Thursday, March 31, 2011
Book Review--Please Don't Bomb the Suburbs: A Midterm Report on My Generation and the Future of Our Super Movement by William Upski Wimsatt
When I was doing research for my last novel, Defending College Heights, I studied some of the guidebooks of the anti-war movement including Abbie Hoffman's Steal this Book and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radical. I wanted to be able to compare and contrast the movements to end the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq.
Please Don't Bomb the Suburbscame out a year after my novel, but I would have found it quite useful. It is a set of reflections of a Generation X activist who is now approaching forty. He considers himself to be a standout, as most of his peers supported conservative candidates and became less interested in politics and social change.
Wimsatt, who goes by Billy in the book, began his life in political activism as a graffiti artist in Chicago who was also an ardent fan of hip-hop music. In this book, he writes about the evolution of hip-hop from the prison and street gang culture, though performers were not gang members. He later goes into the activism that sprung from this artistic community. Wimsatt also shares several anecdotes, such as stories about fleeing from gangs after completing his art.
While Wimsatt ran into his share of trouble, he was also smart enough to get admitted to Oberlin College, an excellent liberal arts school that is reputed to have one of the more liberal student bodies. Here, he reports, he learns about power and doing good. He meets a political science professor who tells him that students make the mistake of trying to do good without seeking power, when power is needed for doing good on a grand scale. This insight launches the author into advocacy journalism and activism.
The author also makes effort to admit the many mistakes he had made through his career. He recommends that activists try to work within the system and understand how the system works. He suggests that they not reject candidates who run on a slate of progressive ideas, but find the lack the votes of others to follow through. While his activism began at a time before technology, he recommends the greater use of the Internet to build a mass movement of volunteers, much as Barack Obama's campaign did on the cyber-highway to win the presidency. He also advises activists to finish school; a completed education gives them not only knowledge but also credibility.
He adds that the major difference between progressive Democrats and right wing Republicans is not only ideas, but the willing of the right wing to fight harder for their views and stand behind the candidates who do. The fight is not only through money, but also hard work. Further, he believes that Republicans stood more firmly behind George W. Bush than Democrats have with Barack Obama. Organizing for America has failed to engage young voters the way Obama for America did during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Unfortunately, as the book ends, Wimsett is working with numerous groups to help Democrats in the mid-term elections. He is active, but we do not get to learn the outcome from his efforts. However, Wimsett is a prolific writer--he has published four books in seven years--so it may be only a short time before we know how things turned out on his end, as well as why Democratic efforts failed with or without his involvement.
As an author who grew up in the previous generation I found Wimsett's writing to be interesting and informative. The definitive events of Generation X--the hostages in Iran, Reagan's election, the tear-down of the Berlin Wall, as examples--honed a different set of political values than I have been led to believe. Wimsett adds the cultural overtones to the politics to complete a read that is worthwhile.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
What is a fair way to better take care of scholarship athletes?
Today's USA Today has a front page story that asks: should college athletes be paid more for their efforts?
I found the story interesting from two angles. One is that the NCAA makes a gi-normous $771 million in men's basketball television rights alone and that scholarships do not always cover the full cost of attendance for going to school. However, I have to consider this story against the fact that so many schools that play at lower levels of competition offer no athletic scholarships at all.
The story also cites the president of the California-based National College Players Association as saying that the best athletes should be allowed to cash in on their fame.
I see the point in one way. College teams that play the revenue sports, football and men's and women's basketball, have scholarship athletes as well as walk-ons who receive nothing but a uniform and an opportunity to be on a team. The walk-on has a chance to earn a scholarship later.
Under the player's association's idea, the best players would create a greater economic inequity between themselves and their teammates. Not to mention, all players do not have the same access to the same opportunities, even if they are among the best. Endorsement potential is judged on charisma as well as past successes in sports and not all athletes are charismatic.
Here are two suggestions.
One: Dedicate NCAA revenues from video game products to help fill the gap between scholarships and the true cost of attendance.
I would even go a step further. Add more games to increase the visibility of other sports such as baseball, lacrosse and hockey. I just read a college lacrosse magazine for the first time and had no previous idea of the following for the sport.
Why shouldn't the NCAA--especially since pro lacrosse has not matured to the level of the college game--try to cash in on the fanfare for the benefit of the players and the fans and advance the popularity of the sport? I chose video games because they feature images of all players who are members of a college team. If the game has a character meant to represent each player, then each player should benefit. And why not make games to help promote the women's sports, too? It can only help raise money for more scholarships and increase interest among younger athletes and their parents.
Two: Consider the value of the scholarship against past obligations brought upon the players.
This weekend, for example, the University of Kentucky men's basketball team will play in its fifteenth Final Four. The Wildcats are making their 52nd appearance in the NCAA tournament, more than any other school. In 1958, the Wildcats played 29 games to win a national championship. In 1978 they played 32 and in 1998 they played 39.
This season's college football champion, Auburn University, played 14 games, finishing undefeated. The previous time Auburn won a national championship was in 1957. The Tigers or War Eagles, whatever you prefer to call them, played ten games and they also finished undefeated. In addition to asking the football players to play more football games, the NCAA has reduced the number of football scholarships to help schools better comply with Title IX. While that has helped advance women's sports, it has also taken its toll on the football player's health.
So, here's my suggestion, update the value of the scholarship by a prorated value, based on the number of additional games the players are asked to play. This would raise the value of a men's football scholarship by forty percent and the value of a men's or women's basketball scholarship by approximately 22 percent. And, since the schools as collective members of the NCAA are asking these athletes to play the extra games, then the NCAA should make up this difference.
I realize both of these solutions would still favor the athletes who play the sports that earn the most revenues for the schools. However, those who play the other sports such as tennis, baseball, track and field, softball, and even soccer, among others, can renounce their eligibility at any time and turn pro. They can go to college on their own schedule while competing at their physical peak. In addition, they may be able to have longer careers, especially longer than a football or basketball player. Men's basketball players must now play at least a year in college; they usually need to stay at least three. Women's basketball players must graduate. The football players must wait at least three years to turn pro.
The problem here is not that there is no money to better aid the athletes. It's how the NCAA spends the money. The story said as much, and I agree.
I found the story interesting from two angles. One is that the NCAA makes a gi-normous $771 million in men's basketball television rights alone and that scholarships do not always cover the full cost of attendance for going to school. However, I have to consider this story against the fact that so many schools that play at lower levels of competition offer no athletic scholarships at all.
The story also cites the president of the California-based National College Players Association as saying that the best athletes should be allowed to cash in on their fame.
I see the point in one way. College teams that play the revenue sports, football and men's and women's basketball, have scholarship athletes as well as walk-ons who receive nothing but a uniform and an opportunity to be on a team. The walk-on has a chance to earn a scholarship later.
Under the player's association's idea, the best players would create a greater economic inequity between themselves and their teammates. Not to mention, all players do not have the same access to the same opportunities, even if they are among the best. Endorsement potential is judged on charisma as well as past successes in sports and not all athletes are charismatic.
Here are two suggestions.
One: Dedicate NCAA revenues from video game products to help fill the gap between scholarships and the true cost of attendance.
I would even go a step further. Add more games to increase the visibility of other sports such as baseball, lacrosse and hockey. I just read a college lacrosse magazine for the first time and had no previous idea of the following for the sport.
Why shouldn't the NCAA--especially since pro lacrosse has not matured to the level of the college game--try to cash in on the fanfare for the benefit of the players and the fans and advance the popularity of the sport? I chose video games because they feature images of all players who are members of a college team. If the game has a character meant to represent each player, then each player should benefit. And why not make games to help promote the women's sports, too? It can only help raise money for more scholarships and increase interest among younger athletes and their parents.
Two: Consider the value of the scholarship against past obligations brought upon the players.
This weekend, for example, the University of Kentucky men's basketball team will play in its fifteenth Final Four. The Wildcats are making their 52nd appearance in the NCAA tournament, more than any other school. In 1958, the Wildcats played 29 games to win a national championship. In 1978 they played 32 and in 1998 they played 39.
This season's college football champion, Auburn University, played 14 games, finishing undefeated. The previous time Auburn won a national championship was in 1957. The Tigers or War Eagles, whatever you prefer to call them, played ten games and they also finished undefeated. In addition to asking the football players to play more football games, the NCAA has reduced the number of football scholarships to help schools better comply with Title IX. While that has helped advance women's sports, it has also taken its toll on the football player's health.
So, here's my suggestion, update the value of the scholarship by a prorated value, based on the number of additional games the players are asked to play. This would raise the value of a men's football scholarship by forty percent and the value of a men's or women's basketball scholarship by approximately 22 percent. And, since the schools as collective members of the NCAA are asking these athletes to play the extra games, then the NCAA should make up this difference.
I realize both of these solutions would still favor the athletes who play the sports that earn the most revenues for the schools. However, those who play the other sports such as tennis, baseball, track and field, softball, and even soccer, among others, can renounce their eligibility at any time and turn pro. They can go to college on their own schedule while competing at their physical peak. In addition, they may be able to have longer careers, especially longer than a football or basketball player. Men's basketball players must now play at least a year in college; they usually need to stay at least three. Women's basketball players must graduate. The football players must wait at least three years to turn pro.
The problem here is not that there is no money to better aid the athletes. It's how the NCAA spends the money. The story said as much, and I agree.
D.C. cheating investigations another reason to drop high-stakes testing?
During the past two weeks, USA Today has run investigative stories about the unusually high number of erasures on standardized tests used by the District of Columbia public school system. The stories basically showed that the greater the number of erasures, the higher test scores rose at certain schools. The district as well as the test publisher, McGraw Hill, are still investigating to see if there had been cheating.
There are different forms of cheating. The most obvious, of course, are when the teacher looks over your shoulder and drops hints while you are taking the test. Or the teacher gets a copy of the test in advance and goes over the questions with their students. A security firm mentioned in the stories, Caveon, went as far as to recommend specialized data-forensic analysis on suspected teachers.
If this is the climate that high-stakes tests create in public schools, then drop the tests. Responsible teachers should be capable of assessing the academic performance of each of their students throughout the school year. They should also be working with parents to make sure that each and every person in their class is making an effort to at least try to do the work.
I don't envy public school teachers who work in this climate. Politicians attack their unions; their language, however, too often implies that individual teachers are laggards who do not try to teach. They propose policies to change compensation and benefits and eliminate their academic freedom and job security. Their school systems do not have the money to pay for professional development, when it is needed to help the more experienced professionals adjust to the new realities of their profession. And teachers are quite limited in the disciplinary measures they can take to deal with unruly students. Forget about the ones they would wish to impose on unruly parents.
I am tough on unions sometimes in my posts, but the vast majority of K-12 teachers I meet take their jobs quite seriously. They are more caring than most other public sector workers who toil in offices every day and never need to manage as many people as a teacher handles in a classroom. Not to mention, the good teachers know the materials that are available to measure student progress that are most compatible with their classroom situations. And parents have had always their own ways of dealing with those teachers who do not try. It's no surprise that the poorer performing urban and suburban school systems are more often than not the ones where the parents are least engaged.
Standardized high-stakes testing is a practice that parents did not ask for and teachers only dread. I have not seen any published evidence that students who passed a standardized test in one grade performed better academically in the next grade when they were promoted. I would love to see a study that says that a C student who was not reading on grade level before the start of a school year reached grade level by passing an end-of-year test and maintained steady performance on grade level after that.
But I wonder if such a study could be done, even in one state, because the tests were changed to address the realities of what the students did or did not know as well as how many passed and how many failed. So, I wonder: could a study be done of students who were first impacted by No Child Left Behind testing policies in the fourth grade in 2002 to see how those students had done by the time they reached twelfth grade in 2010? I'd be curious to know what percentage of those students graduated high school and went on to college or work. I will make a bet: it will be the same as it was when students were not tested.
The idea of public policies such as No Child Left Behind is to keep students in school and help them to learn within their capability to learn. The concept of grade level is not relevant when students start off with physical disadvantages or unstable homes or without English language fluency. Some students will be behind at the start, but more personalized approaches can help them catch up. I'm more than willing to trust teachers to handle them without my comments.
But the idea these policies was not to use tests as a stigma to evaluate the quality of a teacher, a school, and especially not local real estate markets. If you are angry about your property taxes, get angry about standardized tests. They cost money to administer, take learning time away from our students and teachers. It has not been confirmed that cheating is widespread but it is easy to see that parents, who are also voters, are being cheated by these tests. They should be mad because it has hit them in the wallet.
