Yesterday the nation heard the news of a tragic suicide. Tyler Clementi, a gay male Rutgers University student, jumped off the George Washington Bridge not long after he had learned that a sexual encounter he had had with another student in his dorm room was filmed and posted online.
While no criminal charges have been pressed against the two students accused of making the film, acts of cyber-bullying are nothing less than reprehensible within a college community. These students, one the roommate of the deceased, should have known better. So should all university communities.
The university community is holding an event, Black Friday, to honor Clementi on the steps of Brower Commons, the main dining hall, at 10:00 tomorrow. Fifteen hundred persons have already signed up to attend via Facebook. Log in and search for Black Friday: In Honor of Tyler Clementi to add your name. There is also a page to honor Clementi's memory. At this moment 28,991 people have added their name there.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Could it take a general to advance the cause of the for-profit schools?
Today I'm reading a story on Inside Higher Ed about a rally by students at for-profit schools in defense of their institutions. These students want Congress to do away with the concept of a "gainful employment" rule which would limit their ability to borrow money for their education and possibly discredit their program.
Read the story and the comments. It is biased. But there is a point: are the current students the best salespersons for these schools? In some ways, yes, in others, no.
I'm not familiar with the education offered at every for-profit school, but I am aware of at least one where students found jobs: DeVry University. DeVry is one of the larger firms that operates for-profit schools and it is the only one I am aware of that operates a medical school (Ross University). Formerly owned by Bell and Howell--remember slide projectors that used cubes instead of round trays?--DeVry focused on technical degrees then moved into other areas. Unlike most for-profits they have the advantage of history.
If thousands of DeVry graduates had assembled in Washington or sent letters to their representative that said, in summary, "we have good jobs," or "they train good people we hire," then there would be no Congressional hearings at all. I didn't see that the students who attended yesterday's rally offered that kind of proof that would help their schools and help their prospects, too. In fact, only two students bothered to speak. The main speaker was an industry lobbyist.
If anything, this encouraged the representatives and senators who want hearings to go on. That's a shame. They weren't necessary. State governments could address the marketing-related issues, including misleading information, through their Attorney General's offices. The aggressive state attorney generals, such as Andrew Cuomo, are never afraid to be out-front on these issues or to share their findings with their peers.
I understand why students choose the for-profits--flexible scheduling and online options being two good reasons. For-profits took a lead in those areas that is very difficult for private non-profit schools or public institutions to follow. The non-profit sector is more restricted in its ability to raise money to offer these options. It can raise funds by contacting individuals and firms or it can sell debt by issuing bonds. For profits can raise money by selling debt or equity--a huge advantage. Imagine if Harvard could do that.
Bashing the for-profit sector through these hearings will hurt all of higher education. It will lead to questions about the management practices of public and non-profit schools, as well as a debate about gainful employment that no one in higher education wants.
The for-profit schools need to prove two things to come out with some victories from these hearings.
They must prove that the quality and content of their courses are either up to professional and industry standards or that they are no less than equal to the offerings at public and non-profit schools. Better if they can prove they are better, and therefore worth the student's expense. If they fail, the value of the whole sector will plummet. I hope the presidents of these schools haven't come in to Washington on private jets. The country saw what that did to the auto industry.
They must also bring out employers who will validate the education that they offer. This makes me wonder why there's been no public comments from the military.
The armed forces send their soldiers to for-profit schools; officers and enlisted personnel can even continue their education while deployed. GI Bill money goes to those schools, not just student loans. If these schools are supposedly "stealing" from one source of government, is it possible that they might be stealing from others? Or are most of the comments about stealing and gainful employment totally bunk when you take the military into account.
Maybe it takes a general to say what kind of officer or soldier he/she has gotten from the education offered by the for-profit sector. As any Congressman or Senator knows, it's not nice to rattle a general in a public hearing.
Read the story and the comments. It is biased. But there is a point: are the current students the best salespersons for these schools? In some ways, yes, in others, no.
I'm not familiar with the education offered at every for-profit school, but I am aware of at least one where students found jobs: DeVry University. DeVry is one of the larger firms that operates for-profit schools and it is the only one I am aware of that operates a medical school (Ross University). Formerly owned by Bell and Howell--remember slide projectors that used cubes instead of round trays?--DeVry focused on technical degrees then moved into other areas. Unlike most for-profits they have the advantage of history.
If thousands of DeVry graduates had assembled in Washington or sent letters to their representative that said, in summary, "we have good jobs," or "they train good people we hire," then there would be no Congressional hearings at all. I didn't see that the students who attended yesterday's rally offered that kind of proof that would help their schools and help their prospects, too. In fact, only two students bothered to speak. The main speaker was an industry lobbyist.
If anything, this encouraged the representatives and senators who want hearings to go on. That's a shame. They weren't necessary. State governments could address the marketing-related issues, including misleading information, through their Attorney General's offices. The aggressive state attorney generals, such as Andrew Cuomo, are never afraid to be out-front on these issues or to share their findings with their peers.
I understand why students choose the for-profits--flexible scheduling and online options being two good reasons. For-profits took a lead in those areas that is very difficult for private non-profit schools or public institutions to follow. The non-profit sector is more restricted in its ability to raise money to offer these options. It can raise funds by contacting individuals and firms or it can sell debt by issuing bonds. For profits can raise money by selling debt or equity--a huge advantage. Imagine if Harvard could do that.
Bashing the for-profit sector through these hearings will hurt all of higher education. It will lead to questions about the management practices of public and non-profit schools, as well as a debate about gainful employment that no one in higher education wants.
The for-profit schools need to prove two things to come out with some victories from these hearings.
They must prove that the quality and content of their courses are either up to professional and industry standards or that they are no less than equal to the offerings at public and non-profit schools. Better if they can prove they are better, and therefore worth the student's expense. If they fail, the value of the whole sector will plummet. I hope the presidents of these schools haven't come in to Washington on private jets. The country saw what that did to the auto industry.
They must also bring out employers who will validate the education that they offer. This makes me wonder why there's been no public comments from the military.
The armed forces send their soldiers to for-profit schools; officers and enlisted personnel can even continue their education while deployed. GI Bill money goes to those schools, not just student loans. If these schools are supposedly "stealing" from one source of government, is it possible that they might be stealing from others? Or are most of the comments about stealing and gainful employment totally bunk when you take the military into account.
Maybe it takes a general to say what kind of officer or soldier he/she has gotten from the education offered by the for-profit sector. As any Congressman or Senator knows, it's not nice to rattle a general in a public hearing.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Book Review--White House Diary by Jimmy Carter
I voted in the presidential primaries and the presidential election for the very first time in 1980. Dissatisfied with the direction of the country back then, I voted for Ted Kennedy in the New Jersey primary. Back then the primary was held in June, but my vote actually mattered.
Kennedy came into the Democratic convention 700 delegates short, but his supporters worked valiantly to open it up to sway delegates who wanted to change their mind. However, the convention was the beginning of the end for Jimmy Carter as president and Kennedy as a presidential hopeful.
I held my nose and voted for Jimmy Carter, because I thought he was the lesser of two evils. I was more liberal than I am now, and I knew that Ronald Reagan stood against many things I supported.
I was right not to vote for Reagan, though I did not believe that Jimmy Carter was a good president. The economy was in horrible shape and Americans had been held hostage in Iran for almost a year. Carter, to me, had been ineffective at handling either problem. But I felt that Reagan would have sent us to war over the hostages, which would have been worse for the U.S. and the Middle East.
Okay, I was only 20. It's been more than thirty years since I cast that vote. Jimmy Carter has become America's greatest ex-president, leading everything from Habitat for Humanity projects in urban and rural communities to supervising free elections in foreign countries. Ronald Reagan is the Republican icon. Most Democratic senators from blue states could have just as easily been Republicans in the Kennedy-Johnson years. You had men like Daniel Moynihan and John Connelly who stood behind Kennedy, Johnson and (gulp!) Nixon.
Last week I saw Jimmy Carter on 60 Minutes. He discussed his presidential diary as well as his true record as president. There was a lot I didn't know. I was curious enough to buy the book, though I've never read Carter's previous books. I have, however, read accounts by Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. None of them will win literary acclaim. Neither will Jimmy Carter's diary. It's very easy to gloss over pages where very little happened.
Carter consolidated this book from over 5,000 pages of notes that he had taken during his term as president. I got the sense that he had two presidencies. One was a good one, spanning the first two years. The last two years were complete disaster.
Jimmy Carter entered the White House promising change after six years of Richard Nixon and two years of Gerald Ford trying to clean up Nixon's mess. But more of his economic agenda appealed to the Republicans in Congress than Democrats. He instituted zero-based budgeting for federal agencies which forced cabinet officers to cost out all of their programs, current and proposed, as if they were new every year, instead of front-loading budgets with spending increases. Budget deficits under Carter increased by an average of approximately $116 million, more like a rounding error in the world of federal budgets.
Carter rejected programs proposed by liberals in Congress, even developing his own health plan to challenge Ted Kennedy's proposal. The Federal Emergency Management Administration was created under his watch and he had the most ambitious agenda for energy conservation and energy independence ever proposed by a president. His policies at the time reduced the country's dependency on foreign oil. He also expanded the National Park System and initiated programs that stimulated public-private urban development partnerships and more effective mass transit. He also bailed out Chrysler and New York City.
Jimmy Carter also brokered the Camp David Accord and much of the diary covers mediating the discussions between Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. He also concluded negotiations of the Panama Canal treaty with the support of Nixon, Ford and Henry Kissinger. He also established full diplomatic relations with China, building upon Nixon's work, and completed negotiation of the SALT II nuclear limitation treaty with the Soviet Union.
Reading Carter's diary I saw a man who was not full of himself, but was always an outsider in the ways of Washington. His media relations were never very good and he did not have the Democratic leadership in Congress in his corner. He, like Barack Obama, came into the White House without a large network of people he could trust. But surprisingly, Carter's Democrats lost only 15 House seats during his second presidency and remained in the majority. I don't think Obama will be so fortunate.
Jimmy Carter was considered many things--a micro-manager was the most common--and not all of them good. But he made progress on the economy, foreign relations and government spending during his first two years in office and he kept the country at peace during that time. You'll get all this from his diary, and a little more.
Chris Christie has six ways to fix New Jersey schools--if he can stop putting his foot in his mouth
On the heels of Mark Zuckerberg's $100 million commitment to Newark, New Jersey governor Chris Christie has announced six ways that he would like to improve the state's public schools. These include:
+ A $20 million investment in a state-run student data center to be made over the next two years.
+ A Task Force on Teacher Effectiveness to develop a new teacher evaluation process based on student achievement.
+ “Alternate route programs” to increase the pool of available principals.
+ “Master Teacher” and “Master Principal” designations which carry higher pay, further training and a possible fast-track to leadership positions in charter schools.
+ Performance-based compensation.
+ Merit-based tenure.
I see nothing wrong with any of these ideas, as long as they're not heavily tied to standardized tests. Performance evaluation is a very complicated process in the private sector; there are measurable factors as well as qualitative ones. It's easy to quantify revenues earned, dollars saved for people with bottom line responsibilities. But an employer must consider other things, such as how well the employee gets along with people. That's more anecdotal than quantitative.
This gets harder for teachers. They don't collect money or save their districts money, so test scores and grading become the only quantifiable scores you have. But those are relative. Getting a failing student down three grade levels to the point where he's down only one or two is still a major accomplishment. So is turning around parental relations or seeing a once anti-social student get along better with peers.
The grade level the teacher is teaching, as well as the student population assigned to her must also be considered. I've been told that students in grades K-3 learn to read, while starting in the 4th grade they read to learn. If the evaluation of a K-3 student is different from that of a 4th grader, the teacher evaluations must be different, too.
But good minds,regardless of their politics, can grasp these problems when you bring them together.
But if Governor Christie wants to see any of these reforms, he needs to involve the teachers in the investigative process. Instead he goes around the state bashing the teacher's union and calls for a voucher program disguised as a scholarship program. It's awfully hard for a teacher to be enthusiastic about her job if she works in a New Jersey public school.
Other politicians, Democrats and Republicans, have called for the same ideas in their cities and states without clubbing the teacher's unions on the head. But this governor can't resist being Jackie Gleason whenever he gets behind a microphone. If I were a young teacher, I might be open-minded to these ideas. But I wouldn't find Chris Christie very funny. I'd find him hard-hearted and less than thoughful.
+ A $20 million investment in a state-run student data center to be made over the next two years.
+ A Task Force on Teacher Effectiveness to develop a new teacher evaluation process based on student achievement.
+ “Alternate route programs” to increase the pool of available principals.
+ “Master Teacher” and “Master Principal” designations which carry higher pay, further training and a possible fast-track to leadership positions in charter schools.
+ Performance-based compensation.
+ Merit-based tenure.
I see nothing wrong with any of these ideas, as long as they're not heavily tied to standardized tests. Performance evaluation is a very complicated process in the private sector; there are measurable factors as well as qualitative ones. It's easy to quantify revenues earned, dollars saved for people with bottom line responsibilities. But an employer must consider other things, such as how well the employee gets along with people. That's more anecdotal than quantitative.
This gets harder for teachers. They don't collect money or save their districts money, so test scores and grading become the only quantifiable scores you have. But those are relative. Getting a failing student down three grade levels to the point where he's down only one or two is still a major accomplishment. So is turning around parental relations or seeing a once anti-social student get along better with peers.
The grade level the teacher is teaching, as well as the student population assigned to her must also be considered. I've been told that students in grades K-3 learn to read, while starting in the 4th grade they read to learn. If the evaluation of a K-3 student is different from that of a 4th grader, the teacher evaluations must be different, too.
But good minds,regardless of their politics, can grasp these problems when you bring them together.
