level of study that is associated with college and require you to work extra hard to keep up to the standard. Once you finish these courses, you usually take an exam in which you’re awarded grades between 1 and 5. You gain credit when you score 3 or more in you advanced placement exams.
• Check for courses offered by colleges: Various colleges offer courses in tie-ups with schools in the district or state to encourage students to earn credit and sign up with them for degree or diploma courses. If you prefer to study in these colleges, enroll in these courses and score the grade required to secure credit that counts at college level.
• Take college courses: Some education boards allow you to enroll in college courses while you’re still in high school if your grades are good and if you’re up to the challenge of tackling college-level education at the school level. If you feel you can handle both high school and college exams together, by all means, go ahead and start earning college credits ahead of the competition.
• CLEP: The College Level Examination Program allows you to earn college credit by taking tests in as many as 34 subjects. Your score is judged differently by different colleges, so if this is your way of earning credit, check with the college of your choice to see how much you should score in order to qualify for credit.
• Online courses: Some colleges offer summer courses that can be taken online in order to earn credit for their degree programs. Research your options and use your summer vacation wisely to pick up extra credits that will come in handy when you join college.
Besides the obvious benefits, earning college credit in high school helps you save on tuition costs and keeps your debt level down if you’ve taken out a loan to finance your degree. So if you’re in high school and are already thinking of your future, go ahead and start earning as many credits as you can before you enter college.
Getting a head start over the competition is always good, and what better way to start your college experience than with a few credits already under your belt? Earning college credit while you’re still in high school is not something all of us would do under normal circumstances, but it is an option that can be exercised if you want to speed through college and earn your degree in less than four years or if you want to prepare yourself for college even before you set foot on campus. So if you’re looking to get ahead while still in school, here’s how you can do so:
• Enroll in advanced placement courses: These courses are conducted by the College Board and are on offer during your final year of high school. They involve a level of study that is associated with college and require you to work extra hard to keep up to the standard. Once you finish these courses, you usually take an exam in which you’re awarded grades between 1 and 5. You gain credit when you score 3 or more in you advanced placement exams.
• Check for courses offered by colleges: Various colleges offer courses in tie-ups with schools in the district or state to encourage students to earn credit and sign up with them for degree or diploma courses. If you prefer to study in these colleges, enroll in these courses and score the grade required to secure credit that counts at college level.
• Take college courses: Some education boards allow you to enroll in college courses while you’re still in high school if your grades are good and if you’re up to the challenge of tackling college-level education at the school level. If you feel you can handle both high school and college exams together, by all means, go ahead and start earning college credits ahead of the competition.
• CLEP: The College Level Examination Program allows you to earn college credit by taking tests in as many as 34 subjects. Your score is judged differently by different colleges, so if this is your way of earning credit, check with the college of your choice to see how much you should score in order to qualify for credit.
• Online courses: Some colleges offer summer courses that can be taken online in order to earn credit for their degree programs. Research your options and use your summer vacation wisely to pick up extra credits that will come in handy when you join college.
Besides the obvious benefits, earning college credit in high school helps you save on tuition costs and keeps your debt level down if you’ve taken out a loan to finance your degree. So if you’re in high school and are already thinking of your future, go ahead and start earning as many credits as you can before you enter college.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Who Reads Those College Admissions Applications?
Today I stumbled upon an interesting story on The Daily Beast entitled The Secret Lives of Admissions Officers. Written by Time writer Kathleen Kingsbury, this story describes the job of the admissions officer, and profiles twelve admissions officers telling you how they began their careers and their hobbies outside of work.
I know that you can walk into any collegial office setting and find interesting people who have interesting hobbies, but an admissions office is not a place where you will find people who intended to make recruitment and selection their life's work. The persons who review applications for admission at the most selective colleges are not necessarily people who could have gotten into that school. And there is no particular academic curriculum for people who aspire to become admissions officers. It is mainly on-the-job training. It takes experience, more than skills, to learn what it takes to recruit and select a class that is likely to stay on to graduation.
An admissions officer, according to the story and from my experience, must wear different hats. She must be an effective salesperson, even when most of the prospective customers are unlikely to buy. She must be an empath who cannot be publicly over-enthusiastic or overly discouraging to any prospective applicant.She must love to read. According to this story, on average each counselor at a private college will read nearly 350 applications every year, and their public-school peers are reading 2.5 times that number—about 825 applications each. And she must know how to say no with a smile, a rare talent in the business world.
If you're a parent of a student who is applying to selective schools, this story leaves one piece of advice: respect the person who may read those applications. He or she might be working a 20 hour day during the busy season, so make sure the application packet stands out in a positive way and makes it easy to get a decision in your favor.