There are different forms of cheating. The most obvious, of course, are when the teacher looks over your shoulder and drops hints while you are taking the test. Or the teacher gets a copy of the test in advance and goes over the questions with their students. A security firm mentioned in the stories, Caveon, went as far as to recommend specialized data-forensic analysis on suspected teachers.
If this is the climate that high-stakes tests create in public schools, then drop the tests. Responsible teachers should be capable of assessing the academic performance of each of their students throughout the school year. They should also be working with parents to make sure that each and every person in their class is making an effort to at least try to do the work.
I don't envy public school teachers who work in this climate. Politicians attack their unions; their language, however, too often implies that individual teachers are laggards who do not try to teach. They propose policies to change compensation and benefits and eliminate their academic freedom and job security. Their school systems do not have the money to pay for professional development, when it is needed to help the more experienced professionals adjust to the new realities of their profession. And teachers are quite limited in the disciplinary measures they can take to deal with unruly students. Forget about the ones they would wish to impose on unruly parents.
I am tough on unions sometimes in my posts, but the vast majority of K-12 teachers I meet take their jobs quite seriously. They are more caring than most other public sector workers who toil in offices every day and never need to manage as many people as a teacher handles in a classroom. Not to mention, the good teachers know the materials that are available to measure student progress that are most compatible with their classroom situations. And parents have had always their own ways of dealing with those teachers who do not try. It's no surprise that the poorer performing urban and suburban school systems are more often than not the ones where the parents are least engaged.
Standardized high-stakes testing is a practice that parents did not ask for and teachers only dread. I have not seen any published evidence that students who passed a standardized test in one grade performed better academically in the next grade when they were promoted. I would love to see a study that says that a C student who was not reading on grade level before the start of a school year reached grade level by passing an end-of-year test and maintained steady performance on grade level after that.
But I wonder if such a study could be done, even in one state, because the tests were changed to address the realities of what the students did or did not know as well as how many passed and how many failed. So, I wonder: could a study be done of students who were first impacted by No Child Left Behind testing policies in the fourth grade in 2002 to see how those students had done by the time they reached twelfth grade in 2010? I'd be curious to know what percentage of those students graduated high school and went on to college or work. I will make a bet: it will be the same as it was when students were not tested.
The idea of public policies such as No Child Left Behind is to keep students in school and help them to learn within their capability to learn. The concept of grade level is not relevant when students start off with physical disadvantages or unstable homes or without English language fluency. Some students will be behind at the start, but more personalized approaches can help them catch up. I'm more than willing to trust teachers to handle them without my comments.
But the idea these policies was not to use tests as a stigma to evaluate the quality of a teacher, a school, and especially not local real estate markets. If you are angry about your property taxes, get angry about standardized tests. They cost money to administer, take learning time away from our students and teachers. It has not been confirmed that cheating is widespread but it is easy to see that parents, who are also voters, are being cheated by these tests. They should be mad because it has hit them in the wallet.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Redesign freshman orientation as a 'boost camp'
As part of my work I read a lot of materials about student preparation for college, retention rates and graduation rates. There are examples of many schools, some national, others more regionally known, that have taken positive steps to improve their performance.
New programs takes creativity and time and also costs money. Some ideas, such as an innovative mathematics immersion program at the University of Central Florida required outside grants and early proof of success before they could become institutionalized. With all of the information I read about these new programs I became curious to ask: why not rework a traditional program--freshman orientation.
Its been more than three decades since I was a freshman in college. I remember meeting people on my floor during the orientation period and taking math and writing placement tests that led to nothing. I also remember going around to the campus newspaper office. But the rest is a blur, a bunch of events that had little purpose. Aside from taking the tests, we had about a week to get used to dorm living, buy books and do essentially nothing the rest of the time.
So, as politicians, college faculty and administrators have become more concerned about preparation and retention, I wonder: why not put the orientation period to better use? Use it to give new students a quick immersion into what it takes to succeed in college. To me this means--why not start the orientation two weeks earlier and put new students into classes?
I close my eyes for a few seconds and see eyes popping. But here's my thought. You don't learn to swim unless you jump into the water and get used to it. The same is true for college-level courses.
While more and more freshman enter college with advanced placement credits, they do not usually have the experience of sitting in a large lecture hall where they have little contact with a teacher. Nor do they necessarily know how to write a college level paper that requires critical thinking as well as aggressive research. The orientation period is the perfect time for new students to get used to both.
Here's how this would work. Educators today use a written examination called the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to analyze student writing, analytical and critical thinking skills, as well as some very basic mathematical and statistical competency (this is reading and interpreting data, not high-level math.)
Every student would be given an examination exercise online that is similar to the CLA during the summer prior to coming to school. The online examination is graded and this information is made available to an instructor assigned for orientation. This replaces the reading and writing placement tests that are given on campus.
Each student is then placed into a class, which I will call Critical Writing and Reasoning. On the first day of class, the student and instructor meet and go over the results of their summer exercise. They both know the baseline and the areas where improvement is needed. Obviously some students will need more help than others.
This course, which would replace the traditional English Composition class, would be taught every day for a period of three weeks. Every two days, the student gets a new exercise and the instructor monitors their progress. S/he will met with students who are slipping, though students may also help each other.
The second class each student would take would be a large lecture course with a multiple choice final exam from a limited menu of science, math, humanities and social science courses.
The difference is that the class would be taken every day for an average two and a half to three hours a day. Teaching assistants would be available, as needed, for discussion sessions that have no impact on the final grade. The idea here is to get students used to keeping up with the material, seeking help and preparing for the most unfair examinations they are likely to take in their first two years.
Both of these classes would be taken by every student, no exceptions. The idea is to get students used to working as individuals and get them used to finding help when they need it. Both of these classes would be graded and count as six credits, so there is also motivation to do well. A bright person who doesn't need to work hard might breeze through with two easy As, but s/he may also become someone to shun if s/he does not aid fellow students.
This does not mean that orientation would have no fun. There would be breaks with organized activities, only fewer of them. There is no reason why new students cannot wait to rush fraternities or sororities or visit the campus paper offices. Those organizations will always host activities after the first day of classes.
I call this idea a 'boost camp' which means that every student gets a shock to the system--they learn what it means to be a college student--but they also get a boost before they hit the larger schedule of classes. They learn to balance class time, study time and free time. Some may see that college is not for them, but everyone gets a quick idea of what's expected if they stay.
Of course, there are negatives. For one thing, the new students would have to come to school earlier. This means a shorter summer vacation after the senior year in high school and less time to work to earn money for college. The solution:charge no extra money for the extra time in the dorms, the six credits or the extra meals in the dining hall. Commuting students would eat in the dining hall, too. Monies that have been spent on the orientation programs of the past can be reprogrammed to cover this. If the student eats for free for three weeks then that's three weeks s/he is not spending money on food.
Another negative is that college instructors will be needed to be trained to take a new approach to English Composition. Here's the flip side: the Critical Writing and Reasoning Course does not need to be taught only by the English department. It can be taught by scholars in other disciplines who are certified to administer the CLA, which is a national examination. It might also be possible for students to be matched up in groups with an instructor who is closer to their major interests.
A final negative is discouragement. Too many students may quickly learn that they have to work harder to keep up in college and either leave or transfer to a school that takes a different approach. But here's the upside--they learn earlier. When I was in school it was not uncommon for freshman to do nothing for the first three to four weeks of classes because the first exam was two months away. Better to learn the cold hard facts early than on the first test.
I realize this idea will not be popular among many educators as well as students. But most schools, especially the large state universities, have operated around a model where the weakest are weeded out or forced to stick around for an extra year or two.
I believe this happens in part because too many students do not know what is expected of them until its too late. They finish their freshman year with lower grades than they hoped because they did not develop the right skills and study habits fast enough.
A boost camp could accelerate both or save the student time and some debt. The school would run an orientation closer to their academic mission and boost their retention rate while doing their newest students a huge favor.
New programs takes creativity and time and also costs money. Some ideas, such as an innovative mathematics immersion program at the University of Central Florida required outside grants and early proof of success before they could become institutionalized. With all of the information I read about these new programs I became curious to ask: why not rework a traditional program--freshman orientation.
Its been more than three decades since I was a freshman in college. I remember meeting people on my floor during the orientation period and taking math and writing placement tests that led to nothing. I also remember going around to the campus newspaper office. But the rest is a blur, a bunch of events that had little purpose. Aside from taking the tests, we had about a week to get used to dorm living, buy books and do essentially nothing the rest of the time.
So, as politicians, college faculty and administrators have become more concerned about preparation and retention, I wonder: why not put the orientation period to better use? Use it to give new students a quick immersion into what it takes to succeed in college. To me this means--why not start the orientation two weeks earlier and put new students into classes?
I close my eyes for a few seconds and see eyes popping. But here's my thought. You don't learn to swim unless you jump into the water and get used to it. The same is true for college-level courses.
While more and more freshman enter college with advanced placement credits, they do not usually have the experience of sitting in a large lecture hall where they have little contact with a teacher. Nor do they necessarily know how to write a college level paper that requires critical thinking as well as aggressive research. The orientation period is the perfect time for new students to get used to both.
Here's how this would work. Educators today use a written examination called the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to analyze student writing, analytical and critical thinking skills, as well as some very basic mathematical and statistical competency (this is reading and interpreting data, not high-level math.)
Every student would be given an examination exercise online that is similar to the CLA during the summer prior to coming to school. The online examination is graded and this information is made available to an instructor assigned for orientation. This replaces the reading and writing placement tests that are given on campus.
Each student is then placed into a class, which I will call Critical Writing and Reasoning. On the first day of class, the student and instructor meet and go over the results of their summer exercise. They both know the baseline and the areas where improvement is needed. Obviously some students will need more help than others.
This course, which would replace the traditional English Composition class, would be taught every day for a period of three weeks. Every two days, the student gets a new exercise and the instructor monitors their progress. S/he will met with students who are slipping, though students may also help each other.
The second class each student would take would be a large lecture course with a multiple choice final exam from a limited menu of science, math, humanities and social science courses.
The difference is that the class would be taken every day for an average two and a half to three hours a day. Teaching assistants would be available, as needed, for discussion sessions that have no impact on the final grade. The idea here is to get students used to keeping up with the material, seeking help and preparing for the most unfair examinations they are likely to take in their first two years.
Both of these classes would be taken by every student, no exceptions. The idea is to get students used to working as individuals and get them used to finding help when they need it. Both of these classes would be graded and count as six credits, so there is also motivation to do well. A bright person who doesn't need to work hard might breeze through with two easy As, but s/he may also become someone to shun if s/he does not aid fellow students.
This does not mean that orientation would have no fun. There would be breaks with organized activities, only fewer of them. There is no reason why new students cannot wait to rush fraternities or sororities or visit the campus paper offices. Those organizations will always host activities after the first day of classes.
I call this idea a 'boost camp' which means that every student gets a shock to the system--they learn what it means to be a college student--but they also get a boost before they hit the larger schedule of classes. They learn to balance class time, study time and free time. Some may see that college is not for them, but everyone gets a quick idea of what's expected if they stay.
Of course, there are negatives. For one thing, the new students would have to come to school earlier. This means a shorter summer vacation after the senior year in high school and less time to work to earn money for college. The solution:charge no extra money for the extra time in the dorms, the six credits or the extra meals in the dining hall. Commuting students would eat in the dining hall, too. Monies that have been spent on the orientation programs of the past can be reprogrammed to cover this. If the student eats for free for three weeks then that's three weeks s/he is not spending money on food.
Another negative is that college instructors will be needed to be trained to take a new approach to English Composition. Here's the flip side: the Critical Writing and Reasoning Course does not need to be taught only by the English department. It can be taught by scholars in other disciplines who are certified to administer the CLA, which is a national examination. It might also be possible for students to be matched up in groups with an instructor who is closer to their major interests.
A final negative is discouragement. Too many students may quickly learn that they have to work harder to keep up in college and either leave or transfer to a school that takes a different approach. But here's the upside--they learn earlier. When I was in school it was not uncommon for freshman to do nothing for the first three to four weeks of classes because the first exam was two months away. Better to learn the cold hard facts early than on the first test.