But if Governor Christie wants to see any of these reforms, he needs to involve the teachers in the investigative process. Instead he goes around the state bashing the teacher's union and calls for a voucher program disguised as a scholarship program. It's awfully hard for a teacher to be enthusiastic about her job if she works in a New Jersey public school.
Other politicians, Democrats and Republicans, have called for the same ideas in their cities and states without clubbing the teacher's unions on the head. But this governor can't resist being Jackie Gleason whenever he gets behind a microphone. If I were a young teacher, I might be open-minded to these ideas. But I wouldn't find Chris Christie very funny. I'd find him hard-hearted and less than thoughful.
Dallas Cowboys are in the NFC East, but Texas Christian in the Big East?
Today I've read a story in the New York Post that Texas Christian University (TCU), an emerging football power, is one of a dozen schools under consideration by the Big East.
This is total rumor and speculation; no one associated with the school or the sports conference has made public comment. The story has gotten 247 "likes" in Facebook and the day's still young. I can see the excitement. TCU could be invited tomorrow and they would be the best team in the conference. Not to mention the Fort Worth faithful would get to see their Horned Frogs beat up on some Yankees.
But the rumor goes to show that geography is no consideration in building up a football conference, even when it has a geographic name like the Mountain West, Pacific 10, Mid-America or Big East. And I think that's a shame.
College and professional sports had few issues with geography until 1960. College teams traveled by train much of the time; long rides were pretty much out of the question. Unless the school was Army, Notre Dame or one of the Ivies--a school with a national following--it kept close to neighboring states. I'd have to imagine travel across Texas alone was arduous enough in the days before interstates. Why else would there be a conference of all Texas schools plus Arkansas?
Pro football was the first major league sport to have a presence in the Southwest and the West. It introduced pro teams to Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles and San Francisco. These teams didn't come into the same league all at once, so it was easier to set up divisions.
But leagues merged and schedule makers went crazy. In 1970, they put the Dallas Cowboys in the same division with the East Coast teams. Rivalries between the Cowboys and the Eagles, Giants and Redskins have continued for four decades while rivalries between the eastern teams and the (then-Baltimore) Colts and Steelers were set aside.
Personally, I'd rather see eastern division with all eastern teams. Put the Giants in the same division with the Eagles, Redskins and the Steelers. And put the Jets with the Bills, Patriots and the Ravens. But that's not to be, as there are Giants-Cowboy and Redskins-Cowboy purists, and Pittsburgh considers itself to be a more natural rival with Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Okay, I digressed a moment. But back in the sixties there were some odd-looking divisions. The old AFL put Houston in the East and Dallas in the West--and the two teams played for the league title in 1962. From 1967 through 1970, the Giants, Browns, Steelers and Cardinals were in the same division, while the Eagles and Redskins were grouped with the Cowboys and the Saints. The Baltimore Colts were lumped with the Forty Niners, the Rams and the Falcons.
So, if the pros have been able to get away with this, why not the colleges, right? Air travel is faster, and it's become progressively less expensive thanks to deregulation and the growth of the private jet market. But, again, unless your name is Army, Navy or Notre Dame, you end up with less attractive rivalries.
More than any other conference, the Big East has this problem. A grouping of Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and West Virginia makes sense. These schools had played each other regularly before they moved into the same conference. U-Conn fits, too. But Cincinnati, Louisville and South Florida are not eastern schools. It's pretty funny for the Big East to host the major Tampa-area university while the ACC plays its conference title game in their stadium!
A football Big East should have teams from Boston, New York, Philadelphia and the Washington D.C. area. That would build rivalries where the fans could go to road games.
We might not get Boston College or Penn State, but U-Mass might take a step into the bowl subdivision world. Army and Navy are not the national powers they once were, but an eastern schedule still leaves them with attractive rivalries. Air Force already sticks closer to home, why can't the other service academies do the same? Villanova has already been given an invite to become a football member of the Big East. Buffalo and Temple have played in bowl games over the past two years. Delaware is another school that could make the move up; their Blue Hens already outdraw several BCS teams.
But this is all about money and power. The better the team(s) that you draw into your conference, the better the bowl games and the more TV and bowl money in your coffers. In that sense, it's only logical that you look for a football power in a major media market. And there are few places more football-crazy than the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. So, it makes sense for the Big East to approach TCU.
This is total rumor and speculation; no one associated with the school or the sports conference has made public comment. The story has gotten 247 "likes" in Facebook and the day's still young. I can see the excitement. TCU could be invited tomorrow and they would be the best team in the conference. Not to mention the Fort Worth faithful would get to see their Horned Frogs beat up on some Yankees.
But the rumor goes to show that geography is no consideration in building up a football conference, even when it has a geographic name like the Mountain West, Pacific 10, Mid-America or Big East. And I think that's a shame.
College and professional sports had few issues with geography until 1960. College teams traveled by train much of the time; long rides were pretty much out of the question. Unless the school was Army, Notre Dame or one of the Ivies--a school with a national following--it kept close to neighboring states. I'd have to imagine travel across Texas alone was arduous enough in the days before interstates. Why else would there be a conference of all Texas schools plus Arkansas?
Pro football was the first major league sport to have a presence in the Southwest and the West. It introduced pro teams to Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles and San Francisco. These teams didn't come into the same league all at once, so it was easier to set up divisions.
But leagues merged and schedule makers went crazy. In 1970, they put the Dallas Cowboys in the same division with the East Coast teams. Rivalries between the Cowboys and the Eagles, Giants and Redskins have continued for four decades while rivalries between the eastern teams and the (then-Baltimore) Colts and Steelers were set aside.
Personally, I'd rather see eastern division with all eastern teams. Put the Giants in the same division with the Eagles, Redskins and the Steelers. And put the Jets with the Bills, Patriots and the Ravens. But that's not to be, as there are Giants-Cowboy and Redskins-Cowboy purists, and Pittsburgh considers itself to be a more natural rival with Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Okay, I digressed a moment. But back in the sixties there were some odd-looking divisions. The old AFL put Houston in the East and Dallas in the West--and the two teams played for the league title in 1962. From 1967 through 1970, the Giants, Browns, Steelers and Cardinals were in the same division, while the Eagles and Redskins were grouped with the Cowboys and the Saints. The Baltimore Colts were lumped with the Forty Niners, the Rams and the Falcons.
So, if the pros have been able to get away with this, why not the colleges, right? Air travel is faster, and it's become progressively less expensive thanks to deregulation and the growth of the private jet market. But, again, unless your name is Army, Navy or Notre Dame, you end up with less attractive rivalries.
More than any other conference, the Big East has this problem. A grouping of Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and West Virginia makes sense. These schools had played each other regularly before they moved into the same conference. U-Conn fits, too. But Cincinnati, Louisville and South Florida are not eastern schools. It's pretty funny for the Big East to host the major Tampa-area university while the ACC plays its conference title game in their stadium!
A football Big East should have teams from Boston, New York, Philadelphia and the Washington D.C. area. That would build rivalries where the fans could go to road games.
We might not get Boston College or Penn State, but U-Mass might take a step into the bowl subdivision world. Army and Navy are not the national powers they once were, but an eastern schedule still leaves them with attractive rivalries. Air Force already sticks closer to home, why can't the other service academies do the same? Villanova has already been given an invite to become a football member of the Big East. Buffalo and Temple have played in bowl games over the past two years. Delaware is another school that could make the move up; their Blue Hens already outdraw several BCS teams.
But this is all about money and power. The better the team(s) that you draw into your conference, the better the bowl games and the more TV and bowl money in your coffers. In that sense, it's only logical that you look for a football power in a major media market. And there are few places more football-crazy than the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. So, it makes sense for the Big East to approach TCU.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Three year degrees should be about more than cramming credits
Today I am reading a story at Boston.com about the University of Massachusetts' decision to offer a three year degree program at the flagship campus in Amherst.
According to the story, U-Mass freshmen majoring in economics, music, and sociology will be able to join the three-year degree track; eventually, students in one-third of the university’s 88 majors will be eligible.
This is a positive step--it makes the cost of an education at a public university less expensive. U-Mass charges in-state students approximately $21,000 for tuition, room and board. A reduction of 25% will be welcome in many households in the Commonwealth State.
However, there are some hitches. The three year program is intended for students who already enter U-Mass with advanced placement credits from high school or a community college. A provost quoted in the story said that about 10 to 25 percent of the university’s 4,500 freshmen enter college with enough Advanced Placement credits to qualify for three-year degrees. He added that progress towards the a bachelors degree could be accelerated through taking summer or online courses.
But that's the case almost anywhere else. U-Mass just took the extra step to admit it. Coming into college with college classes under your belt can save you money--as long as the school gives you credit and advanced standing for taking them. Not all schools are so generous.
You still need the same number of credits designed along a traditional set of academic requirements for a four-year degree in order to complete a three-year degree. This is a cramfest, as opposed to an innovative degree program.
This serves to validate a point I've made many times--why not allow public school systems to send their best students to take community college courses during their senior year? The tuition plus transportation and books would be less than the cost of keeping these students in high school. Plus they will actually save a year on the cost of college, courtesy of their hometown school system. That's something parents can be happy about as taxpayers.
But I believe colleges should take an extra step, as Southern New Hampshire University has done--redesign degree programs around competencies such as business communication, leadership and problem solving rather than seat hours in classrooms.
The total cost for completing the Southern New Hampshire three-year business honors degree program is between $120,000 and $130,000. That's about the same that any state university will charge an out-of-state student for a four-year degree. And the extra year of income from a full-time job might make it a better value.
According to the story, U-Mass freshmen majoring in economics, music, and sociology will be able to join the three-year degree track; eventually, students in one-third of the university’s 88 majors will be eligible.
This is a positive step--it makes the cost of an education at a public university less expensive. U-Mass charges in-state students approximately $21,000 for tuition, room and board. A reduction of 25% will be welcome in many households in the Commonwealth State.
However, there are some hitches. The three year program is intended for students who already enter U-Mass with advanced placement credits from high school or a community college. A provost quoted in the story said that about 10 to 25 percent of the university’s 4,500 freshmen enter college with enough Advanced Placement credits to qualify for three-year degrees. He added that progress towards the a bachelors degree could be accelerated through taking summer or online courses.
But that's the case almost anywhere else. U-Mass just took the extra step to admit it. Coming into college with college classes under your belt can save you money--as long as the school gives you credit and advanced standing for taking them. Not all schools are so generous.
You still need the same number of credits designed along a traditional set of academic requirements for a four-year degree in order to complete a three-year degree. This is a cramfest, as opposed to an innovative degree program.
This serves to validate a point I've made many times--why not allow public school systems to send their best students to take community college courses during their senior year? The tuition plus transportation and books would be less than the cost of keeping these students in high school. Plus they will actually save a year on the cost of college, courtesy of their hometown school system. That's something parents can be happy about as taxpayers.
But I believe colleges should take an extra step, as Southern New Hampshire University has done--redesign degree programs around competencies such as business communication, leadership and problem solving rather than seat hours in classrooms.
The total cost for completing the Southern New Hampshire three-year business honors degree program is between $120,000 and $130,000. That's about the same that any state university will charge an out-of-state student for a four-year degree. And the extra year of income from a full-time job might make it a better value.
Book Review--Overhaul: An Insider's Account of the Obama Administration's Emergency Rescue of the Auto Industry by Steven Rattner
Last week I cited an article from Hemmings Classic Car about the importance of a strong automobile industry for jobs in this country. This week I'll review an insider's report on the most recent "bailout" of Chrysler and General Motors.
Steven Rattner, author of Overhaul, is a former New York Times reporter who went on to investment banking and head his own firm, the Quadrangle Group. As President Obama's first point-person on the bailout, Rattner had not only his banking experience; as a reporter he had also covered former President Carter's administration during the 1979 Chrysler bailout. Having been a reporter Rattner writes better than a typical business insider. This is not a ghost-written book.
Some of Rattner's accounts of the talks with both automakers as well as key players in Congress had already been reported in the media. For instance, he devotes considerable attention to GM management and its culture of denial, explaining how the company underestimated its cash position and the likelihood of bankruptcy while overestimating sales potential.
The more interesting, and less reported, portions of Overhauldeal with the formation of "shiny new GM," essentially the reorganized company and its productive assets that is owned by the federal government, the UAW's health care trust, the Canadian government and some bondholders. "Old GM," since renamed Liquidation Motors Corporation holds the liabilities as well as assets to be sold, some of which may be unmarketable. Chrysler is under the leadership of Fiat, so changes will depend on products the Italian manufacturer will sell in the U.S. in another two years.
Essentially, the reorganization engineered by Rattner and his team gives GM a mulligan, a do-over, a chance to start a new management culture and offer better products with a leaner company. But even Rattner admits in the book that the taxpayers may get some, but not all, of their investment back through a public offering. One reason is that the break-even scenario, which once presumed an auto industry that sold as many as 17 million cars through rebates and easy credit, is more like ten to twelve million sales in the future.
Rattner also exposed an interesting hypocrisy among members of Congress, citing three: Senator John Corker (R. TN) and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R. Texas) who were not advocates of a bailout, yet aggressively came to defense of car dealers who were slated to close. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D. MD) also came to the assistance of dealers, one that proved to have only a marginal Chrysler franchise. Corker had emerged as a Republican workhorse--Rattner's term. He had set conditions including cost parity (product costs had to be similar to foreign brands) and labor give-backs that Rattner's team exceeded during their work with the two auto companies. The bailout turned out to be a bi-partisan measure, though the most ardent conservatives opposed it.
Rattner's account shows that the restructuring of Chrysler and GM was not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem, but a business problem. Chrysler alone could have failed, though the Jeep brand could live on in another automobile company's portfolio.
However, the country could not have sustained the loss of Chrysler and GM together. Those who use the bailout to explain the "incompetence" of the current and previous presidential administrations have no idea what they are talking about.
The team that directed the restructuring arrived and left after their job was done.