I know that you can walk into any collegial office setting and find interesting people who have interesting hobbies, but an admissions office is not a place where you will find people who intended to make recruitment and selection their life's work. The persons who review applications for admission at the most selective colleges are not necessarily people who could have gotten into that school. And there is no particular academic curriculum for people who aspire to become admissions officers. It is mainly on-the-job training. It takes experience, more than skills, to learn what it takes to recruit and select a class that is likely to stay on to graduation.
An admissions officer, according to the story and from my experience, must wear different hats. She must be an effective salesperson, even when most of the prospective customers are unlikely to buy. She must be an empath who cannot be publicly over-enthusiastic or overly discouraging to any prospective applicant.She must love to read. According to this story, on average each counselor at a private college will read nearly 350 applications every year, and their public-school peers are reading 2.5 times that number—about 825 applications each. And she must know how to say no with a smile, a rare talent in the business world.
If you're a parent of a student who is applying to selective schools, this story leaves one piece of advice: respect the person who may read those applications. He or she might be working a 20 hour day during the busy season, so make sure the application packet stands out in a positive way and makes it easy to get a decision in your favor.
The Congressional Reform Act of 2010?
My stepsister sent me an interesting e-mail over the holidays; it was more like a chain letter, but I felt it was worthy of discussion. It is a call for a Congressional Reform Act, to change some of the behaviors and practices of Congress. The Act has eight provisions, and my comments are in italics. The response to all of these comments, as supplied by the originator of this proposed act, is: Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
I strongly oppose term limits. While they allow a Member of the House or Senate to serve a long time, I would prefer to be represented by a legislator who knows the legislative process cold while representing my interests. I would not want my state or Congressional district to be forced to start over with a new Representative or Senator who has to learn the ropes.
2. No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
I am presuming that the originator of this proposal means a salary from a government payroll. But sometimes former members of Congress are appointed to lead investigations or negotiations in times of need. Former Senator George Mitchell (D. Maine), for example, negotiated a treaty that reunited Ireland. In these instances, experts should receive pay equal to their salary as a former representative or senator. They should not receive paid like corporate lawyers.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
I agree.
4. (Members of) Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
They should be allowed to set up a retirement plan similar to a small businessperson, since they cannot predict the number of years they will serve.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
I agree.
6. (Members of) Congress loses their current health care system and participate in the same health care system as the American people.
The problem is that Members of Congress are not equal when it comes to the resources they have to purchase health insurance for them and their families. Men and women come to Congress from other public offices and private business. America needs consistency in government, so I have no issue with each house having physicians and hospital care on call, as the president does.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
I agree.
8. All contracts with past and present Members of Congress are void effective 1/1/11. The American people did not make contracts with congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
See my comment to #2 (above). There are valid reasons for Members of Congress to enter into agreements with former members. But if the originator of this proposal is referring to vendor relationships, from air conditioning to computer systems to staff salaries, these relationships should be limited to a period of two years.
I respect the initiative of the originator of this act. He/she has taken into account the unpopularity of Congress as a democratic (small d here) body and the perception of an insulated relationship with the American people which quite often appears grounded in reality.
But I'd like to throw another iron in the fire: what if all Congressional campaigns were publicly funded--each major party candidate receives public service advertising, support for town meeting style debates and a transportation allowance based on the geographic size of their district? If Congressmen and Senators did not have to go home every weekend to raise money, or attend lobbying events to pick up checks during the week, then they'd have more time to serve the people. Just another thought.
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
I strongly oppose term limits. While they allow a Member of the House or Senate to serve a long time, I would prefer to be represented by a legislator who knows the legislative process cold while representing my interests. I would not want my state or Congressional district to be forced to start over with a new Representative or Senator who has to learn the ropes.
2. No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
I am presuming that the originator of this proposal means a salary from a government payroll. But sometimes former members of Congress are appointed to lead investigations or negotiations in times of need. Former Senator George Mitchell (D. Maine), for example, negotiated a treaty that reunited Ireland. In these instances, experts should receive pay equal to their salary as a former representative or senator. They should not receive paid like corporate lawyers.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
I agree.
4. (Members of) Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
They should be allowed to set up a retirement plan similar to a small businessperson, since they cannot predict the number of years they will serve.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
I agree.
6. (Members of) Congress loses their current health care system and participate in the same health care system as the American people.
The problem is that Members of Congress are not equal when it comes to the resources they have to purchase health insurance for them and their families. Men and women come to Congress from other public offices and private business. America needs consistency in government, so I have no issue with each house having physicians and hospital care on call, as the president does.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
I agree.