I realize this idea will not be popular among many educators as well as students. But most schools, especially the large state universities, have operated around a model where the weakest are weeded out or forced to stick around for an extra year or two.
I believe this happens in part because too many students do not know what is expected of them until its too late. They finish their freshman year with lower grades than they hoped because they did not develop the right skills and study habits fast enough.
A boost camp could accelerate both or save the student time and some debt. The school would run an orientation closer to their academic mission and boost their retention rate while doing their newest students a huge favor.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Book Review: 50 Jobs in 50 States: One Man's Journey of Discovery Across America by Daniel Seddiqui
Most college graduates choose a major because they think it is "right" or because they believe that it might help them find a job. Daniel Seddiqui, a 2005 graduate of the University of Southern California earned a degree in economics for the first reason, and he had no idea where he wanted to apply his knowledge. He thought that he wanted to coach--he had run track in college--but all he could land was volunteer assistant positions. He worked at these at the same time he worked at part-time retail jobs, the kind most college graduates hoped to avoid after graduation.
Faced with un-supportive parents who wanted him to be on his own, Seddiqui came upon an idea. Why not take to the road and find work in every state? Try to find a job that symbolized something about the state. His parents laughed at first, but a relative opened a line of credit for him. He used it to buy a used Jeep and cold called to line up jobs in the first round of states. His first one-week assignment was with the Humanitarian Center of the Mormon Church in Utah.
Arranging for accommodations from family, friends, strangers, and even employers, Seddiqui found a job in each and every state, though sometimes he reached to find symbolic work. Symbolic jobs ranged from shucking corn in Nebraska to peanut farming in Georgia to working as an assistant football coach in Alabama. The reaches included being an auto mechanic's assistant in Michigan and a real estate sales assistant in Boise, Idaho.
Seddiqui also landed several job offers; probably some did not require him to have his degree. He also attracted attention on television. Even a South Korean program followed him to different jobs. And when he got on TV, he finally earned his parent's respect. Given a check for $250 he carried in his wallet, they had not believed he would complete the journey.
As someone who was involved with entry level employment for several years, I found this book entertaining. The most important message from the tale is to never be afraid to ask for work at whatever you may want to do. You never know the answer unless you ask. Daniel Seddiqui got jobs, but he also got many rejections for jobs that most college graduates would never want. As he completed his journey he learned to let rejection drive him to succeed and things turned out more pleasantly than even he could have expected.
End federal spending on motorsports marketing for military recruiting
Today I'm reading a story in ESPN the Magazine on the military's involvement with professional motor sports such as NASCAR and drag racing as a tool to reach out to prospective recruits.
According to this story, about $54 million has been spent on selling the military through motor sports. This includes not only the U.S. Army but also the Air Force and the National Guard. Lt. General Benjamin Freakley, who heads the U.S. Army Accessions Command says that the army got 46,000 recruiting leads through the motorsports program and a total of 150,000 from all sports marketing efforts.
However, he did not add in the ESPN story that these were qualified leads, meaning that the people who filled out a card met basic enlistment requirements before they could take placement tests and ship out to boot camp. It would have been impossible to qualify them without the help of a trained recruiter. Those men and women do more than walk the shopping malls. I found a similar story on NASCAR's site that said one on four of the 46,000 people were qualified; that's less than 10,000 men and women.
The story quotes Freakley: "What's the alternative? A recruiter walking up and down a mall, talking to 150 people to get one person to engage. That's a waste of time and, yes, money."
And on the NASCAR site, he said: "You're at a NASCAR event to have a discussion and a deep dialogue about [the potential recruit's] future."
I haven't written a post about military recruiting for some time, but here is my chance. Quite frankly, I was stunned by Freakley's responses. If these statements are true, then why doesn't the Army close every recruiting office that does not meet quotas?
Think of all the savings on office leases and all the military personnel who could be re-assigned to other duties because they would not need them to be recruiters? Not to mention complaints about recruiters in schools would go away.
And you can have a serious discussion about a future amidst beer, girls and exhaust rumble? C'mon, be serious.
Actually, there is an easy answer to the first set of questions. The Army, and other branches of the service must make every effort to reach out to prospects throughout the entire country, because the military is a national service.
The recruiting command cannot say "oh, northern California is too liberal, so we won't have an office in downtown Berkeley." Maybe the military will consider Freakley's comments when the U.S reduces its involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya. If fewer soldiers and recruiters are needed, then cut back.
I wrote a prior post supporting the military interactive displays that are used in recruiting events at shopping centers and sports events, including video games. I even saw extensive displays by the Army and the Navy at the Army-Navy football game in December. I am all for these displays because they help the public and recruits learn what it means to serve in the military. Our country also values soldiers as heroes, so the public has the opportunity to meet real men and women who have made good in service. It also takes a lot of work to persuade young men and women to serve when it is quite likely they will be sent into battle.
But the motorsports programs as well as the Army-sponsored football game are nothing but advertising. Neither race car drivers nor high school football players are military heroes. The drivers are merely getting your money and mine to drive a car, and there are plenty of private businesses who can pay them to do that. The football players cannot take money, so they are uncompensated participants in their game, though they get an opportunity to showcase their talents for college coaches, meet future teammmates and adversaries, and appear on national TV.
If the armed forces want to have an interactive display outside a football game or auto race, then Mazel Tov. Find them a parking space with access to the audience and a power supply. If they have to pay rent, no problem. The college campuses can certainly use the money and the shopping centers could use a boost to compensate for the downturn in the economy. But stop the buck there.
Put the money spent to splash logos on cars and billboards to use in other ways. I'd rather see it go to help military veterans or towards military education and training for soldiers and students. Give the money to the real heroes instead.
And besides, if the race drivers want to support the men and women in uniform, they should be willing to carry their colors on their cars for free. Why not? Millions of American drivers have dedicated part of their rear bumper to show support for our troops. The pros can do the same.
According to this story, about $54 million has been spent on selling the military through motor sports. This includes not only the U.S. Army but also the Air Force and the National Guard. Lt. General Benjamin Freakley, who heads the U.S. Army Accessions Command says that the army got 46,000 recruiting leads through the motorsports program and a total of 150,000 from all sports marketing efforts.
However, he did not add in the ESPN story that these were qualified leads, meaning that the people who filled out a card met basic enlistment requirements before they could take placement tests and ship out to boot camp. It would have been impossible to qualify them without the help of a trained recruiter. Those men and women do more than walk the shopping malls. I found a similar story on NASCAR's site that said one on four of the 46,000 people were qualified; that's less than 10,000 men and women.
The story quotes Freakley: "What's the alternative? A recruiter walking up and down a mall, talking to 150 people to get one person to engage. That's a waste of time and, yes, money."
And on the NASCAR site, he said: "You're at a NASCAR event to have a discussion and a deep dialogue about [the potential recruit's] future."
I haven't written a post about military recruiting for some time, but here is my chance. Quite frankly, I was stunned by Freakley's responses. If these statements are true, then why doesn't the Army close every recruiting office that does not meet quotas?
Think of all the savings on office leases and all the military personnel who could be re-assigned to other duties because they would not need them to be recruiters? Not to mention complaints about recruiters in schools would go away.
And you can have a serious discussion about a future amidst beer, girls and exhaust rumble? C'mon, be serious.
Actually, there is an easy answer to the first set of questions. The Army, and other branches of the service must make every effort to reach out to prospects throughout the entire country, because the military is a national service.
The recruiting command cannot say "oh, northern California is too liberal, so we won't have an office in downtown Berkeley." Maybe the military will consider Freakley's comments when the U.S reduces its involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya. If fewer soldiers and recruiters are needed, then cut back.
I wrote a prior post supporting the military interactive displays that are used in recruiting events at shopping centers and sports events, including video games. I even saw extensive displays by the Army and the Navy at the Army-Navy football game in December. I am all for these displays because they help the public and recruits learn what it means to serve in the military. Our country also values soldiers as heroes, so the public has the opportunity to meet real men and women who have made good in service. It also takes a lot of work to persuade young men and women to serve when it is quite likely they will be sent into battle.
But the motorsports programs as well as the Army-sponsored football game are nothing but advertising. Neither race car drivers nor high school football players are military heroes. The drivers are merely getting your money and mine to drive a car, and there are plenty of private businesses who can pay them to do that. The football players cannot take money, so they are uncompensated participants in their game, though they get an opportunity to showcase their talents for college coaches, meet future teammmates and adversaries, and appear on national TV.
If the armed forces want to have an interactive display outside a football game or auto race, then Mazel Tov. Find them a parking space with access to the audience and a power supply. If they have to pay rent, no problem. The college campuses can certainly use the money and the shopping centers could use a boost to compensate for the downturn in the economy. But stop the buck there.
Put the money spent to splash logos on cars and billboards to use in other ways. I'd rather see it go to help military veterans or towards military education and training for soldiers and students. Give the money to the real heroes instead.
And besides, if the race drivers want to support the men and women in uniform, they should be willing to carry their colors on their cars for free. Why not? Millions of American drivers have dedicated part of their rear bumper to show support for our troops. The pros can do the same.
Would the appearance of a rising underdog help women's college basketball?
This week I watched several games of the men's and women's NCAA Tournament. I'll be watching the Final Four for both as well. I admit I miss a lot of college hoops during the regular season, especially while football is on, but I never miss the later rounds of the NCAAs.
The Men's Final Four will feature two success stories, Butler and Virginia Commonwealth University, mid-major schools that have beaten much higher seeds, including the #1s in their regional tournaments. These schools will play each other in the opening game, so an underdog is guaranteed to have a Cinderella year. It was not planned that way, but an underdog story will give the final game a higher rating than a match-up between two known powers.
By contrast, the Women's Final Four is quite likely to feature the four top-seeded schools. Three: U-Conn, Baylor and Tennessee, face no lower than a #2 in their regional final, while Stanford will face Gonzaga, an eleven seed that produced two of the few major upsets of the tournament, a 92-86 win over sixth-ranked Iowa and an 89-75 win over third-ranked UCLA. The Zags defeated seventh-ranked Louisville 76-69 to advance to the Elite Eight. Louisville had concocted some upset magic of its own until that point, knocking off second-ranked Xavier 85-75 in the second round.
U-Conn, who got a scare from a fifth-seeded Georgetown team yesterday, and Tennessee have won more than half of the national championships since the NCAA took over management of the women's tournament in 1982. The team ranked first overall going into the tournament has won thirteen times. U-Conn has come in as the Number One overall and won it all six times. Tennessee has done it three times. The other three schools have been Purdue, Texas and Louisiana Tech.
Louisiana Tech is the last mid-major to win a national title in the women's game; they won the first one in 1982, then won it again in 1988. This season they lost to Rutgers in the first round, but they got the courtesy of playing only an hour from home. The last mid-major to play in the finals was Southwest Missouri State (now Missouri State) in 2001. Their Lady Bears lost to Purdue, who later beat in-state rival Notre Dame for the national championship.
But I wonder if the rise of a mid-major team, an underdog, would help the women's tournament as much as it endears people to the men's game. For one thing, the women draw far less than the men. For example, U-Conn, last year's champion, averaged over 10,000 fans for 21 games. The men's team averaged 11,700 for nineteen games. The difference per game is not bad, but the men had an off-year, winning only eighteen regular season games and played in the NIT, while the women went unbeaten and were national champions.
Stanford, U-Conn's opponent in last year's final, plays in the Pac-10, so it is hardly a mid-major school. Since 1982, the Cardinal women have played in nine Final Fours, made the final game twice and won twice.Yet they ranked only 23rd in attendance last season, drawing just under 4,300 per game. The men, who went 14-18, averaged approximately 6,600. However, Stanford is a national university with a large, well-to-do alumni base. The name can bring in an audience. So can Baylor, which ranked eighth in attendance last season.
I would guess, based on the attendance at women's games versus the men's, that the television executives would prefer that the teams with the largest fan bases are in the Final Four. There's more certainty over the numbers that would be drawn into a Tennessee-UConn final than those that might come if an underdog manages to get past the top seeds. In the men's game, the underdog is the darling of everyone who goes to any school that is not playing in the tournament. It's a shame that's not the same in the women's game.
The Men's Final Four will feature two success stories, Butler and Virginia Commonwealth University, mid-major schools that have beaten much higher seeds, including the #1s in their regional tournaments. These schools will play each other in the opening game, so an underdog is guaranteed to have a Cinderella year. It was not planned that way, but an underdog story will give the final game a higher rating than a match-up between two known powers.