There is no such thing as "Government Motors" or "Obama Motors." The Rattner team did not nationalize an industry or create a new government agency. But they've given more than three quarters of a million private sector workers a fighting chance to keep their jobs.
Don't ask me what a McCain Administration would have done differently. I haven't the faintest idea.
Monday, September 27, 2010
It takes a legion of heroes to save a school system
Last week Facebook chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg announced that he will donate $100 million to help Newark's public school system. Zuckerberg's announcement made on Friday's Oprah Winfrey Show comes before the national debut of two movies: The Social Network, a supposedly unflattering portrait of his company and Waiting for Superman, a education documentary directed by David Guggenheim.
But don't call Zuckerberg a hero just yet. There needs to be constructive agreement as to how this money will be spent. All that is known so far is that it will be spent on "district schools and charter schools," but not on private and parochial school vouchers. Now that the Newark school system has this infusion of cash, failure is no longer an option. Failure here means cynicism spreads everywhere.
Newark has more than cynics give it credit for. For nearly thirty years the city has had a very strong civic architecture. It is not a stranger to business-government partnerships, nor partnerships between businesses, non-profits and the schools. I worked in the city's economic development community for eight years and I saw no shortage of bright people with good ideas. I also saw no shortage of equally bright, or at least politically savvy people to challenge them.
I started working in Newark in 1984. That year the Newark Collaboration Group was founded by Alex Plinio, a Prudential vice president. He brought neighborhood organizations, business interests, government, foundations and the university community together to try to solve mutual city problems. If the Collaboration did nothing else, it got these interests to communicate with each other in open forums. The same approach will be needed in the management of a $100 million gift.
The Newark public schools have been under the direction of state government for fifteen years. While Governor Chris Christie, a Newark native, does not want to run public school systems from Trenton, he is not yet prepared to relinquish control of this one. There will need to be someone--maybe this person is the "super one," who has the trust of the governor and the mayor--to manage the Zuckerberg gift and best use it to restore Newark's independence from the state.
What will the super one need to do?
+ Get an honest picture of the true financial condition of the public school system.
+ Hire a new superintendent; the current one has already been informed that his contract will not be renewed. I do not recommend hiring Michele Rhee away from Washington D.C. Her approach to teacher performance has angered parents as well as the teacher's union. It probably cost a mayor his job. Cory Booker has alluded to wanting to run for a third term; he should not push for someone like Rhee who might upstage him.
+ Set up a fund to assure a bonus or merit pay plan over at least one generation. The major problem with merit pay is not the concept; its the uncertainty of revenue to pay raises.
+ Establish a charter school authorization board. In order to accept federal Race to the Top funds, New Jersey would have needed to agree to have no caps on the number of charter schools statewide. Governor Christie sought to have Rutgers educators become the authorization board, one that would be independent from state government. I don't believe that is feasible; it places too much burden and possibly liability on the state university. However, Newark has the civic architecture--educators, foundation leaders, employers--to have a reliable independent board.
+ Select target projects. These will need to be based on demographics as much as need for improvement. Stabilizing neighborhoods, Vailsburg or the Ironbound being two examples, with poor-performing public schools should be given priority for reorganized schools.
+ Ideally, find target projects that will attract matching funds. The $100 million will only go so far.
But don't call Zuckerberg a hero just yet. There needs to be constructive agreement as to how this money will be spent. All that is known so far is that it will be spent on "district schools and charter schools," but not on private and parochial school vouchers. Now that the Newark school system has this infusion of cash, failure is no longer an option. Failure here means cynicism spreads everywhere.
Newark has more than cynics give it credit for. For nearly thirty years the city has had a very strong civic architecture. It is not a stranger to business-government partnerships, nor partnerships between businesses, non-profits and the schools. I worked in the city's economic development community for eight years and I saw no shortage of bright people with good ideas. I also saw no shortage of equally bright, or at least politically savvy people to challenge them.
I started working in Newark in 1984. That year the Newark Collaboration Group was founded by Alex Plinio, a Prudential vice president. He brought neighborhood organizations, business interests, government, foundations and the university community together to try to solve mutual city problems. If the Collaboration did nothing else, it got these interests to communicate with each other in open forums. The same approach will be needed in the management of a $100 million gift.
The Newark public schools have been under the direction of state government for fifteen years. While Governor Chris Christie, a Newark native, does not want to run public school systems from Trenton, he is not yet prepared to relinquish control of this one. There will need to be someone--maybe this person is the "super one," who has the trust of the governor and the mayor--to manage the Zuckerberg gift and best use it to restore Newark's independence from the state.
What will the super one need to do?
+ Get an honest picture of the true financial condition of the public school system.
+ Hire a new superintendent; the current one has already been informed that his contract will not be renewed. I do not recommend hiring Michele Rhee away from Washington D.C. Her approach to teacher performance has angered parents as well as the teacher's union. It probably cost a mayor his job. Cory Booker has alluded to wanting to run for a third term; he should not push for someone like Rhee who might upstage him.
+ Set up a fund to assure a bonus or merit pay plan over at least one generation. The major problem with merit pay is not the concept; its the uncertainty of revenue to pay raises.
+ Establish a charter school authorization board. In order to accept federal Race to the Top funds, New Jersey would have needed to agree to have no caps on the number of charter schools statewide. Governor Christie sought to have Rutgers educators become the authorization board, one that would be independent from state government. I don't believe that is feasible; it places too much burden and possibly liability on the state university. However, Newark has the civic architecture--educators, foundation leaders, employers--to have a reliable independent board.
+ Select target projects. These will need to be based on demographics as much as need for improvement. Stabilizing neighborhoods, Vailsburg or the Ironbound being two examples, with poor-performing public schools should be given priority for reorganized schools.
+ Ideally, find target projects that will attract matching funds. The $100 million will only go so far.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Book Review--Remember Why You Play by David Thomas
Like Buzz Bissinger's Friday Night Lights, Remember Why You Play is a story about Texas high school football. That's probably where the similarities end.
Set in a very different venue, Remember Why You Play is the story of Kris Hogan, head football coach at a Dallas-Fort Worth area Christian school. Hogan's school, Faith Christian, plays in a small school conference with other private and parochial schools, with one exception. For the previous two seasons, they have played Gainesville State School, a maximum security correctional facility, on their home field. Gainesville State has no home field to call its own.
If you saw the movie Gridiron Gang, starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, you saw the story from the side of the correctional facility. There, as in this book, football is a privilege; only the best students with no disciplinary problems can play. This is the opposite for the public school or Faith Christian; there you need to earn only passable grades. At the public school, such as Permean, the one covered in Lights passable discipline may not always be necessary either.
In Why You Play you see that Coach Hogan takes faith and sportsmanship very seriously. Players on opposing teams communicate online with each other in a respectable manner; that is not the case with most high school football programs. Hogan's team slogan is "Sold Out," meaning the players go all out at everything, not only football, but school as well.
This story shows that Hogan had little reluctance at playing Gainesville State, although the game meant little with respect to Faith Christian's playoff position. And he understood that the visitors would not have a fan base. So he gave them one.
In the first season Gainesville State played Faith Christian, the home team filled the visiting stands with "partisan" fans and constructed a 40 foot spirit line of paper and people. They treated this visiting team like any visitor who had brought their own busloads of fans. The spirit line grew to 150 feet for the following season.
Hogan's team won both games, and his back-up players played most of the time. But the wins were less important to him than showing respect for the opposition. In turn, none of the players who played in the first game who finished school returned to the Texas state correctional system.
While not an expose of a town, a school and a team, Remember Why You Play is a very moving story. It shows that being a good coach sometimes goes beyond winning the games.
Watch out for those pesky student fees
Yesterday USA Today ran an interesting story about how colleges often raise student fees instead of tuition to cover the costs of college athletics, sometimes with little transparency.
The article had two examples of schools that charged athletics fees, Towson University (MD) and San Diego State University (CA). Both of these schools separated athletics fees from mandatory campus fees. Towson's fee of $767 seems excessive considering that the school has fewer football scholarships and lower coaching salaries than a Bowl Championship Series program like the nearby University of Maryland.
I took a look at three other schools to see how they handled tuition and fees. I chose the University of Alabama and the University of Texas-Austin because they played for the national championship last season, and I chose Rutgers-New Brunswick because I went to school there. Not every school defines tuition and fees the same.
Texas charges in-state undergraduates between $9,000 and $10,400 for tuition. This is a "flat rate," including everything except the Longhorn Sports Package, which is optional. The university also charges school fees for services unique to a student's school and course fees, for example, for labs and computers.
The Longhorn Sports Package, however, only allows you the privilege of buying football and men's basketball season tickets. The package is $80 for the year. Football season tickets are an additional $70, basketball tickets are $75.
Alabama charges $7,900 for in-state tuition. The university lists no athletics fee. There is a college and course fee of $700 per year as well as a $600 fee for Dining Dollars, a card-based meal program good at student centers, vending machines and select off-campus restaurants. Total bill, excluding sports and entertainment, $9,200. But fees raised the cost of going to Alabama by almost twenty percent. And that's before you pay for football tickets.
Rutgers is more expensive than either school. In-state tuition ranges from $10,000 to $11,200 while a campus fee of $1,127 is also charged to resident students for athletics, health care and student entertainment programs, among other things.
This fee and assorted others raise the price of going to Rutgers by more than ten percent. Football season tickets are optional, though the charge averages only $11 per game, including admission and transportation to the Army game at the Meadowlands. That's 25 percent less than I pay to go to two games. And students have access to a limited number of single game tickets for free.
If I were a parent would I rather see more transparency? Yes, but there's little I could do about most of these fees, especially when they cover health insurance, the computer lab or the library. I went to the football games as a student, so I don't mind paying for the tickets.
But even if I didn't watch football, I'd take advantage of other activities. The football players, through their scholarships, should also support the band, the cheerleaders, the school paper and so on. The best thing to do about these fees is plan for them and not gripe about them.
The article had two examples of schools that charged athletics fees, Towson University (MD) and San Diego State University (CA). Both of these schools separated athletics fees from mandatory campus fees. Towson's fee of $767 seems excessive considering that the school has fewer football scholarships and lower coaching salaries than a Bowl Championship Series program like the nearby University of Maryland.
I took a look at three other schools to see how they handled tuition and fees. I chose the University of Alabama and the University of Texas-Austin because they played for the national championship last season, and I chose Rutgers-New Brunswick because I went to school there. Not every school defines tuition and fees the same.
Texas charges in-state undergraduates between $9,000 and $10,400 for tuition. This is a "flat rate," including everything except the Longhorn Sports Package, which is optional. The university also charges school fees for services unique to a student's school and course fees, for example, for labs and computers.
The Longhorn Sports Package, however, only allows you the privilege of buying football and men's basketball season tickets. The package is $80 for the year. Football season tickets are an additional $70, basketball tickets are $75.
Alabama charges $7,900 for in-state tuition. The university lists no athletics fee. There is a college and course fee of $700 per year as well as a $600 fee for Dining Dollars, a card-based meal program good at student centers, vending machines and select off-campus restaurants. Total bill, excluding sports and entertainment, $9,200. But fees raised the cost of going to Alabama by almost twenty percent. And that's before you pay for football tickets.
Rutgers is more expensive than either school. In-state tuition ranges from $10,000 to $11,200 while a campus fee of $1,127 is also charged to resident students for athletics, health care and student entertainment programs, among other things.
This fee and assorted others raise the price of going to Rutgers by more than ten percent. Football season tickets are optional, though the charge averages only $11 per game, including admission and transportation to the Army game at the Meadowlands. That's 25 percent less than I pay to go to two games. And students have access to a limited number of single game tickets for free.
If I were a parent would I rather see more transparency? Yes, but there's little I could do about most of these fees, especially when they cover health insurance, the computer lab or the library. I went to the football games as a student, so I don't mind paying for the tickets.
But even if I didn't watch football, I'd take advantage of other activities. The football players, through their scholarships, should also support the band, the cheerleaders, the school paper and so on. The best thing to do about these fees is plan for them and not gripe about them.
A car is the sum of many parts from many industries
I've mentioned in previous posts that I have been interested in cars since I was very little and that I am sort of an automotive historian.
Yesterday I got my November issue of Hemmings Classic Car. A Vermont-based publisher of books, price guides and magazines, Hemmings is considered a trusted source among classic car enthusiasts.
Usually the cover story of the classic car magazine is a car. This month's cover story features a car, too, but the focus is on the assembly line circa the 1950's. The title of the cover story: Building America, The History of the Automobile and How It Made America Great.
Written by editor-in-chief Richard Lentinello, this story is not so much about the history of makes and models, but about all of the industries that have depending on the success of the automobile industry for their success.
Some of these industries are quite obvious, but the list should cause pause, in case you have any thoughts that Presidents Bush and Obama, as well as the U.S. Congress, should have allowed Chrysler and General Motors to fail.
It was fitting that the magazine had a cover from the Fifties. Cars became more popular--two car families became less uncommon--and many travel and suburban-oriented retail businesses owe their existence to the automobile. America became a more mobile, and therefore a more free society. Then there were many industries that had fat years starting then:
+ Oil and gas, of course. Though the oil industry is still prosperous
+ Rubber. For every new car not built, four or five less tires are sold. Then there are all of those seals to keep passengers, belongings and the engine compartment warm, and the engine and transmission working smoothly.
+ Textiles. Fabric and fiber industry stock prices rise when more new cars are ordered. Cars have insulation just like homes do. Leather seats, once exclusively for the rich, can be found in economy cars today.
+ Steel and aluminum. If you've ever been in an automobile assembly line, you know that the process starts with forming steel and other alloys into art and parts.
+ Paper products. Cars are sold through brochures and billboards, and they are supported with owners manuals.