8. All contracts with past and present Members of Congress are void effective 1/1/11. The American people did not make contracts with congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
See my comment to #2 (above). There are valid reasons for Members of Congress to enter into agreements with former members. But if the originator of this proposal is referring to vendor relationships, from air conditioning to computer systems to staff salaries, these relationships should be limited to a period of two years.
I respect the initiative of the originator of this act. He/she has taken into account the unpopularity of Congress as a democratic (small d here) body and the perception of an insulated relationship with the American people which quite often appears grounded in reality.
But I'd like to throw another iron in the fire: what if all Congressional campaigns were publicly funded--each major party candidate receives public service advertising, support for town meeting style debates and a transportation allowance based on the geographic size of their district? If Congressmen and Senators did not have to go home every weekend to raise money, or attend lobbying events to pick up checks during the week, then they'd have more time to serve the people. Just another thought.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Which Schools are the Cradles of Super Bowl Winning Quarterbacks?
If Drew Brees leads the New Orleans Saints to their first Super Bowl victory, he will be the third Purdue graduate to win the big game over the past 45 years. The others are Len Dawson and Bob Griese. Dawson was also the first quarterback to lose the big game ('67).
I was curious: if there have been two ex-Boilermakers who have won a Super Bowl, what other schools have produced more than one winning quarterback? This is what I've found, so far.
Alabama--three--Bart Starr, Joe Namath and Ken Stabler. Starr and Namath were also the first two quarterbacks to win a Super Bowl ('67 and '69). Stabler followed Namath as the starter at Alabama under Bear Bryant.
BYU--two--Jim McMahon and Steve Young.
Notre Dame--Joe Thiesmann and Joe Montana. They played in a combined six Super Bowls, winning five. Another Golden Domer, Darryl Lamonica (Raiders '68), was the second quarterback to lose a Super Bowl.
Stanford--two--Jim Plunkett and John Elway. They played in a combined seven Super Bowls, winning four.
While every quarterback tries to win the big game, some lose the first time. Dawson and Griese lost their first Super Bowls as did former Maryland Terrapins, Boomer Esiason and Neil O'Donnell. Packer fans will hope that Aaron Rodgers does far better than the last two Cal Golden Bears Joe Kapp (Vikings '70) and Craig Morton (Cowboys '71 and Broncos '78). Raven fans will hope that Joe Flacco has more success than fellow Delaware Blue Hen Rich Gannon.
I was curious: if there have been two ex-Boilermakers who have won a Super Bowl, what other schools have produced more than one winning quarterback? This is what I've found, so far.
Alabama--three--Bart Starr, Joe Namath and Ken Stabler. Starr and Namath were also the first two quarterbacks to win a Super Bowl ('67 and '69). Stabler followed Namath as the starter at Alabama under Bear Bryant.
BYU--two--Jim McMahon and Steve Young.
Notre Dame--Joe Thiesmann and Joe Montana. They played in a combined six Super Bowls, winning five. Another Golden Domer, Darryl Lamonica (Raiders '68), was the second quarterback to lose a Super Bowl.
Stanford--two--Jim Plunkett and John Elway. They played in a combined seven Super Bowls, winning four.
While every quarterback tries to win the big game, some lose the first time. Dawson and Griese lost their first Super Bowls as did former Maryland Terrapins, Boomer Esiason and Neil O'Donnell. Packer fans will hope that Aaron Rodgers does far better than the last two Cal Golden Bears Joe Kapp (Vikings '70) and Craig Morton (Cowboys '71 and Broncos '78). Raven fans will hope that Joe Flacco has more success than fellow Delaware Blue Hen Rich Gannon.
A Jewish Boy Watches Washington Cross the Delaware on Christmas Day
For me being Jewish on Christmas Day usually means a movie and Chinese food for dinner, but this year I did something different. Since I live only fifteen minutes from the Delaware River, which forms a New Jersey-Pennsylvania border, I decided to check out the re-enactment of George Washington et al, crossing the river.
The re-enactment was not exact--the actual crossing took place Christmas night, 1776 in the middle of a nor'easter--but the details were convincing enough. Washington's army was encamped in Bucks County and their prospects were not good. Enlistments were down, desertion was high and monies from Congress were not available to pay the soldiers or replace munitions and supplies that had been abandoned in previous battles.
According to the official literature of the event, it would have been more likely for Continental, British and Hessian (German) forces to go into winter quarters. But Washington decided to attack the Hessian outposts around Trenton instead. Armed with the phrase "Victory or Death," Washington along with his commanders and 2400 troops, 18 cannons and approximately 50-75 horses crossed the river. BY 4 AM December 26 they marched to Trenton. By 6 AM, Washington launched a two-prong attack resulting in the capture of 900 Hessian prisoners. The victory was a turning point in the Revolutionary War, boosting morale and cementing Washington's role as a leader.