By contrast, the Women's Final Four is quite likely to feature the four top-seeded schools. Three: U-Conn, Baylor and Tennessee, face no lower than a #2 in their regional final, while Stanford will face Gonzaga, an eleven seed that produced two of the few major upsets of the tournament, a 92-86 win over sixth-ranked Iowa and an 89-75 win over third-ranked UCLA. The Zags defeated seventh-ranked Louisville 76-69 to advance to the Elite Eight. Louisville had concocted some upset magic of its own until that point, knocking off second-ranked Xavier 85-75 in the second round.
U-Conn, who got a scare from a fifth-seeded Georgetown team yesterday, and Tennessee have won more than half of the national championships since the NCAA took over management of the women's tournament in 1982. The team ranked first overall going into the tournament has won thirteen times. U-Conn has come in as the Number One overall and won it all six times. Tennessee has done it three times. The other three schools have been Purdue, Texas and Louisiana Tech.
Louisiana Tech is the last mid-major to win a national title in the women's game; they won the first one in 1982, then won it again in 1988. This season they lost to Rutgers in the first round, but they got the courtesy of playing only an hour from home. The last mid-major to play in the finals was Southwest Missouri State (now Missouri State) in 2001. Their Lady Bears lost to Purdue, who later beat in-state rival Notre Dame for the national championship.
But I wonder if the rise of a mid-major team, an underdog, would help the women's tournament as much as it endears people to the men's game. For one thing, the women draw far less than the men. For example, U-Conn, last year's champion, averaged over 10,000 fans for 21 games. The men's team averaged 11,700 for nineteen games. The difference per game is not bad, but the men had an off-year, winning only eighteen regular season games and played in the NIT, while the women went unbeaten and were national champions.
Stanford, U-Conn's opponent in last year's final, plays in the Pac-10, so it is hardly a mid-major school. Since 1982, the Cardinal women have played in nine Final Fours, made the final game twice and won twice.Yet they ranked only 23rd in attendance last season, drawing just under 4,300 per game. The men, who went 14-18, averaged approximately 6,600. However, Stanford is a national university with a large, well-to-do alumni base. The name can bring in an audience. So can Baylor, which ranked eighth in attendance last season.
I would guess, based on the attendance at women's games versus the men's, that the television executives would prefer that the teams with the largest fan bases are in the Final Four. There's more certainty over the numbers that would be drawn into a Tennessee-UConn final than those that might come if an underdog manages to get past the top seeds. In the men's game, the underdog is the darling of everyone who goes to any school that is not playing in the tournament. It's a shame that's not the same in the women's game.
Book Review--Lockdown High: When the Schoolhouse Becomes a Jailhouse by Annette Funetes
Written by the online editor of The Bay Citizen, a San Francisco-based non-profit and non-partisan news organization, Lockdown High is an investigation not only into the "zero tolerance" practices in public schools, but also the people and organizations that benefit economically and professionally from them.
Fuentes story line is that parents and school administrators have become more preoccupied with security while actual incidents of violent crime in the public schools have been dropping. She spends as much time covering supposed remedies--policies, equipment and security practices--as incidents.
Fuentes provides many examples of over-aggressive law enforcement and security practices that have actually endangered students who have not committed crimes as well as outsiders, parents being one example, who regularly visit school buildings. But she adds that advocates for zero tolerance and tighter security measures cite declining crime rates in schools as reasons that their policies, practices and tools are working.
One example she mentions where over-zealousness has happened most is in the marketing of ID badges and other devises for the identification of sex offenders. The crime is used vendors because it is one widely feared and incidents, whether on school grounds or off, are widely publicized. Laws, such as Megan's Law in New Jersey, are named for victims. However, schools may use these tools for other purposes, some in violation of privacy rights, while incidents of a convicted-then- released sex offender appearing in a school building are extremely rare.
The sad stories in this book are the contrasts between enforcement in schools and prisons. For instance, Fuentes discusses a drug raid on a school building where students were asked to lay flat, face down on the floor of the school building while lockers were searched and drug sniffing dogs roamed the halls with officer escorts. You realize it is one thing when law enforcement officers know and find an actual criminal and carts him away versus when they do not know and hold no student above suspicion, partly because of the demographics surrounding the school.
Oddly enough, Fuentes adds, such incidents, Columbine as one example, might have been avoided had school insiders better understood the behavior of their students. Parents, she states, sued the principal and/or the school system for their failure to understand, not because of the lack of "safeguards" in a school building. In fact, she mentions, there were no metal detectors in the school at the time of the shooting there, and there have not been ever since.
Lockdown High is a very friendly and worthwhile read for anyone concerned about school safety. It tells us that the perception of greater safety involves much more than making a school look and feel more like a fortress or a prison; a school must feel welcome to be safe while teachers and administrators must look after their students. I realize that's easier to say than do, but I can't imagine that the job of educating people is any easier because technology adds a layer of perceived security to a school building.
Friday, March 25, 2011
A New Jersey conservative has valid points about school funding
This morning I am reading a piece on Politicker New Jersey by Murray Sabrin who is one of the louder conservative voices in the Garden State. He wrote to state that New Jersey governor Chris Christie should ignore the findings of a special master as well as the state supreme court with regard to education funding.
Sabrin, in the piece, refers to findings by state court judge Peter Doyne, a special master appointed by the State Supreme Court that the Christie Administration has short-changed urban public school districts to the tune of $2 billion in state aid in the 2011 budget. The court asked Doyne to hear opposing arguments from the state as well as the New Jersey Law Center, a historical advocate for education funding, but they did not ask Doyne to come up with a financial remedy, should one be necessary.
Sabrin goes on to cite the State Constitution as to say that the governor has acted within his obligations to provide for a free public education system, and that he is within his right to decide the funding formula. I am not an attorney, so I won't touch the constitutional grounds of his argument. However, although I am not in the conservative camp, I will say that he has legitimate points.
The state has funded thirty one school districts, called Abbott districts, so named for the court decision that determined their funding. These districts, Governor Christie has said, receive sixty percent of education funding from the state. Some, such as Newark, receive practically all of their revenue from the state. Christie in the 2011 budget cut state aid to these districts by five percent, and cut the suburbs by more. Christie has called the sixty percent distribution ridiculous, though the state's unemployment rate is close to the national average.
I agree with Sabrin in that the courts should not have the final say in school finance and that a governor of either party needs latitude to adjust state funding as demographics and school district needs change. For example, while the Abbott decisions affected urban areas, there have been New Jersey communities in suburban and rural areas where growth has outstripped the community's ability to provide public education. They need state assistance as much as urban districts that have lost population.
Moreover, the districts that receive the majority of available state aid have not been held accountable in the past. Newark and Jersey City, as two examples, continue to employ central office staff who have little to do with the quality of education in the schools. Even while Governor Christie cut aid, I did not see these districts move towards restructurings that might help them become more effective.
Personally, I would rather see more of the money directed towards teachers and principals who work on the front lines. As we see from state Report Cards, each school is different; part of the reason for such uneven performance is the teacher and principal. Accountability and requests for non-academic cuts, excluding transportation, nutrition and school safety, should be placed on these school systems.
The state is right to ask for accountability; taxpayers elsewhere are paying more to educate Abbott students than they do for the students in their own district. If that means fewer central office workers or closings on heavily underused school buildings, then so be it.
One thing I know about New Jersey; people who are forced to say no, with regret, to solving one or more of their own local problems will be more likely to say no to solving someone else's problems. When a district spends over $17,000 a year, and most of it comes from the state, that district has a responsibility to put their financial house in order.
Where I part with Sabrin and other conservatives is with the idea of a minimalist approach to public education: standardized tests, salary caps on teachers and superintendents, and an over-reliance on charters and vouchers to "save" children from failing schools. We deserve more accountability, but it should not be used to mold schools in a direction where they are less likely to perform better, or to direct people out of the public schools. The money needs to be spent on the front lines on the people who deliver the service.
Sabrin, in the piece, refers to findings by state court judge Peter Doyne, a special master appointed by the State Supreme Court that the Christie Administration has short-changed urban public school districts to the tune of $2 billion in state aid in the 2011 budget. The court asked Doyne to hear opposing arguments from the state as well as the New Jersey Law Center, a historical advocate for education funding, but they did not ask Doyne to come up with a financial remedy, should one be necessary.
Sabrin goes on to cite the State Constitution as to say that the governor has acted within his obligations to provide for a free public education system, and that he is within his right to decide the funding formula. I am not an attorney, so I won't touch the constitutional grounds of his argument. However, although I am not in the conservative camp, I will say that he has legitimate points.
The state has funded thirty one school districts, called Abbott districts, so named for the court decision that determined their funding. These districts, Governor Christie has said, receive sixty percent of education funding from the state. Some, such as Newark, receive practically all of their revenue from the state. Christie in the 2011 budget cut state aid to these districts by five percent, and cut the suburbs by more. Christie has called the sixty percent distribution ridiculous, though the state's unemployment rate is close to the national average.
I agree with Sabrin in that the courts should not have the final say in school finance and that a governor of either party needs latitude to adjust state funding as demographics and school district needs change. For example, while the Abbott decisions affected urban areas, there have been New Jersey communities in suburban and rural areas where growth has outstripped the community's ability to provide public education. They need state assistance as much as urban districts that have lost population.
Moreover, the districts that receive the majority of available state aid have not been held accountable in the past. Newark and Jersey City, as two examples, continue to employ central office staff who have little to do with the quality of education in the schools. Even while Governor Christie cut aid, I did not see these districts move towards restructurings that might help them become more effective.
Personally, I would rather see more of the money directed towards teachers and principals who work on the front lines. As we see from state Report Cards, each school is different; part of the reason for such uneven performance is the teacher and principal. Accountability and requests for non-academic cuts, excluding transportation, nutrition and school safety, should be placed on these school systems.
The state is right to ask for accountability; taxpayers elsewhere are paying more to educate Abbott students than they do for the students in their own district. If that means fewer central office workers or closings on heavily underused school buildings, then so be it.
One thing I know about New Jersey; people who are forced to say no, with regret, to solving one or more of their own local problems will be more likely to say no to solving someone else's problems. When a district spends over $17,000 a year, and most of it comes from the state, that district has a responsibility to put their financial house in order.
Where I part with Sabrin and other conservatives is with the idea of a minimalist approach to public education: standardized tests, salary caps on teachers and superintendents, and an over-reliance on charters and vouchers to "save" children from failing schools. We deserve more accountability, but it should not be used to mold schools in a direction where they are less likely to perform better, or to direct people out of the public schools. The money needs to be spent on the front lines on the people who deliver the service.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Sometimes we should not mock the 'student-athlete'
I decided to continue on the basketball theme today after I read this story on Slate.com about the degrees that are being pursued by the players on the teams that earned a spot in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. The reporter was able to obtain information from 59 of the 68 teams.
The story is a blend of fact-finding and sarcasm, focusing on the players who have declared a major versus those who are not far enough along in college to decide on a field of study. Business, or some variation of a business major, was the most popular subject, the same as it is for non-athletes.
Obviously, a news story would have the more outlandish anecdotes, such as the Texas A&M players who have been steered into poultry science and agricultural leaders, although they did not come from agrarian families, but why get excited because athletes majored in sociology or sports management? Non-athletes have the same option. In this story, the reporter assumed that other traditional liberal arts majors, such as economics, history or philosophy, were "harder," with no justification as to why.
Students, whether they are athletes or non-athletes, have access to tutoring and other resources that can help them. A responsible college provides the resources. The administration and the faculty cannot be expected force-feed an education down a student's throat.
There will be students who want to learn as well as others who will want to slide by. That's been a fact on college campuses such time immemorial. Even the best of schools have their easy courses. That's going to happen when a school allows faculty to grade their students any way they see fit. An athlete is no less likely to avoid the poorest instructors than any other student. Why single them out? They have a harder job while in school than most other students do.
I still remember a line from G. Reginald "Reggie" Bishop, then Dean of Instruction at Rutgers, from my freshman orientation: Education is the thing to do. It's now or never. Which do you?
Dean Bishop, who was also a professor of French language and literature, was a serious-looking man who wore black suits all of the time. I used to see him on campus carrying a black lunchbox, much like the ones I saw the Beaver and friends carry on the black and white TV shows of the Fifties and early Sixties. He made suggestions, for instance, that Chemistry majors might want to consider a minor in German because so much of the science was written in German, and so many of the scientists were German.