+ Electronics. This may be the industry where you've seen the greatest advances in supporting the automobile. Electric cars were more readily available near the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century than they are today. However, most new cars have highly advanced audio systems as well as electric power steering, among other things. And the electronic products that we have taken for granted in cars, such as batteries, have become lighter while becoming more reliable.
+ Transportation. When fewer people buy cars the truckers and train engineers who pull car carriers are less busy.
+ Financial services. Fewer new car sales mean fewer new car loans.
Is it possible that the capacity, in terms of numbers of cars, could have been picked up by other manufacturers? From 2008 through now I'd say no. In a weak economy people would put off such an expensive and important purchase for as long as they could.
But allowing Chrysler and GM to fail would have doomed many other industry sectors. The remaining manufacturers already had their trusted suppliers in place. It would have also compromised foreign relations since these companies employ people from other countries and sell their products around the world.
I'd guess that the people who would have preferred that these companies fail would have preferred to see bondholders and investment firms made happy than thousands more put out of work. I'm glad that there were people who saw that most of those thousands did not work for a car company. The economy and our personal freedom will be better off in the long run.
Yesterday I got my November issue of Hemmings Classic Car. A Vermont-based publisher of books, price guides and magazines, Hemmings is considered a trusted source among classic car enthusiasts.
Usually the cover story of the classic car magazine is a car. This month's cover story features a car, too, but the focus is on the assembly line circa the 1950's. The title of the cover story: Building America, The History of the Automobile and How It Made America Great.
Written by editor-in-chief Richard Lentinello, this story is not so much about the history of makes and models, but about all of the industries that have depending on the success of the automobile industry for their success.
Some of these industries are quite obvious, but the list should cause pause, in case you have any thoughts that Presidents Bush and Obama, as well as the U.S. Congress, should have allowed Chrysler and General Motors to fail.
It was fitting that the magazine had a cover from the Fifties. Cars became more popular--two car families became less uncommon--and many travel and suburban-oriented retail businesses owe their existence to the automobile. America became a more mobile, and therefore a more free society. Then there were many industries that had fat years starting then:
+ Oil and gas, of course. Though the oil industry is still prosperous
+ Rubber. For every new car not built, four or five less tires are sold. Then there are all of those seals to keep passengers, belongings and the engine compartment warm, and the engine and transmission working smoothly.
+ Textiles. Fabric and fiber industry stock prices rise when more new cars are ordered. Cars have insulation just like homes do. Leather seats, once exclusively for the rich, can be found in economy cars today.
+ Steel and aluminum. If you've ever been in an automobile assembly line, you know that the process starts with forming steel and other alloys into art and parts.
+ Paper products. Cars are sold through brochures and billboards, and they are supported with owners manuals.
+ Electronics. This may be the industry where you've seen the greatest advances in supporting the automobile. Electric cars were more readily available near the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century than they are today. However, most new cars have highly advanced audio systems as well as electric power steering, among other things. And the electronic products that we have taken for granted in cars, such as batteries, have become lighter while becoming more reliable.
+ Transportation. When fewer people buy cars the truckers and train engineers who pull car carriers are less busy.
+ Financial services. Fewer new car sales mean fewer new car loans.
Is it possible that the capacity, in terms of numbers of cars, could have been picked up by other manufacturers? From 2008 through now I'd say no. In a weak economy people would put off such an expensive and important purchase for as long as they could.
But allowing Chrysler and GM to fail would have doomed many other industry sectors. The remaining manufacturers already had their trusted suppliers in place. It would have also compromised foreign relations since these companies employ people from other countries and sell their products around the world.
I'd guess that the people who would have preferred that these companies fail would have preferred to see bondholders and investment firms made happy than thousands more put out of work. I'm glad that there were people who saw that most of those thousands did not work for a car company. The economy and our personal freedom will be better off in the long run.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Book Review--Big Citizenship: How Pragmatic Idealism Can Bring Out the Best in America by Alan Khazei
There have been many books about and by social entrepreneurs, though few like Alan Khazei try to take the next step and run for the U.S. Senate. Co-founder of City Year, one of the longest running non-profit community organizations in the U.S., Khazei sought the Democratic nomination to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. He received only six percent of the vote.
But after reading this book, I wondered about two things. One, why didn't Khazei write it sooner, to help his prospects, and two, how he would have fared in the special election had he won his party's nomination. While I do not know if he would have won--the support for the Republican would have still been there--I think Khazei would have made it a closer and more interesting race.
A graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School, Khazei, like President Obama, passed on offers to work in corporate law and chose to work in community organizing. However, unlike Obama, who moved to Chicago, Khazei leveraged his network at Harvard to find housing, student volunteers and academic and professional contacts. He also got the ear of Senator Edward Kennedy.
As he built City Year from a small set of projects in Boston, Khazei learned what it was like to work with the corporate philanthropy community, where the most established players operate like venture capital firms or political campaign committees; if you raise this much money from anyone else, we'll chip it, too.
Khazei's fund raising story is similar to Michelle Kopps work to build Teach for America from an undergraduate thesis project. In Khazei's case, his most prominent support is Jeffrey Swartz, CEO of Timberland. City Year, in turn, is an important part of the footwear maker's cause-related marketing.
In this book, you also see how a social entrepreneur builds bi-partisan consensus to keep his organization afloat. Khazei led a well-organized lobbying effort, where Democrats and Republicans testified before Congressional committees to convince lawmakers to support AmeriCorps, a public-private partnership established by former president Bill Clinton, continually funded through the eight years of the Bush Administration. Bi-partisan support is essential; it has also kept Teach for America and Reading is Fundamental, among other efforts, federally funded for years.
Khazei also discussed the idea of compulsory national service, either through the military or programs such as City Year, AmeriCorps, Vista and the Peace Corps. I'm uncertain such a vision could succeed in these times. While there is considerable interest in public service among Millenials, and military recruiting improves in bad economic conditions, these programs attract people because they are voluntary, and not compulsory, and organizational leadership must work harder to retain them. The leadership is less effective when it must take followers who are forced upon them. This is one line of reasoning for, to give one example, the lack of support for a military draft among more hawkish politicians.
This is a very appropriate and useful book for a student interested in public and non-profit management or an executive who is considering a role in serving others. It may energize some to follow in Alan Khazei's footsteps, though it may also intimidate people who might feel more comfortable staying on one side of a political aisle.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Book Review: Two Tea Party Tales
I've been trying to learn more about the Tea Party outside of the news coverage. So I picked up two books, neither of which was written by a candidate or activist.
The first, Mad as Hell. How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking our Two-Party System, is by two pollsters, Scott Rasmussen and Douglas Schoen. Rasmussen is better know as an independent while Schoen is a moderate Democrat. Their study has drawn some interesting conclusions, for example:
+ Approximately forty percent of Tea Party members are college educated, more than the U.S. population as a whole.
+ Approximately seventy five percent describe themselves as conservative.
+ Approximately one-third of those who voted in the 2008 presidential election voted for Barack Obama over John McCain.
+ Tea Party members are as disenchanted with George W. Bush's record on government spending as they are with Obama's.
+ If a Tea Party candidate were to run for president on a third-party ticket, their candidate would come in second to Obama, but ahead of the Republican candidate.
The pollsters confirm that Tea Party members have become activists as a result of dissatisfaction with politicians of both parties, but more so the Republicans who voted for government-funded bailouts. They believe that the establishment Republicans are too tied to large business interests to give people a voice in governing. Their answers: smaller government, isolationism (no 'nation building'), lower taxes, and less government regulation (though they might possibly want to see tougher standards imposed on Wall Street and the banking community).
The pollsters also go to the effort to say that the vast majority of Tea Party activists are not far-right extremists or anti-Semites. However, they accepted Rush Limbaugh's endorsement of their book. They also discuss dissatisfaction from the Left, though left-wing political movements are weaker and far less organized.
The Backlash, Right Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama was written by Will Bunch, a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News. Bunch goes on tour not only to meet Tea Partiers, but also to expose some of their voices, including Glenn Beck.
In The Backlash, Beck is essentially described as a non-intellectual--he has no college degree--media opportunist with questionable sponsors including corporations such as Carbonite, Goldline and LifeLock that are regular radio advertisers. But Beck was, through Bunch's writing, considered the primary voice of the movement.
There are other voices Bunch mentions, too, though they are less recognizable than Beck or Sarah Palin, who is also mentioned in this book. Paul Broun (R. GA), one of the most conservative members of Congress is described as so extreme that people who live in his district contact other members of the House for constituent services. There are also organizations that run the gamut from 'patriotism' to rumor-mongering about gun rights and concentration camps.
Whatever your opinion about the Tea Party, a movement that has defeated Republican Senate incumbents and once-likely successors with impressive political resumes and stands to win at least one governorship (South Carolina) has to be studied seriously. Reading these books showed me not only the reasons there is a Tea Party, but also the contradictions.
I still wonder why a movement that is as much anti-corporate as it is anti-government wants government to take such a laissez faire approach to regulatory policy and supports tax cuts for the very business leaders who are a focus of its anger.
I realize that Tea Party activists say that they want constitutional government, or a return to periods when government cut back and spent less--the Clinton presidency. However, Americans, regardless of their politics, also want government to protect them from the people and institutions that hurt them.
The first, Mad as Hell. How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking our Two-Party System, is by two pollsters, Scott Rasmussen and Douglas Schoen. Rasmussen is better know as an independent while Schoen is a moderate Democrat. Their study has drawn some interesting conclusions, for example:
+ Approximately forty percent of Tea Party members are college educated, more than the U.S. population as a whole.
+ Approximately seventy five percent describe themselves as conservative.
+ Approximately one-third of those who voted in the 2008 presidential election voted for Barack Obama over John McCain.
+ Tea Party members are as disenchanted with George W. Bush's record on government spending as they are with Obama's.
+ If a Tea Party candidate were to run for president on a third-party ticket, their candidate would come in second to Obama, but ahead of the Republican candidate.
The pollsters confirm that Tea Party members have become activists as a result of dissatisfaction with politicians of both parties, but more so the Republicans who voted for government-funded bailouts. They believe that the establishment Republicans are too tied to large business interests to give people a voice in governing. Their answers: smaller government, isolationism (no 'nation building'), lower taxes, and less government regulation (though they might possibly want to see tougher standards imposed on Wall Street and the banking community).
The pollsters also go to the effort to say that the vast majority of Tea Party activists are not far-right extremists or anti-Semites. However, they accepted Rush Limbaugh's endorsement of their book. They also discuss dissatisfaction from the Left, though left-wing political movements are weaker and far less organized.
The Backlash, Right Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama was written by Will Bunch, a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News. Bunch goes on tour not only to meet Tea Partiers, but also to expose some of their voices, including Glenn Beck.
In The Backlash, Beck is essentially described as a non-intellectual--he has no college degree--media opportunist with questionable sponsors including corporations such as Carbonite, Goldline and LifeLock that are regular radio advertisers. But Beck was, through Bunch's writing, considered the primary voice of the movement.
There are other voices Bunch mentions, too, though they are less recognizable than Beck or Sarah Palin, who is also mentioned in this book. Paul Broun (R. GA), one of the most conservative members of Congress is described as so extreme that people who live in his district contact other members of the House for constituent services. There are also organizations that run the gamut from 'patriotism' to rumor-mongering about gun rights and concentration camps.
Whatever your opinion about the Tea Party, a movement that has defeated Republican Senate incumbents and once-likely successors with impressive political resumes and stands to win at least one governorship (South Carolina) has to be studied seriously. Reading these books showed me not only the reasons there is a Tea Party, but also the contradictions.
I still wonder why a movement that is as much anti-corporate as it is anti-government wants government to take such a laissez faire approach to regulatory policy and supports tax cuts for the very business leaders who are a focus of its anger.
I realize that Tea Party activists say that they want constitutional government, or a return to periods when government cut back and spent less--the Clinton presidency. However, Americans, regardless of their politics, also want government to protect them from the people and institutions that hurt them.
Penn State's largest donation ever-- goes to hockey?
Today I'm reading a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education that a Penn State alumnus and his wife have donated $88 million to fund a hockey arena and advance the sport from club to varsity status. Penn State will be the sixth university in the Big 10/11--and whatever they'll be after Nebraska comes in--to have a varsity hockey team.
I've been to Penn State several times. It's a great academic school and a great sports school. The Wall Street Journal ranked the university tops in a survey of corporate recruiters. The university has one of the most modern and best funded career centers. But some eyebrows may rise; donate millions for a hockey team?
Personally, I believe donors have every right to do what they want with their money. It's up to the university administration to decide whether they want to accept or refuse it. Especially if the gift could be self-sustaining or revenue generating.
Penn State is a very special sports school. The athletic department and donors have established endowments for individual positions on the football team as well as other sports. This money goes to pay the university for the scholarships for the best players at those positions. Penn State had not only produced two national champions in football; it's fencing, gymnastics and woman's volleyball teams are even more dominant.
What would a hockey program mean for Penn State, besides another source of scholarships for hockey players? For one thing, it would give the community a winter sport to rally around. While the woman's basketball program has been steadily rebuilding, the men's team has been less than a powerhouse in a conference that has historically had very good basketball teams.
My hunch is that once Penn State starts to win at hockey, and beat the better teams such as Wisconsin and Minnesota, they will draw more than respectable crowds. And as they gather crowds and victories, the fans will spend more money in the campus community. And they'll appreciate the gift of a modern arena for sure.
I've been to Penn State several times. It's a great academic school and a great sports school. The Wall Street Journal ranked the university tops in a survey of corporate recruiters. The university has one of the most modern and best funded career centers. But some eyebrows may rise; donate millions for a hockey team?
Personally, I believe donors have every right to do what they want with their money. It's up to the university administration to decide whether they want to accept or refuse it. Especially if the gift could be self-sustaining or revenue generating.