The re-enactment was a much smaller, but no less significant, event. While the re-enactors looked battle-ready for the period, the larger attraction was the Durham boats, authentic reproductions of the flat-bottomed boats used in the real crossing. Requiring a minimum of six men and a captain these boats hauled cargo such as ore, pig-iron and timber down the Delaware to Philadelphia. The largest boats--up to 65 feet long--could transport up to 20 tons of iron or 150 barrels of flour downstream.
Recent times have not been kind to the re-enactment or to the Washington Crossing Historic Park on the Pennsylvania side of the river. According to event literature, the re-enactment had been postponed for the previous two years; the river conditions made the crossing impossible. Heavy flooding in 2004 and 2006 created a long sandbar in the Delaware and there was not enough water for the boats to sail over it. Instead of crossing by sea, re-enactors crossed the Daniel Bray Bridge into New Jersey. This year, the Pennsylvania legislature failed to come up with finding to keep the park open and renew the re-enactment, though local monies were raised.
As significant as the crossing, however, was the potential for the rebirth of the park. Rep Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) and a vice president of Lockheed-Martin were on hand to announce a $400,000 contribution to help maintain and rehabilitate historic buildings in the park. The Lockheed-Martin representative also announced that corporate talent would be put to volunteer technical expertise to update exhibitions in the park. The park has a friends group organized by the Bucks County Convention and Visitor's Bureay that was doing a brisk business on Christmas Day, and they would welcome more donations.
Weather conditions can never be helped. But it was a shame to hear that the park had been previously closed, and that the re-enactment almost canceled. Local efforts are always a wonderful thing, but no state should ever become in danger of losing its heritage. Writers are always instructed to "tell, not show" events as they happen, but historians must do the opposite. It is just as important to show what Americans went through to gain their freedom as it is to recap those events in books.
The re-enactment was not exact--the actual crossing took place Christmas night, 1776 in the middle of a nor'easter--but the details were convincing enough. Washington's army was encamped in Bucks County and their prospects were not good. Enlistments were down, desertion was high and monies from Congress were not available to pay the soldiers or replace munitions and supplies that had been abandoned in previous battles.
According to the official literature of the event, it would have been more likely for Continental, British and Hessian (German) forces to go into winter quarters. But Washington decided to attack the Hessian outposts around Trenton instead. Armed with the phrase "Victory or Death," Washington along with his commanders and 2400 troops, 18 cannons and approximately 50-75 horses crossed the river. BY 4 AM December 26 they marched to Trenton. By 6 AM, Washington launched a two-prong attack resulting in the capture of 900 Hessian prisoners. The victory was a turning point in the Revolutionary War, boosting morale and cementing Washington's role as a leader.
The re-enactment was a much smaller, but no less significant, event. While the re-enactors looked battle-ready for the period, the larger attraction was the Durham boats, authentic reproductions of the flat-bottomed boats used in the real crossing. Requiring a minimum of six men and a captain these boats hauled cargo such as ore, pig-iron and timber down the Delaware to Philadelphia. The largest boats--up to 65 feet long--could transport up to 20 tons of iron or 150 barrels of flour downstream.
Recent times have not been kind to the re-enactment or to the Washington Crossing Historic Park on the Pennsylvania side of the river. According to event literature, the re-enactment had been postponed for the previous two years; the river conditions made the crossing impossible. Heavy flooding in 2004 and 2006 created a long sandbar in the Delaware and there was not enough water for the boats to sail over it. Instead of crossing by sea, re-enactors crossed the Daniel Bray Bridge into New Jersey. This year, the Pennsylvania legislature failed to come up with finding to keep the park open and renew the re-enactment, though local monies were raised.
As significant as the crossing, however, was the potential for the rebirth of the park. Rep Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) and a vice president of Lockheed-Martin were on hand to announce a $400,000 contribution to help maintain and rehabilitate historic buildings in the park. The Lockheed-Martin representative also announced that corporate talent would be put to volunteer technical expertise to update exhibitions in the park. The park has a friends group organized by the Bucks County Convention and Visitor's Bureay that was doing a brisk business on Christmas Day, and they would welcome more donations.
Weather conditions can never be helped. But it was a shame to hear that the park had been previously closed, and that the re-enactment almost canceled. Local efforts are always a wonderful thing, but no state should ever become in danger of losing its heritage. Writers are always instructed to "tell, not show" events as they happen, but historians must do the opposite. It is just as important to show what Americans went through to gain their freedom as it is to recap those events in books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)