Of course, most of us being seventeen or eighteen at the time were thinking in other directions, some towards acceptance towards law school or medical school, others towards finding a good job after we finished our four years. Intellectual enrichment was a by-product of the pursuit towards such goals though Dean Bishop might have preferred that it be the reverse. This is no less true for the athletes who come to colleges on scholarship. Those who were offered the opportunity to compete in their sport want to succeed in their sport.
In an ideal society, colleges, especially the flagship state schools, would want their athletes to be not only among their best students, but also among their finest citizens, role models for others. The athletes would not only go to class; they'd wake up their friends and teammates to go, too. They would be the most thankful for their education because they had the most generous scholarships as well the opportunities for further athletic glory, even beyond college as an Olympian and/or a professional athlete. Not to mention a high social standing among the student body.
But anyone who regularly watches college sports know things have never been that way when it comes to every athlete, and that some of the actions of coaches and schools in the pursuit of victory have been exploitative and shameful. We feel sorry for the athletes who did not know better and had their lives, as well as their opportunity for an education, thrown away. And we look cynically upon the athlete who is as famous for his misdeeds off the field as he is for his skills on the field, especially those who have played a sport for more than one college.
Suppose a wand could be waved and all college sports had to become non-scholarship sports. All athletes were required to be full-time students, too, even during the season they played their sport. And they had to apply for admission the same as other students. Which schools would win out?
The ones with the most lax admissions standards would likely get the best athletes, but that does not necessarily mean that they would retain all of them. The school would be left with a choice about how to help the ones on the fence. Throw them out, even if they have made a positive contribution to the performance of their team and the reputation of their school? Or, find a way to help them finish, even if it means counseling them into an "easier" major, or finding other ways to help them stay in school, so that they could finish their degree after their sports eligibility expired? Which is the lesser of two evils?
And by the way, I would love to see the same story written about the women who are playing in their tournament. Unlike the men they need to graduate in order to turn pro. A reporter might see a similar mix of majors, but he might also a graduation rate that is closer, or better, for each school than for their student body as a whole.
The story is a blend of fact-finding and sarcasm, focusing on the players who have declared a major versus those who are not far enough along in college to decide on a field of study. Business, or some variation of a business major, was the most popular subject, the same as it is for non-athletes.
Obviously, a news story would have the more outlandish anecdotes, such as the Texas A&M players who have been steered into poultry science and agricultural leaders, although they did not come from agrarian families, but why get excited because athletes majored in sociology or sports management? Non-athletes have the same option. In this story, the reporter assumed that other traditional liberal arts majors, such as economics, history or philosophy, were "harder," with no justification as to why.
Students, whether they are athletes or non-athletes, have access to tutoring and other resources that can help them. A responsible college provides the resources. The administration and the faculty cannot be expected force-feed an education down a student's throat.
There will be students who want to learn as well as others who will want to slide by. That's been a fact on college campuses such time immemorial. Even the best of schools have their easy courses. That's going to happen when a school allows faculty to grade their students any way they see fit. An athlete is no less likely to avoid the poorest instructors than any other student. Why single them out? They have a harder job while in school than most other students do.
I still remember a line from G. Reginald "Reggie" Bishop, then Dean of Instruction at Rutgers, from my freshman orientation: Education is the thing to do. It's now or never. Which do you?
Dean Bishop, who was also a professor of French language and literature, was a serious-looking man who wore black suits all of the time. I used to see him on campus carrying a black lunchbox, much like the ones I saw the Beaver and friends carry on the black and white TV shows of the Fifties and early Sixties. He made suggestions, for instance, that Chemistry majors might want to consider a minor in German because so much of the science was written in German, and so many of the scientists were German.
Of course, most of us being seventeen or eighteen at the time were thinking in other directions, some towards acceptance towards law school or medical school, others towards finding a good job after we finished our four years. Intellectual enrichment was a by-product of the pursuit towards such goals though Dean Bishop might have preferred that it be the reverse. This is no less true for the athletes who come to colleges on scholarship. Those who were offered the opportunity to compete in their sport want to succeed in their sport.
In an ideal society, colleges, especially the flagship state schools, would want their athletes to be not only among their best students, but also among their finest citizens, role models for others. The athletes would not only go to class; they'd wake up their friends and teammates to go, too. They would be the most thankful for their education because they had the most generous scholarships as well the opportunities for further athletic glory, even beyond college as an Olympian and/or a professional athlete. Not to mention a high social standing among the student body.
But anyone who regularly watches college sports know things have never been that way when it comes to every athlete, and that some of the actions of coaches and schools in the pursuit of victory have been exploitative and shameful. We feel sorry for the athletes who did not know better and had their lives, as well as their opportunity for an education, thrown away. And we look cynically upon the athlete who is as famous for his misdeeds off the field as he is for his skills on the field, especially those who have played a sport for more than one college.
Suppose a wand could be waved and all college sports had to become non-scholarship sports. All athletes were required to be full-time students, too, even during the season they played their sport. And they had to apply for admission the same as other students. Which schools would win out?
The ones with the most lax admissions standards would likely get the best athletes, but that does not necessarily mean that they would retain all of them. The school would be left with a choice about how to help the ones on the fence. Throw them out, even if they have made a positive contribution to the performance of their team and the reputation of their school? Or, find a way to help them finish, even if it means counseling them into an "easier" major, or finding other ways to help them stay in school, so that they could finish their degree after their sports eligibility expired? Which is the lesser of two evils?
And by the way, I would love to see the same story written about the women who are playing in their tournament. Unlike the men they need to graduate in order to turn pro. A reporter might see a similar mix of majors, but he might also a graduation rate that is closer, or better, for each school than for their student body as a whole.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The NBA and the NCAA should take a lead in funding midnight basketball
Today I read a guest column in the Newark Star Ledger by Providence Journal reporter Froma Harrop that provides some history and perspective about "midnight basketball," a once Federally-funded program that now gets by on local support.
About half of Harrop's column is devoted to the impact of recreation basketball on U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R. Massachusetts). Brown, who has recently released his autobiography talked about basketball as an opportunity for an escape from a very difficult family life and a chance to go to college. Brown, who was raised by a mother who was in the frequent company of abusive men, was able to find male role models through his coaches.
While Scott Brown might have been too old to have played midnight basketball under the federal program--he was in his mid-thirties when the program was first funded by Congress--his story offers good reasons for others, including the NBA and the NCAA, to support the recreational programs. While advertisers, according to Harrop, spent $614 million on the NCAA Tournament, it is more important for the leadership of the college and professional programs to become involved. Here are several reasons why:
+ Midnight basketball is not only an urban game; it is popular in the suburbs, too. It is easier and less expensive to organize than other sports and it can be played indoors or outdoors all year-round. If one considers the number of schools in the NCAA and the number of professional teams that need to sell tickets for their regular season games, then young people in thousands of communities would benefit. Not to mention the teams could establish better relationships with their fan base for relatively little money.
+ Unlike the other three major league sports, basketball features women in high profile roles, not only as players and coaches, but also executives. In addition, NBA owners such as the Maloofs (Sacramento Kings) and the Buss family (Los Angeles Lakers) have investments in women's professional teams. Midnight basketball offers an opportunity to sell the women's game as well as the men's.
This would be important for growing the women's college game. While schools such as Connecticut and Tennessee regularly sell out women's regular season home games, others like Rutgers, which makes frequent appearances in the NCAA Tournament, do not. In fact, the Rutgers women have less than 1,000 season ticket holders while the men, who have had a winning season in six years, and no NCAA appearances in the last twenty, have over 3,000.
+ Advertisers already have experience with basketball tournaments in cities through Hoop-It-Up, a three-on-three summer tournament that takes place in 42 cities from the end of March through the beginning of September.
While midnight basketball programs are more likely to feature the typical five-on-five game, Hoop-It-Up is invented sport, more like street ball. There's nothing wrong with Hoop-It-Up, but it is an adult game. Midnight ball is meant for kids who need, and hopefully want, to learn the real game.
While it initially cost only $40 million, midnight basketball drew chuckles from conservative Republicans; conservatives are not known to like programs that they consider to be "touchy-feely."
However, the concept has outlasted the funding. An Association of Midnight Basketball Leagues stepped forward six years ago to carry the cause, though neither the NBA nor the NCAA have stepped forward as sponsors. It may be that the colleges or the pros would prefer to have all of the sponsorship money as well as total control. But first they must demonstrate the right intentions.
About half of Harrop's column is devoted to the impact of recreation basketball on U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R. Massachusetts). Brown, who has recently released his autobiography talked about basketball as an opportunity for an escape from a very difficult family life and a chance to go to college. Brown, who was raised by a mother who was in the frequent company of abusive men, was able to find male role models through his coaches.
While Scott Brown might have been too old to have played midnight basketball under the federal program--he was in his mid-thirties when the program was first funded by Congress--his story offers good reasons for others, including the NBA and the NCAA, to support the recreational programs. While advertisers, according to Harrop, spent $614 million on the NCAA Tournament, it is more important for the leadership of the college and professional programs to become involved. Here are several reasons why:
+ Midnight basketball is not only an urban game; it is popular in the suburbs, too. It is easier and less expensive to organize than other sports and it can be played indoors or outdoors all year-round. If one considers the number of schools in the NCAA and the number of professional teams that need to sell tickets for their regular season games, then young people in thousands of communities would benefit. Not to mention the teams could establish better relationships with their fan base for relatively little money.
+ Unlike the other three major league sports, basketball features women in high profile roles, not only as players and coaches, but also executives. In addition, NBA owners such as the Maloofs (Sacramento Kings) and the Buss family (Los Angeles Lakers) have investments in women's professional teams. Midnight basketball offers an opportunity to sell the women's game as well as the men's.
This would be important for growing the women's college game. While schools such as Connecticut and Tennessee regularly sell out women's regular season home games, others like Rutgers, which makes frequent appearances in the NCAA Tournament, do not. In fact, the Rutgers women have less than 1,000 season ticket holders while the men, who have had a winning season in six years, and no NCAA appearances in the last twenty, have over 3,000.
+ Advertisers already have experience with basketball tournaments in cities through Hoop-It-Up, a three-on-three summer tournament that takes place in 42 cities from the end of March through the beginning of September.
While midnight basketball programs are more likely to feature the typical five-on-five game, Hoop-It-Up is invented sport, more like street ball. There's nothing wrong with Hoop-It-Up, but it is an adult game. Midnight ball is meant for kids who need, and hopefully want, to learn the real game.
While it initially cost only $40 million, midnight basketball drew chuckles from conservative Republicans; conservatives are not known to like programs that they consider to be "touchy-feely."
However, the concept has outlasted the funding. An Association of Midnight Basketball Leagues stepped forward six years ago to carry the cause, though neither the NBA nor the NCAA have stepped forward as sponsors. It may be that the colleges or the pros would prefer to have all of the sponsorship money as well as total control. But first they must demonstrate the right intentions.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Quick thoughts on the future of Hebrew immersion schools in New Jersey
In my home state of New Jersey there have been recent ongoing arguments over the merits of publicly supported Hebrew-immersion charter schools. Opponents of these schools have said that their primary supporters are Jewish families who cannot afford a private Jewish day school tuition for their children.
However, being public schools, admission to a Hebrew-immersion charter school would not be not limited to Jewish students, and all charter school admissions in New Jersey are done by lottery; students get in by luck of the draw.
The debates over these schools are taking place in Highland Park, Teaneck and Englewood; all of these communities not only have a proportionately large Jewish population, they are also racially and ethnically diverse. One publicly supported Hebrew immersion school, the Hatikvah International Academy, already operates in East Brunswick, another exceptionally diverse community. Hatikvah currently enrolls 98 students, with a waiting list for next year.
I went to Hebrew school from kindergarten through the tenth grade and my mother taught Jewish history and culture in Hebrew schools for several years before she passed away. Not everyone who is Jewish goes to Hebrew school for eleven years, so I have some unique standing on this issue.
When I went to Hebrew school, students learned the holidays and the stories behind them. They also learned Jewish and Israeli songs. Conversational Hebrew was taught between the fourth grade and the seventh grade. In the seventh grade you also prepared for your Bar or Bat Mitzvah. The classes after that were a mix of baloney, ethics and philosophy, until your class prepared a service as a team for confirmation. Hebrew school took place after school or on the weekends depending on the class.