Penn State is a very special sports school. The athletic department and donors have established endowments for individual positions on the football team as well as other sports. This money goes to pay the university for the scholarships for the best players at those positions. Penn State had not only produced two national champions in football; it's fencing, gymnastics and woman's volleyball teams are even more dominant.
What would a hockey program mean for Penn State, besides another source of scholarships for hockey players? For one thing, it would give the community a winter sport to rally around. While the woman's basketball program has been steadily rebuilding, the men's team has been less than a powerhouse in a conference that has historically had very good basketball teams.
My hunch is that once Penn State starts to win at hockey, and beat the better teams such as Wisconsin and Minnesota, they will draw more than respectable crowds. And as they gather crowds and victories, the fans will spend more money in the campus community. And they'll appreciate the gift of a modern arena for sure.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Columbia University invites another dictator to campus
I've written past posts about Columbia University's past invitation to Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus and the university president's requests to the controversial leader.
Now the university plans to invite another dictator, Meles Zenawi, prime minister of Ethiopia, to speak.
I'm surprised that Columbia continues to take the risks of accommodating such speakers on campus. The defense uses is education and free speech, but that includes the freedom for the audience, too. It's one thing if the U.N. protects a high profile dictator from public protest; the General Assembly and the Security Council are global forums. It's another to ask the city of New York and a university to do the same thing, plus keep the more determined protesters away.
When Ahmadinejad came to Columbia, the university's president made specific requests of him. Some were parochial; for example, to release a professor so that he could accept a faculty appointment. But others, such as to ask if Iran supports terrorist organizations have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, a venue where a college president should not tread.
My suggestion is this: if Columbia students want to hear such controversial leaders, whose views may be hostile to American values, then arrange these programs via the Internet. Let the speaker speak from their home country. The home crowd reaction would be almost as interesting to watch as the speech. Columbia's community would get a glimpse of how much or how little the home country values their leader, as well as how much the leader truly values the people he serves.
Not to mention Columbia could save a few bucks on security.
Now the university plans to invite another dictator, Meles Zenawi, prime minister of Ethiopia, to speak.
I'm surprised that Columbia continues to take the risks of accommodating such speakers on campus. The defense uses is education and free speech, but that includes the freedom for the audience, too. It's one thing if the U.N. protects a high profile dictator from public protest; the General Assembly and the Security Council are global forums. It's another to ask the city of New York and a university to do the same thing, plus keep the more determined protesters away.
When Ahmadinejad came to Columbia, the university's president made specific requests of him. Some were parochial; for example, to release a professor so that he could accept a faculty appointment. But others, such as to ask if Iran supports terrorist organizations have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, a venue where a college president should not tread.
My suggestion is this: if Columbia students want to hear such controversial leaders, whose views may be hostile to American values, then arrange these programs via the Internet. Let the speaker speak from their home country. The home crowd reaction would be almost as interesting to watch as the speech. Columbia's community would get a glimpse of how much or how little the home country values their leader, as well as how much the leader truly values the people he serves.
Not to mention Columbia could save a few bucks on security.
At Montville (NJ) High School 'pay to play' takes on different meaning
Today I read a set of stories about a $100 activities fee that is to be assessed on Montville (NJ) High School students no matter if they play sports or participate in other extracurricular activities such as music, debate or drama. I'm a little familiar with this school. Montville had one of the best speech and debate programs in the state when I was in high school more than thirty years ago.
The comments shock me more than the story. "Why should I pay for another family's kids to participate?" is the refrain. That makes me sick. These activities are as much of an educational experience as the learning that goes on in the classroom. In addition, the parents of the students who participate in an activity already pay extra to support their children in that activity. There are sports parents, band parents, debate parents and so on.
And besides, if someone is not good at one activity, they may be very good at another. That's why high schools have many clubs. And these activities help students pursue interests and develop credentials for college or employment.
During my freshman year in high school, I actually made the embarrassing mistake of going out for basketball. I was cut as soon as cuts could be made. Fair enough, I should get out of the way for the better players.
But I would have never thought of preventing the other players from playing. Neither would my parents. I like to think that's how I would feel if I had children. But the comments I read here make me scratch my head.
The comments shock me more than the story. "Why should I pay for another family's kids to participate?" is the refrain. That makes me sick. These activities are as much of an educational experience as the learning that goes on in the classroom. In addition, the parents of the students who participate in an activity already pay extra to support their children in that activity. There are sports parents, band parents, debate parents and so on.
And besides, if someone is not good at one activity, they may be very good at another. That's why high schools have many clubs. And these activities help students pursue interests and develop credentials for college or employment.
During my freshman year in high school, I actually made the embarrassing mistake of going out for basketball. I was cut as soon as cuts could be made. Fair enough, I should get out of the way for the better players.
But I would have never thought of preventing the other players from playing. Neither would my parents. I like to think that's how I would feel if I had children. But the comments I read here make me scratch my head.
Southwestern College (CA) tries to suppress free press
I haven't posted anything about freedom of the student press for a while. Well, today's the day. This story in the Chronicle of Higher Education, as well as an accompanying piece in the online edition of the Southwestern College Sun, is worth sharing.
The college's administration has suspended the print edition of the paper around the time of the election of the college's trustees. The online edition was allowed to continue. The school chose this moment to state that the paper had a purchasing problem; they need to have printing costs approved by the school. You'd think this would have been taken care of before school started.
There's a reason I linked to two stories. The Sun's online edition reported that one trustee has said that the student paper's coverage is overly negative and that she would like to see more positive coverage.
There's two sides to student press arguments.
One is that a student press wholly owned by the school is a vehicle for the school. It is not meant to be introspective or provide investigative news. For this reason, college dailies at larger schools are independent and funded by advertising and student fees, so that they may maintain independence from their institutions. It is also a good learning experience for prospective media moguls.
The other side is that a student press is a free press. If academics, who are paid by their school, have freedom to comment about the school's administration, without reprisal, then why not the students? One set of rules that apply to one should also apply to the other.
I take the latter view. If you operate a paper for serious news, then the editors and reporters have to take their responsibilities seriously. You cannot stop the presses because a handful of people, no matter how influential, do not like your coverage of a particular issue.
In this case, the school appears okay with the online coverage, but not the print? That's too strict. Readers should be free to pick and choose what they want to read. They should not deny another reader the same opportunity.
Maybe the Sun should cease to become a print paper and become an independent digital entity. Then the school saves money, the paper becomes less dependent on ads (they'd run one edition instead of two), and their reporters could add video clips of the trustees complaining about the coverage. Might as well take the leap to all-digital now. The real papers are doing it.
The college's administration has suspended the print edition of the paper around the time of the election of the college's trustees. The online edition was allowed to continue. The school chose this moment to state that the paper had a purchasing problem; they need to have printing costs approved by the school. You'd think this would have been taken care of before school started.
There's a reason I linked to two stories. The Sun's online edition reported that one trustee has said that the student paper's coverage is overly negative and that she would like to see more positive coverage.
There's two sides to student press arguments.
One is that a student press wholly owned by the school is a vehicle for the school. It is not meant to be introspective or provide investigative news. For this reason, college dailies at larger schools are independent and funded by advertising and student fees, so that they may maintain independence from their institutions. It is also a good learning experience for prospective media moguls.
The other side is that a student press is a free press. If academics, who are paid by their school, have freedom to comment about the school's administration, without reprisal, then why not the students? One set of rules that apply to one should also apply to the other.
I take the latter view. If you operate a paper for serious news, then the editors and reporters have to take their responsibilities seriously. You cannot stop the presses because a handful of people, no matter how influential, do not like your coverage of a particular issue.
In this case, the school appears okay with the online coverage, but not the print? That's too strict. Readers should be free to pick and choose what they want to read. They should not deny another reader the same opportunity.
Maybe the Sun should cease to become a print paper and become an independent digital entity. Then the school saves money, the paper becomes less dependent on ads (they'd run one edition instead of two), and their reporters could add video clips of the trustees complaining about the coverage. Might as well take the leap to all-digital now. The real papers are doing it.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
School buses are not the best place for advertising
I just finished reading a story that the education committee in New Jersey's state assembly is considering a bill that will allow advertising on school buses used to bring K-12 students to public school.
Apparently, some legislators see this as a revenue opportunity. It's a dumb idea.
The story gives some good reasons why.
+ School buses are yellow so that they stand out for safety reasons.
The ads make them less visible. Besides,the buses have ads on them--the bus number or route name. You want your son or daughter to get on the right bus. This becomes harder if all of the buses have the same display ad spread along their flanks.
+ State legislators and/or state educators are put in the position of deciding what type of advertising is offensive, and what is not.
Given the state's fiscal crisis, the embarrassing loss in the national Race to the Top competition, and the usual pressures to improve the schools, don't these people have something better to do?
I'd love to read the first lawsuit brought by a district against whatever state authority received approval for blessing ads on buses. I'll bet it would happen within less than a year. States may have authority, but much of education politics is local.
Now I'll add some more good reasons why:
+ School buses have lights as well as extending stop signs that must stand out to passers-by, either vehicles or pedestrians. Allow ads on the buses and the signs do not stand out as easily as they do against a yellow background.
+ Districts will be placed in the position of advertising "favored products" to students. While it is probably not their intention to encourage students to eat a sugary cereal or buy high-fashion clothes, school administrators would be handing advertisers a golden opportunity. And, when it comes to more expensive products, like iPods or video games, not every kid's family can afford them.
+ The next step would be advertising inside the buses. Then advertisers have an even better opportunity. Let's say the typical bus route is fifteen minutes to half a hour. How many messages stay in an adult's mind longer than a bus or train advertisement? Answer: None, unless you're stuck in a crowded airport waiting area. Does anyone think that kids would not be similarly affected?
I'm all for schools selling ads of sports scoreboards and theater programs; adults attend those events, too, and they often make up the larger audience.
But advertisers should not get a shot at reaching to an elementary or middle school students during the school day, when their parents are unlikely to be around. This includes the bus ride to school.
Apparently, some legislators see this as a revenue opportunity. It's a dumb idea.
The story gives some good reasons why.
+ School buses are yellow so that they stand out for safety reasons.
The ads make them less visible. Besides,the buses have ads on them--the bus number or route name. You want your son or daughter to get on the right bus. This becomes harder if all of the buses have the same display ad spread along their flanks.
+ State legislators and/or state educators are put in the position of deciding what type of advertising is offensive, and what is not.
Given the state's fiscal crisis, the embarrassing loss in the national Race to the Top competition, and the usual pressures to improve the schools, don't these people have something better to do?
I'd love to read the first lawsuit brought by a district against whatever state authority received approval for blessing ads on buses. I'll bet it would happen within less than a year. States may have authority, but much of education politics is local.
Now I'll add some more good reasons why:
+ School buses have lights as well as extending stop signs that must stand out to passers-by, either vehicles or pedestrians. Allow ads on the buses and the signs do not stand out as easily as they do against a yellow background.
+ Districts will be placed in the position of advertising "favored products" to students. While it is probably not their intention to encourage students to eat a sugary cereal or buy high-fashion clothes, school administrators would be handing advertisers a golden opportunity. And, when it comes to more expensive products, like iPods or video games, not every kid's family can afford them.
+ The next step would be advertising inside the buses. Then advertisers have an even better opportunity. Let's say the typical bus route is fifteen minutes to half a hour. How many messages stay in an adult's mind longer than a bus or train advertisement? Answer: None, unless you're stuck in a crowded airport waiting area. Does anyone think that kids would not be similarly affected?
I'm all for schools selling ads of sports scoreboards and theater programs; adults attend those events, too, and they often make up the larger audience.
But advertisers should not get a shot at reaching to an elementary or middle school students during the school day, when their parents are unlikely to be around. This includes the bus ride to school.
A different kind of sex scandal at the U of New Mexico
I just read an amazing story in the Chronicle of Higher Education about a University of New Mexico English professor who has moonlighed as aphone-sex dominatrix "Mistress Jade," and posed in promotional pictures sexually dominating one of her own graduate students. The professor is still employed by the university.
Only comment I have is that sometimes true stories are better than fiction.
Only comment I have is that sometimes true stories are better than fiction.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Large schools more popular with large employers
Today I was referred to a Wall Street Journal story that ranks the top 25 schools according to the college recruiters who work for major employers.
A total of 479 recruiters completed the survey. These recruiters collectively recruited 43,000 hires. The ranking is based on the campuses mentioned most often.
Of the top 25 schools, nineteen were public, one was Ivy League (Cornell) and the rest were private (BYU, Notre Dame, MIT and Southern Cal). The top school? Penn State, which was mentioned by 187 recruiters. A school needed 60 mentions to be ranked.
Their ranking was based on two criteria: the bachelor degree graduates who were the best-trained and educated, and those best able to succeed once hired. The recruiters were also asked to rank schools by major.
It's no surprise that large state universities rank so highly. They offer the pre-professional majors. A recruiter is more likely to concentrate on a small number of campuses that will yield the most prospects, especially in majors such as computer science, engineering, finance and accounting.
The large schools also have the most students. Arizona State, the fifth ranked school, is the largest public university in country, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education 2010 Almanac, with nearly 58,000 students. Ohio State, the twelfth ranked school is the second largest; ninth ranked Florida is the third largest. The ranking will also favor schools near states or regions that are major employment centers. Recruiting budgets have been cut, so travel versus candidate quality and quantity becomes a greater issue.
Penn State, in particular, has also made a significant investment in their career development center, which was funded in large part by MBNA, the folks that were the market leaders in the college affinity credit card business. Penn State is also within a half day trip from the Keystone State's largest job markets, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, by either car or Amtrak. Penn State also invites students on its satellite campuses in Erie and Harrisburg, among other places, to participate in on-campus recruiting in State College.
I was surprised by a few items in this story:
+ Rutgers, my alma mater, ranked 21st as well as third for recruiting business and economics majors. The top 25 ranking doesn't surprise me as the number three in the major, mainly because Rutgers competes in the same backyard as Wharton and NYU.