As I read these stories about Hebrew immersion schools I cannot see:
+ How students can learn conversational Hebrew before the fourth grade when they have not developed adequate skills to read English, their native language. Teachers tell me that from kindergarten through the third grade you learn to read. From the fourth grade on you read to learn. I never knew of public or private schools that attempted to teach other foreign languages before the fourth grade; even the Catholic schools do not try to teach Latin too early. But all I can do is ask questions. I looked at the Hatikvah Website and saw that they have five Hebrew instructors on staff for 98 students. I'll presume that they know much that I don't know.
+ How one avoids discussing the Jewish faith when talking about Jewish history and culture. Then again, American colonies, Rhode Island being one example, Pennsylvania being another, were founded in part by religious leaders. The benefactor of Harvard University, John Harvard, was a clergyman, and the school named for him initially trained men of the cloth. I doubt that teachers in the traditional public schools would be punished for mentioning these examples, among others, of how religion and religious leaders connected with American history.
+ How one provides a Jewish-focused education without discussing the history of Israel and the political situation of Israel in the world today. I would expect teachers at a Hebrew immersion school to talk about Israel's history almost as much as they would discuss American history. Quite likely they would devote more attention to the country than a traditional public school. I'd suspect one-sided political arguments might ensue in a Hebrew-immersion school, but when has that been a surprise within a traditional public school?
I cannot comment as to whether the education at Hatikvah is better than it would be in the East Brunswick elementary schools, but a charter school as specialized as this would not open unless there was a demand. It is safe to say that parents wanted the culture and the language education for their children without the strict and more conservative setting of the yeshiva, which does not appeal to all Jews.
However, the Hatikvah Academy, unlike the yeshiva, must meet state standards. Next year, their third graders--the school is adding the grade to retain the current second grade class--will need to take state-mandated tests. If the students pass with flying colors, Hatikvah will set benchmarks for charter school authorizing authorities to consider other Hebrew-immersion schools. If they do not, future applications could be prejudiced.
And there is another interesting twist. Hatikvah supplements public money by running optional before-school and after-school programs for which it charges tuition as high as $195 per-month, though the cost per child declines when a family has more than one enrolled in the school. I am not aware of other charter schools in New Jersey that take this approach.
From a distance I see that the charges may help to make up for the difference in state aid between Hatikvah and a traditional public school, and given the youth of the students--the school opened to serve grades K through 2--an alternative to day care for parents. Or the after-school might be an alternative to an after school program run by a synagogue.
However, this raises a question: has public money gone into a school where the parents might have been able to pay more? If the answer was yes, then Hatikvah could have operated as a private school instead of being a publicly-supported charter.
This question is important, not only for the future of Hatikvah, but also suburban charter schools in New Jersey. As more and more charter schools become authorized, it is more and more likely that they will be affected by the same budget cuts that affect the traditional public schools. When that happens funding will be subject to these considerations:
+ Did all students pass the state examinations? Charters have been approved on the premise they will do better. They are usually have much smaller student bodies than traditional public schools, and they invest more time in instruction. So they should be held to a standard that is closer to perfection. Schools that fail continually--more than two consecutive years--should be closed as long as the students can be sent to a better performing public school.
+ Were disadvantaged students well served by the charter school? The primary reason politicians like charter schools is that they are intended to take disadvantaged students out of poor-performing public schools. If a student body that attained near perfection on state tests comes mainly from disadvantaged economic backgrounds or was in need of special education, then that school will be favored in budget talks.
+ Will the school fail with less state funding? A charter school that is supported by well-to-do parents partly through tuition or donations is less likely to receive the same level of state aid as a charter school that primarily serves students in low income families. If an state-authorized analysis revealed that charter schools in a suburb could raise money locally or from donors, then the state would have good reason to pull back money in a budget crisis.
However, being public schools, admission to a Hebrew-immersion charter school would not be not limited to Jewish students, and all charter school admissions in New Jersey are done by lottery; students get in by luck of the draw.
The debates over these schools are taking place in Highland Park, Teaneck and Englewood; all of these communities not only have a proportionately large Jewish population, they are also racially and ethnically diverse. One publicly supported Hebrew immersion school, the Hatikvah International Academy, already operates in East Brunswick, another exceptionally diverse community. Hatikvah currently enrolls 98 students, with a waiting list for next year.
I went to Hebrew school from kindergarten through the tenth grade and my mother taught Jewish history and culture in Hebrew schools for several years before she passed away. Not everyone who is Jewish goes to Hebrew school for eleven years, so I have some unique standing on this issue.
When I went to Hebrew school, students learned the holidays and the stories behind them. They also learned Jewish and Israeli songs. Conversational Hebrew was taught between the fourth grade and the seventh grade. In the seventh grade you also prepared for your Bar or Bat Mitzvah. The classes after that were a mix of baloney, ethics and philosophy, until your class prepared a service as a team for confirmation. Hebrew school took place after school or on the weekends depending on the class.
As I read these stories about Hebrew immersion schools I cannot see:
+ How students can learn conversational Hebrew before the fourth grade when they have not developed adequate skills to read English, their native language. Teachers tell me that from kindergarten through the third grade you learn to read. From the fourth grade on you read to learn. I never knew of public or private schools that attempted to teach other foreign languages before the fourth grade; even the Catholic schools do not try to teach Latin too early. But all I can do is ask questions. I looked at the Hatikvah Website and saw that they have five Hebrew instructors on staff for 98 students. I'll presume that they know much that I don't know.
+ How one avoids discussing the Jewish faith when talking about Jewish history and culture. Then again, American colonies, Rhode Island being one example, Pennsylvania being another, were founded in part by religious leaders. The benefactor of Harvard University, John Harvard, was a clergyman, and the school named for him initially trained men of the cloth. I doubt that teachers in the traditional public schools would be punished for mentioning these examples, among others, of how religion and religious leaders connected with American history.
+ How one provides a Jewish-focused education without discussing the history of Israel and the political situation of Israel in the world today. I would expect teachers at a Hebrew immersion school to talk about Israel's history almost as much as they would discuss American history. Quite likely they would devote more attention to the country than a traditional public school. I'd suspect one-sided political arguments might ensue in a Hebrew-immersion school, but when has that been a surprise within a traditional public school?
I cannot comment as to whether the education at Hatikvah is better than it would be in the East Brunswick elementary schools, but a charter school as specialized as this would not open unless there was a demand. It is safe to say that parents wanted the culture and the language education for their children without the strict and more conservative setting of the yeshiva, which does not appeal to all Jews.
However, the Hatikvah Academy, unlike the yeshiva, must meet state standards. Next year, their third graders--the school is adding the grade to retain the current second grade class--will need to take state-mandated tests. If the students pass with flying colors, Hatikvah will set benchmarks for charter school authorizing authorities to consider other Hebrew-immersion schools. If they do not, future applications could be prejudiced.
And there is another interesting twist. Hatikvah supplements public money by running optional before-school and after-school programs for which it charges tuition as high as $195 per-month, though the cost per child declines when a family has more than one enrolled in the school. I am not aware of other charter schools in New Jersey that take this approach.
From a distance I see that the charges may help to make up for the difference in state aid between Hatikvah and a traditional public school, and given the youth of the students--the school opened to serve grades K through 2--an alternative to day care for parents. Or the after-school might be an alternative to an after school program run by a synagogue.
However, this raises a question: has public money gone into a school where the parents might have been able to pay more? If the answer was yes, then Hatikvah could have operated as a private school instead of being a publicly-supported charter.
This question is important, not only for the future of Hatikvah, but also suburban charter schools in New Jersey. As more and more charter schools become authorized, it is more and more likely that they will be affected by the same budget cuts that affect the traditional public schools. When that happens funding will be subject to these considerations:
+ Did all students pass the state examinations? Charters have been approved on the premise they will do better. They are usually have much smaller student bodies than traditional public schools, and they invest more time in instruction. So they should be held to a standard that is closer to perfection. Schools that fail continually--more than two consecutive years--should be closed as long as the students can be sent to a better performing public school.
+ Were disadvantaged students well served by the charter school? The primary reason politicians like charter schools is that they are intended to take disadvantaged students out of poor-performing public schools. If a student body that attained near perfection on state tests comes mainly from disadvantaged economic backgrounds or was in need of special education, then that school will be favored in budget talks.
+ Will the school fail with less state funding? A charter school that is supported by well-to-do parents partly through tuition or donations is less likely to receive the same level of state aid as a charter school that primarily serves students in low income families. If an state-authorized analysis revealed that charter schools in a suburb could raise money locally or from donors, then the state would have good reason to pull back money in a budget crisis.
Students in good standing should receive priority to keep their Pell Grants
Today I'm reading a debate about the future of Pell Grants, the federal program which will provide anywhere between $4,700 and $5,500--depending on the outcome of budget negotiations in Congress--in assistance to college students for the coming year. This is assistance which does not need to be repaid.
After I read the debate, I went back to the Purdue Financial Aid Estimator that I had discussed in a previous post. I "made" myself into a low-income Indiana resident, student and family contributing nothing, high school GPA of 3.25 (the Estimator asks nothing of SAT or ACT scores) to recheck what my aid would be. Here's what I found when it came to scholarships:
Pell Grant: $5,350.00
Indiana Higher Education Award: $3,130.00
Purdue Centennial Opportunity Grant: $1,720.00
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant: $400.00
Purdue Access & Success Incentive Grant: $500.00
This year, Purdue charged in-state students approximately $10,300 for tuition, fees and books. My student would have received $11,100 in scholarship aid, more than enough to cover it. Federal grants would have made up more than half of it.
Cut the $5,700 in grants back to $4,700, as the Republicans in Congress have proposed, and the student or the school has to come up with another $1,000 to cover the costs of his education. I would find the cut less objectionable if the student had a way to make up the money that he stood to lose as well as the extra money he will need to cover any tuition increase Purdue may implement in the next year.
This student qualified for a Federally funded Work-Study job which would pay $2,500 for the fall and spring semesters. That's not a lot of money over the course of a 30 to 35 week school year, so maybe he finds another job that pays better, assuming that he doesn't need a car to get to work on-time. This also assumes that he'll figure out his way quickly around West Lafayette, if it's a place he has not previously visited.
What if the student borrows the money? Well, according to the Estimator, my student maxed out the Federal loans at $5,500 from the subsidized interest and the unsubsidized programs, and qualified for a $2,000 loan from Purdue. I'd guess he could go to a Purdue credit union for an emergency loan, but that's another debt he would have to repay. Same is true if he goes to a bank.
Here is Purdue, trying to help this student get through the freshman year. He makes it to the sophomore year in good standing--Purdue is not an easy school for the pre-professional majors--and he still needs financial help. If he doesn't get to stay, the student and the school lose. According to the latest U.S. News Guide, Purdue lost fourteen percent of the freshmen who entered in 2009. This was the same percentage reported in 2007 on College Results Online.
Who would be to blame if this student leaves? We can blame the student if he didn't do the work or if he didn't seek help to learn what he didn't know. But can we blame him if he made it through in good standing, but cannot come up with an extra $2,000 to $2,500? I would say the answer is no. And we have to favor the student who does the work.
If there is so much concern about the rising costs of student aid, then tie federal grant eligibility to some form of degree progress, which is not done at this time. If a student is on-track to graduate with their class, they get what they're entitled. If there is an academic reason, for example, a change in major or the addition of a second major, that forces a student to remain an extra year, then fine, as long as the student was making satisfactory progress. If a student drops out for a non-academic reason, such as an illness, family matter or military service, aid can resume as long as the student still qualifies and made satisfactory progress.
I've read suggestions that the grants be turned into loans. Under these scenarios, the student would borrow the money and probably pay no interest while he is in school. The loan turns into a grant if the student makes satisfactory academic progress. If not, the loan must be repaid with interest.
This would work fine if tuition was at the rate charged by community colleges--maybe that is how the repayment obligation is handled--but otherwise this policy would leave our low income Purdue student on the hook for more than $13,000 in loans. I'm sure that some bank would love to consolidate that debt. However, this drop-out has now been hit with more punishment than he could probably afford to deal with. I'd say this idea is draconian, and something to avoid.
It's not the average grant per student that is the major problem, it's that the colleges and the federal government must remind the students that they need to work for the money, whether it be through academic counseling or tough love. The taxpayers deserve that much.
After I read the debate, I went back to the Purdue Financial Aid Estimator that I had discussed in a previous post. I "made" myself into a low-income Indiana resident, student and family contributing nothing, high school GPA of 3.25 (the Estimator asks nothing of SAT or ACT scores) to recheck what my aid would be. Here's what I found when it came to scholarships:
Pell Grant: $5,350.00
Indiana Higher Education Award: $3,130.00
Purdue Centennial Opportunity Grant: $1,720.00
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant: $400.00
Purdue Access & Success Incentive Grant: $500.00
This year, Purdue charged in-state students approximately $10,300 for tuition, fees and books. My student would have received $11,100 in scholarship aid, more than enough to cover it. Federal grants would have made up more than half of it.
Cut the $5,700 in grants back to $4,700, as the Republicans in Congress have proposed, and the student or the school has to come up with another $1,000 to cover the costs of his education. I would find the cut less objectionable if the student had a way to make up the money that he stood to lose as well as the extra money he will need to cover any tuition increase Purdue may implement in the next year.
This student qualified for a Federally funded Work-Study job which would pay $2,500 for the fall and spring semesters. That's not a lot of money over the course of a 30 to 35 week school year, so maybe he finds another job that pays better, assuming that he doesn't need a car to get to work on-time. This also assumes that he'll figure out his way quickly around West Lafayette, if it's a place he has not previously visited.
What if the student borrows the money? Well, according to the Estimator, my student maxed out the Federal loans at $5,500 from the subsidized interest and the unsubsidized programs, and qualified for a $2,000 loan from Purdue. I'd guess he could go to a Purdue credit union for an emergency loan, but that's another debt he would have to repay. Same is true if he goes to a bank.
Here is Purdue, trying to help this student get through the freshman year. He makes it to the sophomore year in good standing--Purdue is not an easy school for the pre-professional majors--and he still needs financial help. If he doesn't get to stay, the student and the school lose. According to the latest U.S. News Guide, Purdue lost fourteen percent of the freshmen who entered in 2009. This was the same percentage reported in 2007 on College Results Online.
Who would be to blame if this student leaves? We can blame the student if he didn't do the work or if he didn't seek help to learn what he didn't know. But can we blame him if he made it through in good standing, but cannot come up with an extra $2,000 to $2,500? I would say the answer is no. And we have to favor the student who does the work.
If there is so much concern about the rising costs of student aid, then tie federal grant eligibility to some form of degree progress, which is not done at this time. If a student is on-track to graduate with their class, they get what they're entitled. If there is an academic reason, for example, a change in major or the addition of a second major, that forces a student to remain an extra year, then fine, as long as the student was making satisfactory progress. If a student drops out for a non-academic reason, such as an illness, family matter or military service, aid can resume as long as the student still qualifies and made satisfactory progress.
I've read suggestions that the grants be turned into loans. Under these scenarios, the student would borrow the money and probably pay no interest while he is in school. The loan turns into a grant if the student makes satisfactory academic progress. If not, the loan must be repaid with interest.
This would work fine if tuition was at the rate charged by community colleges--maybe that is how the repayment obligation is handled--but otherwise this policy would leave our low income Purdue student on the hook for more than $13,000 in loans. I'm sure that some bank would love to consolidate that debt. However, this drop-out has now been hit with more punishment than he could probably afford to deal with. I'd say this idea is draconian, and something to avoid.
It's not the average grant per student that is the major problem, it's that the colleges and the federal government must remind the students that they need to work for the money, whether it be through academic counseling or tough love. The taxpayers deserve that much.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Northwestern University human sexuality class went beyond necessity
It's been almost four years since my first novel,The Sex Ed Chronicles, came out, though I still follow sex education stories in the news. However, my novel was very tame compared to what happened in a Human Sexuality class taught by Professor J. Micheal Bailey at Northwestern University.
Bailey, who is a tenured professor of psychology at the school, teaches a course that enrolls over 600 students. Recently, he asked students if they wanted to stay behind to watch a live sex toy demonstration. One hundred students did. While Bailey has taught this course on-campus for 21 years, this was the first time he had staged such a demonstration for students. Attendance was voluntary and would not count towards a course grade.
The facts that 600 people enrolled in Bailey's course and slightly more than 100 stuck around should attest to the popularity of the professor and the class. He teaches content that students want to know. I went to a state school much larger than Northwestern and I never saw 600 people in any class I took, even the big freshman intro courses.
While Dr. Bailey had never hosted this live demonstration before this year, he had explicitly pushed the envelope in previous classes. From comments I read on the stories covering this event, Bailey had previously invited students to attend a transvestite show at a club off-campus. He has also hosted a panel of gay men speaking about their sex lives, a transsexual performer, two convicted sex offenders, an expert in female sexual health and sexual pleasure, a plastic surgeon and a swinging couple.
However, Dr. Bailey has also continued to teach seven years after a sexual misconduct suit was filed against him by a transsexual woman he had profiled in a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen. The university investigated the academic integrity of the book--Bailey was accused of using stories given by women without their consent--but the sexual misconduct complaint was never investigated.
Does it bother me that the professor went ahead with such a graphic demonstration? In some ways yes, in others no. This was live and the actors wanted to be public, but it was also in a campus building--and those are not necessarily private places. What if those 100 students had told two or three of their friends that the demonstration was going on, and they showed up, too? Then it would have been a show and not a class.
Had Bailey shown a film instead of a live demonstration, he might have be criticized, but he would have also done what student groups or student center programming boards are also allowed to do, so he really could not be punished. Had Bailey told students to report on similar activities that went on at a fraternity house or a private club off-campus, that would have been a less reasonable request for a teacher to make because privacy rights would have been violated.
As someone unaffiliated with Northwestern, I do not have a right to judge the students who went to the demonstration. But I also wonder,in these days of Internet porn, if the demonstration was any shock at all, or if it was actually necessary. Dr. Bailey has gotten himself in hot water over something he didn't need to do.
I would presume that not only the incident will be investigated, his work history will, too. Pressure will be brought upon the university president to fire the professor; threats to withdraw contributions may happen as well. It will be interesting to see how Bailey's academic colleagues defend him. And it will be all because the professor did something he didn't need to do.
One thing I learned from writing my novel was that sex education and driver's education were practically the only two subjects that any high school student would be willing to learn on their own. They don't need to wait until a college professor will stage life in front of them.
Bailey, who is a tenured professor of psychology at the school, teaches a course that enrolls over 600 students. Recently, he asked students if they wanted to stay behind to watch a live sex toy demonstration. One hundred students did. While Bailey has taught this course on-campus for 21 years, this was the first time he had staged such a demonstration for students. Attendance was voluntary and would not count towards a course grade.
The facts that 600 people enrolled in Bailey's course and slightly more than 100 stuck around should attest to the popularity of the professor and the class. He teaches content that students want to know. I went to a state school much larger than Northwestern and I never saw 600 people in any class I took, even the big freshman intro courses.
While Dr. Bailey had never hosted this live demonstration before this year, he had explicitly pushed the envelope in previous classes. From comments I read on the stories covering this event, Bailey had previously invited students to attend a transvestite show at a club off-campus. He has also hosted a panel of gay men speaking about their sex lives, a transsexual performer, two convicted sex offenders, an expert in female sexual health and sexual pleasure, a plastic surgeon and a swinging couple.
However, Dr. Bailey has also continued to teach seven years after a sexual misconduct suit was filed against him by a transsexual woman he had profiled in a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen. The university investigated the academic integrity of the book--Bailey was accused of using stories given by women without their consent--but the sexual misconduct complaint was never investigated.
Does it bother me that the professor went ahead with such a graphic demonstration? In some ways yes, in others no. This was live and the actors wanted to be public, but it was also in a campus building--and those are not necessarily private places. What if those 100 students had told two or three of their friends that the demonstration was going on, and they showed up, too? Then it would have been a show and not a class.
Had Bailey shown a film instead of a live demonstration, he might have be criticized, but he would have also done what student groups or student center programming boards are also allowed to do, so he really could not be punished. Had Bailey told students to report on similar activities that went on at a fraternity house or a private club off-campus, that would have been a less reasonable request for a teacher to make because privacy rights would have been violated.
As someone unaffiliated with Northwestern, I do not have a right to judge the students who went to the demonstration. But I also wonder,in these days of Internet porn, if the demonstration was any shock at all, or if it was actually necessary. Dr. Bailey has gotten himself in hot water over something he didn't need to do.
I would presume that not only the incident will be investigated, his work history will, too. Pressure will be brought upon the university president to fire the professor; threats to withdraw contributions may happen as well. It will be interesting to see how Bailey's academic colleagues defend him. And it will be all because the professor did something he didn't need to do.
One thing I learned from writing my novel was that sex education and driver's education were practically the only two subjects that any high school student would be willing to learn on their own. They don't need to wait until a college professor will stage life in front of them.
U.S. Department of Education multi-state approval regulations are too burdensome for online degree providers
Today I've read on eCampusNews that the U.S. Department of Education will stand by a controversial rule that requires all schools that grant online degrees seek approval in every state where they have students. This rule applies to all higher education institutions: public, private non-profit and for-profit.
My impression is that the rule was targeted primarily at for-profit schools that offer programs that must meet professional accreditation standards; the department issued the regulations at the same time as they issued regulations for incentive compensation and misrepresentation. However, they may end up impacting the public schools more; unlike the for-profits they are not profitable, nor can they issue debt or equity when they need money.
This story made me wonder about online education in its various forms and why so many institutions believe that they must offer online degrees. For the for-profits, it is easy to understand why--they're a profit center.
For a state or local school, it could be to deliver more of the catalog off-campus, so that students would not be limited to the course offerings that were available at a single location. This way students were more likely to graduate on-time and take the courses they wanted.
However, the public online education divisions are also behaving like their parent public university; they want to attract out-of-state students because they are a profit center. In addition, the programs that are offered on-campus to out-of-state students do not need to meet the accreditation requirements of the states where their out-of-state students come from. For example, students who study accounting at Rutgers may not necessarily meet all of the education requirements to practice accounting in Delaware, New York or Pennsylvania. Their home state accounting board may require them to take an extra course that reflects state laws or professional practice.
So, I have to wonder, instead of asking schools to produce all of this paperwork, why not ask them to post 'truth in education' information about their programs. For a school that offers accounting degrees, for example, this could be as simple as linking to the national professional association or a state professional standards board and a requirement for the school to link to updated information as it becomes available.
I would have no issue if the Department of Education imposed this most strictly on the for-profits. If those schools want to operate in every state and have campuses in every state, their central office should be aware of professional accreditation standards in every state. This is not an unreasonable request, and since these schools are part of a boundary-free corporation, the federal government is the appropriate home for regulation.
The public and non-profit schools tend to be more regional. They could be held to a standard such as "any state that represents five percent or more of your student population." This would apply to the off-line as well as the online degree. If a state-supported school in Pennsylvania, for example taught many accounting or education students from New Jersey, it would make sense for them to help those students meet the Garden State's professional standards. And it would be more reasonable for these schools to monitor the requests and requirements of a handful of states than for all fifty.
My impression is that the rule was targeted primarily at for-profit schools that offer programs that must meet professional accreditation standards; the department issued the regulations at the same time as they issued regulations for incentive compensation and misrepresentation. However, they may end up impacting the public schools more; unlike the for-profits they are not profitable, nor can they issue debt or equity when they need money.
This story made me wonder about online education in its various forms and why so many institutions believe that they must offer online degrees. For the for-profits, it is easy to understand why--they're a profit center.
For a state or local school, it could be to deliver more of the catalog off-campus, so that students would not be limited to the course offerings that were available at a single location. This way students were more likely to graduate on-time and take the courses they wanted.
However, the public online education divisions are also behaving like their parent public university; they want to attract out-of-state students because they are a profit center. In addition, the programs that are offered on-campus to out-of-state students do not need to meet the accreditation requirements of the states where their out-of-state students come from. For example, students who study accounting at Rutgers may not necessarily meet all of the education requirements to practice accounting in Delaware, New York or Pennsylvania. Their home state accounting board may require them to take an extra course that reflects state laws or professional practice.
So, I have to wonder, instead of asking schools to produce all of this paperwork, why not ask them to post 'truth in education' information about their programs. For a school that offers accounting degrees, for example, this could be as simple as linking to the national professional association or a state professional standards board and a requirement for the school to link to updated information as it becomes available.