+ Cornell, not Penn, is the top-ranked Ivy League school. Nothing against Cornell- my brother went there--but Penn has Wharton business school and is less geographically isolated.
+ NYU ranks in the top 20 in five majors, yet it was not listed as a top 25 school.
+ Washington State is in the top 25, while the University of Washington is not. Pullman is far more isolated than Seattle and Washington State has about 13,000 fewer students.
I know that academics and some education writers pine for the liberal arts, but stories like this, combined with the large enrollments at these schools, show that the public and pre-professional education is in very high demand. Students and their parents also realize that it offers the highest return on investment.
A total of 479 recruiters completed the survey. These recruiters collectively recruited 43,000 hires. The ranking is based on the campuses mentioned most often.
Of the top 25 schools, nineteen were public, one was Ivy League (Cornell) and the rest were private (BYU, Notre Dame, MIT and Southern Cal). The top school? Penn State, which was mentioned by 187 recruiters. A school needed 60 mentions to be ranked.
Their ranking was based on two criteria: the bachelor degree graduates who were the best-trained and educated, and those best able to succeed once hired. The recruiters were also asked to rank schools by major.
It's no surprise that large state universities rank so highly. They offer the pre-professional majors. A recruiter is more likely to concentrate on a small number of campuses that will yield the most prospects, especially in majors such as computer science, engineering, finance and accounting.
The large schools also have the most students. Arizona State, the fifth ranked school, is the largest public university in country, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education 2010 Almanac, with nearly 58,000 students. Ohio State, the twelfth ranked school is the second largest; ninth ranked Florida is the third largest. The ranking will also favor schools near states or regions that are major employment centers. Recruiting budgets have been cut, so travel versus candidate quality and quantity becomes a greater issue.
Penn State, in particular, has also made a significant investment in their career development center, which was funded in large part by MBNA, the folks that were the market leaders in the college affinity credit card business. Penn State is also within a half day trip from the Keystone State's largest job markets, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, by either car or Amtrak. Penn State also invites students on its satellite campuses in Erie and Harrisburg, among other places, to participate in on-campus recruiting in State College.
I was surprised by a few items in this story:
+ Rutgers, my alma mater, ranked 21st as well as third for recruiting business and economics majors. The top 25 ranking doesn't surprise me as the number three in the major, mainly because Rutgers competes in the same backyard as Wharton and NYU.
+ Cornell, not Penn, is the top-ranked Ivy League school. Nothing against Cornell- my brother went there--but Penn has Wharton business school and is less geographically isolated.
+ NYU ranks in the top 20 in five majors, yet it was not listed as a top 25 school.
+ Washington State is in the top 25, while the University of Washington is not. Pullman is far more isolated than Seattle and Washington State has about 13,000 fewer students.
I know that academics and some education writers pine for the liberal arts, but stories like this, combined with the large enrollments at these schools, show that the public and pre-professional education is in very high demand. Students and their parents also realize that it offers the highest return on investment.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Book Review: I'm Going to College--Not You! edited by Jennifer Delahunty
Life was simple when I was applying to college. I could go to my home state university or work to earn more to pay to go somewhere else. I took the easy pay plan and things turned out fine. But today, for extremely bright high school students, many of whom have transcripts laced with Advanced Placement courses, it is simply unacceptable not to try for the best private college you can get into. Admissions anxiety begat an industry of tutoring and admissions consultants.
One admissions dean, Jennifer Delahunty, who is also a writer and mother of two college-age students, has presented a collection of stories, fiction and non-fiction, on the lighter side of college admissions. Her authors are writers as well as admissions professionals, with one recent graduate thrown in.
I liked this book, and with some stories I laughed very hard. I am reminded that a serious life-making decision can be taken too seriously and that having to go to a third or fourth choice school is far from disastrous for students and parents alike. I'm also reminded that parents, who are around my age, shouldn't consider themselves total failures because their child didn't get into Amherst or Harvard.
As a result of the writing, this is one of the more useful admissions guides parents can buy. It doesn't bother to rate or rank any schools, but it keeps parents from worrying about silly things like that.
How should North Dakota spend its riches on education?
Living in New Jersey over the past few years, all I hear is bad news about our state's fiscal condition. But what if I lived in a state with a conservative Republican governor and legislature, as well as a budget surplus from mineral riches? Would higher education be treated any differently?
Maybe or maybe not, according to this story that appeared in yesterday's Chronicle of Higher Education.
The state of North Dakota is one of the few living in a period of fiscal sanity. Unlike New Jersey, where state government had to close an $11 billion deficit, the Roughrider State has a surplus of $550 million as well as $325 million in a fiscal stabilization fund that can be tapped in the unlikely event of a revenue shortfall.
The state's riches come from oil and gas revenues as well as agriculture. One leads to boom towns that could eventually go bust, the other is subject to events beyond its control such as weather and international economic conditions.
The surplus is nothing to sneeze at, but still the burn rate of cash goes faster is politicians and educators spend it without a plan. New Jersey was once a fiscally sound state, too, but excessive commitments to bond issues and pension funds got state government in trouble.
To their credit, North Dakotans are being careful, most of the time, according to this story. The story mentions that North Dakota State University spent $2 million to lure a Pfizer scientist to start a bio-pharmaceutical program program but that the former president also built an expensive house and had a lavish trip to Washington.
One idea might help the university stimulate new industry and economic development, the other was just plain foolish. At least the flagship schools are not trying to build ambitious football programs or hire the first million dollar college hockey coach.
The current governor, John Hoeven, a Republican, proposes that thirty percent of the state's oil and gas revenues be placed in a trust fund that could not be touched for years. Others propose ambitious research and development partnerships with private industry as well as free or discounted tuition for state residents.
All of these things sound good, but a state needs to look at its assets.
Free tuition sounds wonderful at first, but as California and New York have experience, it will not be sustainable forever. The only publicly supported schools that can continue to charge no tuition to all students are the military service academies. However, their enrollments do not increase. Enrollment at West Point has stayed around 4,400 since the 1960's, at Annapolis it is limited to 4,000, the number of students that can fit into Bancroft Hall, the only student residence.
Ambitious partnerships sound great, too, as long as they can capitalize on the resources that are already in the state. It will be very difficult for a state with less than 800,000 people and no major airport to compete in sectors where other states are well established.
I'm all for technology transfer, where you take good ideas from the faculty and agriculture, and set them up for export, but I'm less crazy about importing talent from other states to develop sectors the state does not already have. The competition to recruit expensive talent from other states and countries will only get more expensive.
However, If the state were to put more money into agricultural extension services and research or aviation, I would understand; the university already has an infrastructure to support them. Bio-pharmaceuticals I also understand; drugs have veterinary applications.
The trust fund makes some sense, but I'd need to read specifics. The University of Texas system and Texas A&M share a Permanent University Fund that injects cash into the endowments as well as projects of the individual schools. Its board of directors includes three members of the UT Board of Regents, the Chancellor of The University of Texas System, and five independent investment professionals. The regents are appointed by the governor, as is the chancellor. However, their terms of service can extend past those of the governor.
North Dakota's elected officials and educators would be wise to consider the Texas approach. It would provide the greatest long term return on investment and a team of financial experts who could assess the fiscal pluses and minuses of proposed public-private ventures. It also makes more sense to capitalize on the assets the state already has versus trying to compete to buy the ones they do not.
Maybe or maybe not, according to this story that appeared in yesterday's Chronicle of Higher Education.
The state of North Dakota is one of the few living in a period of fiscal sanity. Unlike New Jersey, where state government had to close an $11 billion deficit, the Roughrider State has a surplus of $550 million as well as $325 million in a fiscal stabilization fund that can be tapped in the unlikely event of a revenue shortfall.
The state's riches come from oil and gas revenues as well as agriculture. One leads to boom towns that could eventually go bust, the other is subject to events beyond its control such as weather and international economic conditions.
The surplus is nothing to sneeze at, but still the burn rate of cash goes faster is politicians and educators spend it without a plan. New Jersey was once a fiscally sound state, too, but excessive commitments to bond issues and pension funds got state government in trouble.
To their credit, North Dakotans are being careful, most of the time, according to this story. The story mentions that North Dakota State University spent $2 million to lure a Pfizer scientist to start a bio-pharmaceutical program program but that the former president also built an expensive house and had a lavish trip to Washington.
One idea might help the university stimulate new industry and economic development, the other was just plain foolish. At least the flagship schools are not trying to build ambitious football programs or hire the first million dollar college hockey coach.
The current governor, John Hoeven, a Republican, proposes that thirty percent of the state's oil and gas revenues be placed in a trust fund that could not be touched for years. Others propose ambitious research and development partnerships with private industry as well as free or discounted tuition for state residents.
All of these things sound good, but a state needs to look at its assets.
Free tuition sounds wonderful at first, but as California and New York have experience, it will not be sustainable forever. The only publicly supported schools that can continue to charge no tuition to all students are the military service academies. However, their enrollments do not increase. Enrollment at West Point has stayed around 4,400 since the 1960's, at Annapolis it is limited to 4,000, the number of students that can fit into Bancroft Hall, the only student residence.
Ambitious partnerships sound great, too, as long as they can capitalize on the resources that are already in the state. It will be very difficult for a state with less than 800,000 people and no major airport to compete in sectors where other states are well established.
I'm all for technology transfer, where you take good ideas from the faculty and agriculture, and set them up for export, but I'm less crazy about importing talent from other states to develop sectors the state does not already have. The competition to recruit expensive talent from other states and countries will only get more expensive.
However, If the state were to put more money into agricultural extension services and research or aviation, I would understand; the university already has an infrastructure to support them. Bio-pharmaceuticals I also understand; drugs have veterinary applications.
The trust fund makes some sense, but I'd need to read specifics. The University of Texas system and Texas A&M share a Permanent University Fund that injects cash into the endowments as well as projects of the individual schools. Its board of directors includes three members of the UT Board of Regents, the Chancellor of The University of Texas System, and five independent investment professionals. The regents are appointed by the governor, as is the chancellor. However, their terms of service can extend past those of the governor.
North Dakota's elected officials and educators would be wise to consider the Texas approach. It would provide the greatest long term return on investment and a team of financial experts who could assess the fiscal pluses and minuses of proposed public-private ventures. It also makes more sense to capitalize on the assets the state already has versus trying to compete to buy the ones they do not.
Should teachers serve on their local school boards?
Today there is an interesting editorial on the DailyRecord.com, one of New Jersey's leading newspapers.
New Jersey governor Chris Christie has released several proposals on ethics in government. Among them, no public official may hold more than one paid public job. Usually that means that a public employee in state or local government may not hold an elected office where they receive salary or that no elected official may hold two or more elected offices.
New Jersey has a long history of duel office holders as well as public employees who have been elected to office. This creates numerous conflicts of interest as well as "all-powerful" office holders. For instance, former Newark mayor Sharpe James also served as a state senator during his last two terms in office. He used his influence to hold up the passage of a state budget over support for the hockey arena in Newark.
But what about teachers? Some may want to serve on the school board in the place where they live, but not where they work. School board positions are unpaid, so Governor Christie's proposals do not apply to them. Still, there are odd conflicts of interest.
A teacher's presence on a school board may be helpful. An experienced teacher knows the job, the union-management dynamics (if she has been involved in a labor negotiation), the hiring process and curriculum. She also has a frame of reference, a teacher's needs and wants, to assess whether a board and administration treat teachers fairly.
However, in New Jersey. a teacher on a board is put into a position of negotiating with the local of the same union she belongs to. It would be odd to be on the side of the teachers in negotiating your own union's contract while being on the side of a school board with a mandate to hold down costs of another contract. Taking the side of the teachers would only send more signals of a conflict of interest.
A teacher is also put in the position of having to select and approve the contract for a superintendent of schools. Suppose the district that employs her is in need of a new superintendent. If she likes the person chosen by her school board, and the position in her employer's district pays better, then what would keep her from helping her employer recruit the new leader? Nothing, but that reeks of conflict of interest.
True teachers can also offer advice on curriculum, even lead a curriculum committee for a school board. But why not ask the teachers you pay to help with those issues? They have a vested interest in the board's decision. Of course that requires a collegial relationship, and that's not always common between school boards and teachers. But maybe we need to head more in that direction if cities and suburbs are to have more successful public schools.
Quite frankly, I wonder why teachers who work in one place would want to serve on the school board of another. Teaching is supposedly more than an eight to three job. If a teacher is frustrated with the decisions of her employer, why wouldn't she be less frustrated with the views of her local school board?
One would be addressing the interests of her as an adult while the other would be addressing her interests as a parent and a tax payer. Would a teacher really want to spend her non-work time trying to see if she can switch hats?
New Jersey governor Chris Christie has released several proposals on ethics in government. Among them, no public official may hold more than one paid public job. Usually that means that a public employee in state or local government may not hold an elected office where they receive salary or that no elected official may hold two or more elected offices.
New Jersey has a long history of duel office holders as well as public employees who have been elected to office. This creates numerous conflicts of interest as well as "all-powerful" office holders. For instance, former Newark mayor Sharpe James also served as a state senator during his last two terms in office. He used his influence to hold up the passage of a state budget over support for the hockey arena in Newark.
But what about teachers? Some may want to serve on the school board in the place where they live, but not where they work. School board positions are unpaid, so Governor Christie's proposals do not apply to them. Still, there are odd conflicts of interest.
A teacher's presence on a school board may be helpful. An experienced teacher knows the job, the union-management dynamics (if she has been involved in a labor negotiation), the hiring process and curriculum. She also has a frame of reference, a teacher's needs and wants, to assess whether a board and administration treat teachers fairly.
However, in New Jersey. a teacher on a board is put into a position of negotiating with the local of the same union she belongs to. It would be odd to be on the side of the teachers in negotiating your own union's contract while being on the side of a school board with a mandate to hold down costs of another contract. Taking the side of the teachers would only send more signals of a conflict of interest.
A teacher is also put in the position of having to select and approve the contract for a superintendent of schools. Suppose the district that employs her is in need of a new superintendent. If she likes the person chosen by her school board, and the position in her employer's district pays better, then what would keep her from helping her employer recruit the new leader? Nothing, but that reeks of conflict of interest.
True teachers can also offer advice on curriculum, even lead a curriculum committee for a school board. But why not ask the teachers you pay to help with those issues? They have a vested interest in the board's decision. Of course that requires a collegial relationship, and that's not always common between school boards and teachers. But maybe we need to head more in that direction if cities and suburbs are to have more successful public schools.
Quite frankly, I wonder why teachers who work in one place would want to serve on the school board of another. Teaching is supposedly more than an eight to three job. If a teacher is frustrated with the decisions of her employer, why wouldn't she be less frustrated with the views of her local school board?
One would be addressing the interests of her as an adult while the other would be addressing her interests as a parent and a tax payer. Would a teacher really want to spend her non-work time trying to see if she can switch hats?
Monday, September 13, 2010
Could Big East football go to nine with Villanova? And why not add Delaware, too?
Today I found this story that Villanova University has been invited to join the Big East as a football-playing member; they are already one of the basketball powers in the conference.
The 2009 national champions in the NCAA play-off subdivision, the Wildcats would be an interesting fit as a BCS football school. For one thing, it would give the Big East an entry into the Philadelphia media market. For another, it would add a fine academic school.
If Villanova was to play their games at Lincoln Financial Field, they would likely outdraw Temple, the current college football tenant, if the Big East schedule includes Rutgers, Pitt, U-Conn and West Virginia. The Wildcats would also get a chance to beat up on Syracuse in another sport. I'm sure their partisans would not complain.
However, there are some issues that might give Villanova fans pause. The university's current stadium seats only 12,000, too far below BCS standards. If the athletic department cannot secure an agreement to use "the Linc," they will need to expand their stadium to at least 20,000 seats or find another venue nearby. Penn's Franklin Field would be a temporary solution at best; it would look silly to play in a another university's facility.
Villanova also has some traditional rivals in their current football schedule. Penn and Delaware immediately come to mind, but Richmond and U-Mass have also been conference powers.
Two or three of these rivalries would go away. I cannot see that Penn would want to play a BCS school, but why shouldn't Villanova continue to play Delaware? The Blue Hens have averaged more than 20,000 fans a game for eleven seasons, best of any championship subdivision team in the country. That's better than some BCS teams, including Temple.
Then again, why not ask Delaware to join the Big East for football,too? It's unlikely that Notre Dame, a Big East member in all sports, excluding football, would ever do what Villanova might do. It is also unlikely that Army or Navy will make a move to a football conference, though they would be good fits in the Big East, too.
The 2009 national champions in the NCAA play-off subdivision, the Wildcats would be an interesting fit as a BCS football school. For one thing, it would give the Big East an entry into the Philadelphia media market. For another, it would add a fine academic school.
If Villanova was to play their games at Lincoln Financial Field, they would likely outdraw Temple, the current college football tenant, if the Big East schedule includes Rutgers, Pitt, U-Conn and West Virginia. The Wildcats would also get a chance to beat up on Syracuse in another sport. I'm sure their partisans would not complain.
However, there are some issues that might give Villanova fans pause. The university's current stadium seats only 12,000, too far below BCS standards. If the athletic department cannot secure an agreement to use "the Linc," they will need to expand their stadium to at least 20,000 seats or find another venue nearby. Penn's Franklin Field would be a temporary solution at best; it would look silly to play in a another university's facility.
Villanova also has some traditional rivals in their current football schedule. Penn and Delaware immediately come to mind, but Richmond and U-Mass have also been conference powers.
Two or three of these rivalries would go away. I cannot see that Penn would want to play a BCS school, but why shouldn't Villanova continue to play Delaware? The Blue Hens have averaged more than 20,000 fans a game for eleven seasons, best of any championship subdivision team in the country. That's better than some BCS teams, including Temple.
Then again, why not ask Delaware to join the Big East for football,too? It's unlikely that Notre Dame, a Big East member in all sports, excluding football, would ever do what Villanova might do. It is also unlikely that Army or Navy will make a move to a football conference, though they would be good fits in the Big East, too.
Book Review: Presimetrics: What the Facts Tell Us About How the Presidents Measure Up On the Issues We Care About by Mike Kimel and Michael E. Kanell
Prior to every baseball season I look forward to reading the esoteric books by Allan Barra and Bill James as well as the Baseball Prospectus. These books not only predict player performance; they also share interesting stories about baseball's past using the statistical analysis of the present. Thanks to James, et al, such terms as OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) and WHIP (wins, hits, innings percentage) have become part of baseball's lexicon.
But what if someone with statistical cred took the same idea and applied to analyzing the performance of our presidents? That would be an interesting book for anyone who loves to argue politics.
Mike Kimel, an economist and software developer and Michael Kanell, an economics writer for the Atlanta Constitution joined together to write such a book. While they do not invent new statistical terms, as the baseball analysts do, they use widely published economic and demographic data to determine which presidents, from Eisenhower to G.W. Bush performed best. There is even a chapter to analyze Barack Obama's first two years in office.
But this is a non-partisan book. Presidential performance on issues of importance to Democrats as well as Republicans are discussed.
The best president, based on their analysis? Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan comes in second, but as you will read, the total points are not even close.
There are also many useful tidbits for political junkies. For instance:
+ The president who increased the percentage of government workers the most: Reagan.
+ The president who did the most to restrain health care costs: Clinton.
+ The president who created more jobs each year than any other president since World War II: Carter.
+ The presidents who performed the best on Democratic issues, including social spending, poverty, income inequality, tax equity and spending on natural resources and the environment: Nixon and Ford. Eisenhower was next.
+ The president who performed the best on Republican issues, including military preparedness, reducing civilian employees in the federal government, the federal tax burden, delegation of federal responsibilities to the states, welfare and decreasing or zeroing out spending for the arts: G.W. Bush, followed by Reagan and his father. However, Bill Clinton did more to reduce the size of the federal workforce than any Republican.
This book require no prior knowledge of economics, but it helps if you took an econ course in college. You get a better understanding of the author's major points, as well as what it really takes to be the president.
In New Jersey a public school choice bill is far from enough
Today NJ. com reports that New Jersey governor Chris Christie has signed a public school choice bill, expanding what has essentially been a pilot program to any school district that has room to take non-resident students into one or more of its schools.
I previously reported that the pilot program, also supported by New Jersey Democrats and Republicans, had benefited only two schools in the entire state. That's right, two schools significantly increased their openings for students from outside their district. So the Governor, with the consent of the Legislature continues the program?
I don't blame the governor or the legislators for that. They backed a bill that involves no money and puts them all on record as favoring school choice. Why would they say no?
Only problem is that in the home rule state of New Jersey, local school boards can, and they probably will. They get to be the heavies here, so do the taxpayers. Decisions to accept or deny access to schools to non-residents become local and personal.
Want proof? Take a look at the comments to this story.
Now here's another serious problem when the pilot idea goes statewide: the welcoming district will not have a seat available for each and every student in a failing school. Just as charter schools do not have room for everybody; admission is by lottery and probabilities of getting a lucky number are not always high.
So, if you are Chris Christie, you can authorize more charter schools and allow students to go to any neighboring district that will have them. You can also send some to private and parochial schools.
But you will still have students in failing schools in an era under the mantra: No Child Left Behind. The governor must take care of everybody.
Students who are behind in grade level need more time and attention. They need to be in school longer, a longer day and a longer year, if they are ever going to be where they should be. They need more parent-teacher communications.
The schools that have disproportionate shares of poor-performing students need to consider the best practices of the better charter schools such as the Knowledge is Power Program.
That will mean a longer school day, a longer school year, new teachers and new teacher's contracts. But in the long run, this may be a better way to save teachers' jobs and stave off public resentment.
I previously reported that the pilot program, also supported by New Jersey Democrats and Republicans, had benefited only two schools in the entire state. That's right, two schools significantly increased their openings for students from outside their district. So the Governor, with the consent of the Legislature continues the program?
I don't blame the governor or the legislators for that. They backed a bill that involves no money and puts them all on record as favoring school choice. Why would they say no?
Only problem is that in the home rule state of New Jersey, local school boards can, and they probably will. They get to be the heavies here, so do the taxpayers. Decisions to accept or deny access to schools to non-residents become local and personal.
Want proof? Take a look at the comments to this story.
Now here's another serious problem when the pilot idea goes statewide: the welcoming district will not have a seat available for each and every student in a failing school. Just as charter schools do not have room for everybody; admission is by lottery and probabilities of getting a lucky number are not always high.
So, if you are Chris Christie, you can authorize more charter schools and allow students to go to any neighboring district that will have them. You can also send some to private and parochial schools.
But you will still have students in failing schools in an era under the mantra: No Child Left Behind. The governor must take care of everybody.
Students who are behind in grade level need more time and attention. They need to be in school longer, a longer day and a longer year, if they are ever going to be where they should be. They need more parent-teacher communications.
The schools that have disproportionate shares of poor-performing students need to consider the best practices of the better charter schools such as the Knowledge is Power Program.
That will mean a longer school day, a longer school year, new teachers and new teacher's contracts. But in the long run, this may be a better way to save teachers' jobs and stave off public resentment.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Be careful what you wish for with guarantee football games
Last Thursday I went to Rutgers home opening game against Norfolk State University, a historically black school located in Virginia. Rutgers has played Norfolk State at home twice in the past four years, both games being shut-outs for the Scarlet Knights.
This season's game was one of the most bizarre I have ever seen. Up only 3-0 for most of the half, the Knights were their own worst enemies on offense. While they did not cough up a fumble or throw an interception, they did not move the ball very well. Two missed field goals didn't help, though the officials seemed asleep for the half-closing drive; they forgot that a first down stops the clock when there are less than two minutes to go.
I don't like guarantee games, though Norfolk State must have one of the best marching bands in the country. The Spartan "Legion" is big time. Here's where you'll find YouTubes of the band in action. It costs fifty bucks to get into Rutgers Stadium if you're not a student. The band made fans feel less disappointed about the money they spent.
I've written about the good and the bad of guarantee games in two prior posts. Rutgers is not the only school that plays them. Last season Florida blew out Charleston Southern 62-3. I wonder why Florida really needed a guarantee game when they had Mississippi State and Vanderbilt on their in-conference schedule. This season defending champion Alabama plays Georgia State, a team in its first season of college football.
At least some guarantee game justice has been served this season. Jacksonville State, a play-off division team with fewer than 6,000 full-time undergraduate students, upset the Rebels of Ole Miss. Trailing 31-10 at halftime in the Rebel's home stadium, they came back for a 49-48 win. If the Rebels go 6-6 with this blot on their record, they do not deserve a bowl bid.
This season's game was one of the most bizarre I have ever seen. Up only 3-0 for most of the half, the Knights were their own worst enemies on offense. While they did not cough up a fumble or throw an interception, they did not move the ball very well. Two missed field goals didn't help, though the officials seemed asleep for the half-closing drive; they forgot that a first down stops the clock when there are less than two minutes to go.
I don't like guarantee games, though Norfolk State must have one of the best marching bands in the country. The Spartan "Legion" is big time. Here's where you'll find YouTubes of the band in action. It costs fifty bucks to get into Rutgers Stadium if you're not a student. The band made fans feel less disappointed about the money they spent.
I've written about the good and the bad of guarantee games in two prior posts. Rutgers is not the only school that plays them. Last season Florida blew out Charleston Southern 62-3. I wonder why Florida really needed a guarantee game when they had Mississippi State and Vanderbilt on their in-conference schedule. This season defending champion Alabama plays Georgia State, a team in its first season of college football.
At least some guarantee game justice has been served this season. Jacksonville State, a play-off division team with fewer than 6,000 full-time undergraduate students, upset the Rebels of Ole Miss. Trailing 31-10 at halftime in the Rebel's home stadium, they came back for a 49-48 win. If the Rebels go 6-6 with this blot on their record, they do not deserve a bowl bid.
Book Review: Shelter, Where Harvard Meets the Homeless by Scott Seider
Harvard students operate the only student-run homeless shelter in the U.S. They have successfully operated the shelter for 27 years, a remarkable achievement for any social service provider, let alone one that receives no government support.
According to the author of this book, Scott Seider, a Harvard graduate, Boston University professor and former shelter volunteer, it has become a model for community-based action. A part-time security guard is the only full-time employee.
Seider not only worked in the shelter, which is not far from Harvard Square, the busiest student corridor in downtown Cambridge, he interviewed its current and past leadership, current and former volunteers, as well as past tenants. Former volunteers have built impressive credentials in law, public service and social service after leaving Harvard.
Volunteers, all students, begin their stints at the shelter by working a meal; the shelter is open for breakfast and dinner. The most committed advance to working a night shift, providing an ear for the tenants, who may live there for no more than 14 consecutive days, unless they are part of a transition to work program. Then they may live there while working for several weeks. A student-led Street Team also assists and provides food to people who cannot be accommodated.
The Harvard shelter had an inauspicious beginning. Founded in the basement of a Lutheran church near campus, it was never intended to be a permanent shelter. It lacked adequate space as well as showers. While the church expected local government to close the shelter, police and politicians looked the other way for several years.
Today, the space and showers are more modern and up-to-code, partly thanks to the fund raising efforts of student volunteers. The shelter is also a beneficiary of the Harvard endowment; students and alumni raised funds to cover the $25,000 entry fee.
What is unexpected in this story is the stories of the students. Seider goes out of the way to say that their greatest strength was not their intellect, but their listening skills and their ability to screen the short-term tenants. Rather than pretend to "know all," they mainly offer a bed, a meal and an ear. Because they listen, the tenants follow the few rules imposed upon them. In one lengthy anecdote, students actually helped one tenant earn admission to a leading liberal arts college.
Shelter is a very good basic study of social service and social entrepreneurship within a bright and resourceful student community. It is possible to duplicate this model in other college towns with similar facilities and students with the right intuition and the proper listening skills to volunteer. It would work best in places where non-students--in Harvard's case, church volunteers--can fill in during breaks when students are not around.
Anyone who is interested in grassroots community organizing or human services will find this story interesting. Shelter is not necessarily written to inspire, but it provides many useful stories as well as effective instruction for pragmatic leaders.
University of Colorado to close down, then reorganize journalism programs
If you're a student or parent interested in the University of Colorado-Boulder and you're thinking of studying journalism and mass communications, then fahgedabowdit; the university has begun the process of closing down its journalism school.
There is discussion of a new program blending journalism courses with digital media technology in a new College of News, Information and Technology, but that is in the future. The question is how to take care of the students who are receiving a journalism education in the present.
I'm all for the idea of teaching digital media and journalism. I had to learn more about digital media myself in order to write for the Web, sell books and work with a designer to optimize and redesign Educated Quest. I invested in courses, too, I took about eight months worth of technically-oriented classes at NYU.
But NYU didn't to change its continuing education business model to accommodate adult students who worked in advertising, marketing and media. It sought out faculty and hired them to teach new courses. The university didn't need to open and close a whole new school.
Then again, the continuing education students did not need to be taught by full-time academics who had doctorates. Maybe that's the bigger problem the University of Colorado faces; it is an internationally known research university. It has been a member of the academically prestigious Association of American Universities since 1966.
I really wonder, why, as an interim step, the university cannot do what NYU did. Boulder-Denver is an extremely large media market and I'm sure the local firms and the alumni base could provide capable instructors to teach their trade in-person or online.
Maybe one or two practitioners would be willing to help start experiential learning programs or raise funds to develop the technical side of the program. They do not necessarily need to have a doctorate or a commitment to academic research; there's precious little available, because digital media is still relatively new.
If you want to see an innovate approach to mass communications education, one that blends advertising with practical applications and technology, check out the Brandcenter at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) in Richmond, Virginia. Their students not only learn, they get hired.
I checked the full-time faculty roster at VCU. Plenty of work experience; only one person mentions a PhD, and he's still working on it. Maybe the academics at Colorado can take note of the real-world solutions brought forward by NYU and VCU.
There is discussion of a new program blending journalism courses with digital media technology in a new College of News, Information and Technology, but that is in the future. The question is how to take care of the students who are receiving a journalism education in the present.
I'm all for the idea of teaching digital media and journalism. I had to learn more about digital media myself in order to write for the Web, sell books and work with a designer to optimize and redesign Educated Quest. I invested in courses, too, I took about eight months worth of technically-oriented classes at NYU.
But NYU didn't to change its continuing education business model to accommodate adult students who worked in advertising, marketing and media. It sought out faculty and hired them to teach new courses. The university didn't need to open and close a whole new school.
Then again, the continuing education students did not need to be taught by full-time academics who had doctorates. Maybe that's the bigger problem the University of Colorado faces; it is an internationally known research university. It has been a member of the academically prestigious Association of American Universities since 1966.
I really wonder, why, as an interim step, the university cannot do what NYU did. Boulder-Denver is an extremely large media market and I'm sure the local firms and the alumni base could provide capable instructors to teach their trade in-person or online.
Maybe one or two practitioners would be willing to help start experiential learning programs or raise funds to develop the technical side of the program. They do not necessarily need to have a doctorate or a commitment to academic research; there's precious little available, because digital media is still relatively new.
If you want to see an innovate approach to mass communications education, one that blends advertising with practical applications and technology, check out the Brandcenter at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) in Richmond, Virginia. Their students not only learn, they get hired.
I checked the full-time faculty roster at VCU. Plenty of work experience; only one person mentions a PhD, and he's still working on it. Maybe the academics at Colorado can take note of the real-world solutions brought forward by NYU and VCU.
Fraternities may have hell week, but some schools have campus-wide 'sex week'
I haven't posted a sex ed story for sometime, but this one I found in last week's Chronicle of Higher Education called: 'Sex Week' Should Arouse Caution Most of All is too titillating to ignore.
Written by the chair of the economics department at Bridgewater State University (MA), this story discusses different approaches schools have taken to organizing 'sex week' on college campuses, as well as suggestions for making 'sex week' less controversial.
Basically, the story talks about the extremes used to attract and keep the community interested in sex education programming: sex-toy raffles and workshops, pre-paid cards for porn on-demand, and events conducted by porn actors and producers. Then there is mention of students posing with sex toys on a presenter's Facebook page. Conservative students organizations have another cause to sink their teeth, though I can't say I blame them.
Then, the author outlines how schools can develop "safer" programming, with the major suggestion being that the school's own counselors run everything, as opposed to allowing a student fee board to contact and pay outsiders or seek commercial sponsors, such as adult movie producers or sex toy manufacturers.
I'm all for safer programming, though the programmers will need to think of extremely creative ways to draw and hold their audience. While the more explicit practices are not what parents might have in mind when they sent their kids to college, no one will deny that they draw considerable attention to a sex week.
Written by the chair of the economics department at Bridgewater State University (MA), this story discusses different approaches schools have taken to organizing 'sex week' on college campuses, as well as suggestions for making 'sex week' less controversial.
Basically, the story talks about the extremes used to attract and keep the community interested in sex education programming: sex-toy raffles and workshops, pre-paid cards for porn on-demand, and events conducted by porn actors and producers. Then there is mention of students posing with sex toys on a presenter's Facebook page. Conservative students organizations have another cause to sink their teeth, though I can't say I blame them.
Then, the author outlines how schools can develop "safer" programming, with the major suggestion being that the school's own counselors run everything, as opposed to allowing a student fee board to contact and pay outsiders or seek commercial sponsors, such as adult movie producers or sex toy manufacturers.
I'm all for safer programming, though the programmers will need to think of extremely creative ways to draw and hold their audience. While the more explicit practices are not what parents might have in mind when they sent their kids to college, no one will deny that they draw considerable attention to a sex week.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
U.S. Army changes fitness routine for unfit recruits
I haven't put up a military recruiting post for some time, but this New York Times story about new army training programs caught my attention.
The military comes under a lot of criticism, but it is also one of the few large organizations that successfully adjusts its entry and training programs to young adult demographics. In this story, the statistics quoted from officers about the un-fitness among young adults are startling.
I would guess that in the past young men were more fit when they knew that they might be going to war, and wanted to go.
This report, prepared for the U.S. Army by the Borden Institute, revealed the following:
During World War I, as many as one in three recruits were rejected for military service during the first four months of U.S. mobilization. After eight months, it was one in four. Most of the rejections were for physical reasons. Ten percent were for tuberculosis or venereal disease.
During World War II, from November, 1940 through August, 1945, nearly 18 million men were examined for military service. Six and a half million, more than a third, were rejected.
During the Vietnam War, relaxed fitness and mental standards led the army to send barely qualified recruits into battle. They were more likely to desert, not complete their tour, or be court-martialed.
I read the story and the report and I struggle to find pre-recruitment solutions, other than the expansion of JROTC and National Guard programs serving young people, paid for by the military. Another option is mandatory physical education in all grades, but traditional gym classes are not always sensitive to the problems of the un-athletic or unfit.
I have never served in the military, but I have family members who did, and I appreciate the sacrifice and service of those who serve. I also want to see them in the best position to come home healthy after their service is over.
The military comes under a lot of criticism, but it is also one of the few large organizations that successfully adjusts its entry and training programs to young adult demographics. In this story, the statistics quoted from officers about the un-fitness among young adults are startling.
I would guess that in the past young men were more fit when they knew that they might be going to war, and wanted to go.
This report, prepared for the U.S. Army by the Borden Institute, revealed the following:
During World War I, as many as one in three recruits were rejected for military service during the first four months of U.S. mobilization. After eight months, it was one in four. Most of the rejections were for physical reasons. Ten percent were for tuberculosis or venereal disease.
During World War II, from November, 1940 through August, 1945, nearly 18 million men were examined for military service. Six and a half million, more than a third, were rejected.
During the Vietnam War, relaxed fitness and mental standards led the army to send barely qualified recruits into battle. They were more likely to desert, not complete their tour, or be court-martialed.
I read the story and the report and I struggle to find pre-recruitment solutions, other than the expansion of JROTC and National Guard programs serving young people, paid for by the military. Another option is mandatory physical education in all grades, but traditional gym classes are not always sensitive to the problems of the un-athletic or unfit.
I have never served in the military, but I have family members who did, and I appreciate the sacrifice and service of those who serve. I also want to see them in the best position to come home healthy after their service is over.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Anything can happen in college football--on any given Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday
At last night's Rutgers Touchdown Club meeting Scarlet Knights head coach Greg Schiano took questions from fans. When asked if he would prefer a more regular schedule, one of consecutive Saturday games, Schiano said: "Yes, I would rather play from Saturday to Saturday."
Rutgers opens its season tomorrow night against Norfolk State; the game will be broadcast on ESPN3. For this week a Thursday night game is less of a concern; classes have not started. But Rutgers has taken the Thursday night slot, usually on the main ESPN channel, on days when classes are already in session.
Today's Inside Higher Education runs a story about the pros and cons of Thursday night games. The major bowl championship conferences: the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 10 and SEC, tend to avoid them. The lesser known conferences, where teams usually have small stadiums, tend to play mid-week for the exposure.
Three of Rutgers greatest football victories, an upset of then #2 Louisville in 2006, an upset of #2 ranked South Florida in 2007 and a 35-0 shutout of South Florida occurred on Thursday nights.
All of these games were home games. The football team did not need to travel during the middle of the week. But this season Rutgers will play their second mid-week game on the road against South Florida on November 3rd, the day after Election Day. Fortunately, they'll have more than a week to prepare for that game. But fans, especially students, are less likely to watch it.
It was not much of a problem for Rutgers students to go to the Thursday night home games; most do not schedule classes on Friday and they live on-campus or close by. So do the football players. And it's nice to have the national television audience to yourself. Rutgers ranking improved after each of those games.
But there are huge minuses. Navigating rush-hour traffic to get to the stadium is no fun, neither is the post-game congestion. Especially if you need to go to work the next day. There is less time for the tailgate atmosphere that you find on a football weekend. I also cannot imagine what it was like for the visiting team to go home late at night after losing to Rutgers.
Like Coach Schiano, I would rather see football Saturday after Saturday. Football is a weekend sport, and everyone: players, coaches and fans, deserves more time to enjoy it. I went to another school, the University of Illinois, that had a Rose Bowl team during my second year in grad school. A win on Saturday stretched into Sunday. This season, Rutgers fans are not so lucky. Only two home games will be on Saturday; home field for the Army game is the New Meadowlands.
I realize that Rutgers needs the Thursday night games to help their bottom line. I'm willing to suffer with the traffic twice a season to help keep the team from running a larger deficit and to enhance the visibility of Rutgers to a national audience. Then again, I have the luxury of being able to manage my time.
I know that whenever I wear anything Rutgers outside New Jersey, even when I'm more than a thousand miles from home, people always ask about the football team. As the team and its bottom line improve, I am confident that America will see the Scarlet Knights in the prime Saturday slots on any major network, and their fans will have more true football weekends.
Rutgers opens its season tomorrow night against Norfolk State; the game will be broadcast on ESPN3. For this week a Thursday night game is less of a concern; classes have not started. But Rutgers has taken the Thursday night slot, usually on the main ESPN channel, on days when classes are already in session.
Today's Inside Higher Education runs a story about the pros and cons of Thursday night games. The major bowl championship conferences: the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 10 and SEC, tend to avoid them. The lesser known conferences, where teams usually have small stadiums, tend to play mid-week for the exposure.
Three of Rutgers greatest football victories, an upset of then #2 Louisville in 2006, an upset of #2 ranked South Florida in 2007 and a 35-0 shutout of South Florida occurred on Thursday nights.
All of these games were home games. The football team did not need to travel during the middle of the week. But this season Rutgers will play their second mid-week game on the road against South Florida on November 3rd, the day after Election Day. Fortunately, they'll have more than a week to prepare for that game. But fans, especially students, are less likely to watch it.
It was not much of a problem for Rutgers students to go to the Thursday night home games; most do not schedule classes on Friday and they live on-campus or close by. So do the football players. And it's nice to have the national television audience to yourself. Rutgers ranking improved after each of those games.
But there are huge minuses. Navigating rush-hour traffic to get to the stadium is no fun, neither is the post-game congestion. Especially if you need to go to work the next day. There is less time for the tailgate atmosphere that you find on a football weekend. I also cannot imagine what it was like for the visiting team to go home late at night after losing to Rutgers.
Like Coach Schiano, I would rather see football Saturday after Saturday. Football is a weekend sport, and everyone: players, coaches and fans, deserves more time to enjoy it. I went to another school, the University of Illinois, that had a Rose Bowl team during my second year in grad school. A win on Saturday stretched into Sunday. This season, Rutgers fans are not so lucky. Only two home games will be on Saturday; home field for the Army game is the New Meadowlands.
I realize that Rutgers needs the Thursday night games to help their bottom line. I'm willing to suffer with the traffic twice a season to help keep the team from running a larger deficit and to enhance the visibility of Rutgers to a national audience. Then again, I have the luxury of being able to manage my time.
I know that whenever I wear anything Rutgers outside New Jersey, even when I'm more than a thousand miles from home, people always ask about the football team. As the team and its bottom line improve, I am confident that America will see the Scarlet Knights in the prime Saturday slots on any major network, and their fans will have more true football weekends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)