I would have no issue if the Department of Education imposed this most strictly on the for-profits. If those schools want to operate in every state and have campuses in every state, their central office should be aware of professional accreditation standards in every state. This is not an unreasonable request, and since these schools are part of a boundary-free corporation, the federal government is the appropriate home for regulation.
The public and non-profit schools tend to be more regional. They could be held to a standard such as "any state that represents five percent or more of your student population." This would apply to the off-line as well as the online degree. If a state-supported school in Pennsylvania, for example taught many accounting or education students from New Jersey, it would make sense for them to help those students meet the Garden State's professional standards. And it would be more reasonable for these schools to monitor the requests and requirements of a handful of states than for all fifty.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
What you should learn when you use a net-price calculator to estimate college costs
Beginning this fall, colleges are required to provide students and their families with a net price calculator. Ideally, this helps to provide a reliable estimate of college costs, less any grants or scholarship aid before applying to a particular school. The balance, less grants or scholarships is what your family should pay fir the coming school year.
This all sounds well and good, but the federal policies that required colleges to have a calculator did not set the standards for either its design or its output. Nor did they require that it be easy to find off a college's home page or financial aid page. Moreover, the calculator has less value to students and families who are only starting to consider colleges. They have not completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)so they would not know what their estimated family contribution would be.
Purdue University (IN) was one of the first schools to have a net price calculator on their Web site. It's a four-click jump from the home page to the calculator for parents: Parents and Families->Information for Parents (lots of links)-> Financial Aid-> Purdue Financial Aid Estimator (a button). It's an easier three-click jump for students: Students->Financial Aid and Scholarships-> Purdue Financial Aid Estimator (a button). It should have been a three-click jump for the parents, too.
But Purdue makes a good effort at making the calculator button easy to find. The calculator bases estimates on the charges for the current school year; tuition and fees for 2012-13 are not set at this time.
I plugged in numbers as if I was a student from a low income family in Indiana, choosing the lowest income bracket and estimated family and student contributions of zero. I got the information I wanted, but not in the way I wanted to read it. When I got down to Award Eligibility the grants and scholarships were mixed with the maximum awards possible for loans and work study. Student loan and work study information should have been placed below my net price.
But I learned the most important piece of information: what it would cost for a family in the worst financial straits to go to Purdue. Assuming the family and student paid nothing and the student did not qualify for the school's merit scholarship programs, the difference to be made up would be a little less than $11,000. It will likely be more if there is a tuition increase.
Had the work-study and loan information been moved below, I would have also learned that $2,500 could be covered through a job and the government and institutional loans would have taken care of the rest.
I could multiply the debts by four and figure how much the student would need to borrow to complete their Purdue degree. In this case, it would have been $34,000, which seems high, but a science or engineering degree from Purdue is quite respected. The graduate could quite possibly earn fifty percent more in their first year on the job.
Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of the financial aid Websites, FinAid and FastWeb, recommends several ideas to standardize net-price calculators for the benefit of students and their families. Kantrowitz, who regularly testifies before Congress on financial aid issues, has written no fewer than 37 pages of recommendations.
While the man is brilliant, and I've read his pieces before, I find it sad that schools need that much direction in order to make the financial aid process less daunting for students and parents.
However, whether or not there is a calculator online, colleges do not want to discourage applications for admission. Admissions offices fall in step with other agendas: to make the school more selective, drive up the quality of applicants and acceptances and maintain a good yield rate.
Had my low income student learned that he/she would need to come up with an extra $8,500 to $11,000 a year to go to Purdue, he/she might have passed on the school to find a cheaper option. If the student was not a candidate for a merit award, he/she might have elected to spend the first two years at a community college instead or gone to a school with less brand recognition, but a larger financial aid award.
I don't believe that the Purdue admissions office would want that student or their parents to figure this out on their own, especially since the school is a state university and the student is from in-state. But the school is doing the right thing by making the calculator available.
This all sounds well and good, but the federal policies that required colleges to have a calculator did not set the standards for either its design or its output. Nor did they require that it be easy to find off a college's home page or financial aid page. Moreover, the calculator has less value to students and families who are only starting to consider colleges. They have not completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)so they would not know what their estimated family contribution would be.
Purdue University (IN) was one of the first schools to have a net price calculator on their Web site. It's a four-click jump from the home page to the calculator for parents: Parents and Families->Information for Parents (lots of links)-> Financial Aid-> Purdue Financial Aid Estimator (a button). It's an easier three-click jump for students: Students->Financial Aid and Scholarships-> Purdue Financial Aid Estimator (a button). It should have been a three-click jump for the parents, too.
But Purdue makes a good effort at making the calculator button easy to find. The calculator bases estimates on the charges for the current school year; tuition and fees for 2012-13 are not set at this time.
I plugged in numbers as if I was a student from a low income family in Indiana, choosing the lowest income bracket and estimated family and student contributions of zero. I got the information I wanted, but not in the way I wanted to read it. When I got down to Award Eligibility the grants and scholarships were mixed with the maximum awards possible for loans and work study. Student loan and work study information should have been placed below my net price.
But I learned the most important piece of information: what it would cost for a family in the worst financial straits to go to Purdue. Assuming the family and student paid nothing and the student did not qualify for the school's merit scholarship programs, the difference to be made up would be a little less than $11,000. It will likely be more if there is a tuition increase.
Had the work-study and loan information been moved below, I would have also learned that $2,500 could be covered through a job and the government and institutional loans would have taken care of the rest.
I could multiply the debts by four and figure how much the student would need to borrow to complete their Purdue degree. In this case, it would have been $34,000, which seems high, but a science or engineering degree from Purdue is quite respected. The graduate could quite possibly earn fifty percent more in their first year on the job.
Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of the financial aid Websites, FinAid and FastWeb, recommends several ideas to standardize net-price calculators for the benefit of students and their families. Kantrowitz, who regularly testifies before Congress on financial aid issues, has written no fewer than 37 pages of recommendations.
While the man is brilliant, and I've read his pieces before, I find it sad that schools need that much direction in order to make the financial aid process less daunting for students and parents.
However, whether or not there is a calculator online, colleges do not want to discourage applications for admission. Admissions offices fall in step with other agendas: to make the school more selective, drive up the quality of applicants and acceptances and maintain a good yield rate.
Had my low income student learned that he/she would need to come up with an extra $8,500 to $11,000 a year to go to Purdue, he/she might have passed on the school to find a cheaper option. If the student was not a candidate for a merit award, he/she might have elected to spend the first two years at a community college instead or gone to a school with less brand recognition, but a larger financial aid award.
I don't believe that the Purdue admissions office would want that student or their parents to figure this out on their own, especially since the school is a state university and the student is from in-state. But the school is doing the right thing by making the calculator available.
Web site lists campuses that welcome gun-toting students
Today I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education that a Web site, ArmedCampuses.org, has been set-up by two anti-gun organizations, The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Thirteen of the twenty five schools listed are community colleges in Colorado; another three community colleges in Utah and one in Virginia are also listed. Of the eight remaining schools, the most notable are Michigan State, which does not allow students to carry firearms in buildings--shades of Virginia Tech, I guess--Colorado State and the University of Utah.
It's interesting to click the Laws tab on this site and glance at the policies that permit guns on campus. Some examples:
+ In Virginia, applicants for a gun permit take an online "training" class—which involves the watching of an instructional video and a multiple choice test (which can be taken repeatedly). Applicants are not required to do any classroom instruction or range training/live-fire exercises.
+ Also in Virginia, firearms can be carried openly on campus, with or without a permit, but an institution can prohibit open carrying in its buildings and dormitories.
+ In Colorado and Utah, these potentially dangerous individuals, among others, would be allowed to receive gun permits: those who have previously been under, but are no longer under an active restraining or protective orders; those who are mentally ill and a threat to themselves and/or others, but who have not been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or involuntarily committed.
Interestingly enough, one of the Colorado community colleges listed, Arapahoe, is located in Littleton, better known as the home of Columbine High School.
No further comments are necessary.
Thirteen of the twenty five schools listed are community colleges in Colorado; another three community colleges in Utah and one in Virginia are also listed. Of the eight remaining schools, the most notable are Michigan State, which does not allow students to carry firearms in buildings--shades of Virginia Tech, I guess--Colorado State and the University of Utah.
It's interesting to click the Laws tab on this site and glance at the policies that permit guns on campus. Some examples:
+ In Virginia, applicants for a gun permit take an online "training" class—which involves the watching of an instructional video and a multiple choice test (which can be taken repeatedly). Applicants are not required to do any classroom instruction or range training/live-fire exercises.
+ Also in Virginia, firearms can be carried openly on campus, with or without a permit, but an institution can prohibit open carrying in its buildings and dormitories.
+ In Colorado and Utah, these potentially dangerous individuals, among others, would be allowed to receive gun permits: those who have previously been under, but are no longer under an active restraining or protective orders; those who are mentally ill and a threat to themselves and/or others, but who have not been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or involuntarily committed.
Interestingly enough, one of the Colorado community colleges listed, Arapahoe, is located in Littleton, better known as the home of Columbine High School.
No further comments are necessary.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
More thoughts on scholarships in lieu of public university subsidies
I tried to think through Dr. Garland's proposal (below) from a marketing standpoint. Given my experiences with state politics in New Jersey, I have to perceive that the state colleges and universities would not change in their preference for in-state students, even if they received no state subsidies. I would also presume that:
+ Scholarship recipients would be allowed to apply their scholarship aid to schools that are either in-state or out-of-state. It would be too time consuming to set limits on eligible schools or enforce them.
+ Tuition at the former state schools would be roughly the same from school to school, whether the student is from in-state or out-of-state. The schools, however, may have scholarship programs to augment the aid that the in-state students have already received.
+ Private schools would augment student aid through need-based, merit-based or service-based scholarships.
+ There would be a limited amount of time in which students could receive scholarship aid. At Miami University, Ohio Resident Scholarships or Ohio Leader Scholarships were limited to a period of six years per student.
+ The total amount of aid could not exceed the cost of attending the school. The scholarship aid from the state, for example, could not be used in conjunction with a ROTC scholarship or an athletic scholarship.
I would have to believe that the newly private former state universities with strong brand recognition as well a good history of aiding in-state students would still be winners. Good schools that have not built an endowment or other resources that are deep enough to provide additional scholarships would not. I could imagine that schools such as the University of Vermont or the University of Delaware, which have exceptionally large out-of-state populations would begin to treat in-state and out-of-state students equally, more like a private university would.
For upper-income students, I would believe that the home state university becomes a less attractive default option or safe school based on price alone. Some other advantage would need to be there: degree programs, campus life, proximity to home, job market might be strong considerations. But if price was less of a factor, and the home state school was in a dwindling job market or a declining metro area, I might have an easier time shopping for a school elsewhere.
I know that there are always political debates about keeping bright people at home, but state and local governments cannot create job opportunities as fast as new graduates enter the workforce. Helping them prosper elsewhere is preferable to having them suffer at home. I go back to many years working in Newark, New Jersey and living near Trenton, New Jersey, both places where concerned and thoughtful parents would like to see their children leave to find a better life.
I would also imagine that if state school tuition was far higher--out of state charges at some of the best state universities exceed $30,000--without subsidy, then there would be more pressures to hold down costs. It might drive schools to become more cooperative in areas where they might have been competitive losers.
For example, practically every residential four-year school runs a study abroad program. Some have access to more countries and foreign schools than others. Some have more staff to work with students and some have better access to airports and the lowest priced flights. Why can't similar schools contract with the school that runs the best program to run if for everybody?
Another example is courses and online education. Some state schools have had more success with online course offerings than others; they may be offering a larger catalog, have access to a greater number of willing faculty or have better technology to deliver the course. At present, state governments have worked together to create Western Governors University as an online institution. Why can't more schools join together to build comprehensive online course catalogs, share expenses and revenues and mutually accept degree credit for all courses?
Another area where costs are driven up is through the introduction of new majors, some proposed by faculty while other are backed by economic development or political motivations. Some of these efforts are justified, some are not.
For example, California's Silicon Valley is a center for semi-conductor manufacturing, among other electronics technology. Ceramics are used in the making of semi-conductors, yet there is no university in California that offers a bachelor's degree in ceramic engineering. The University of California and/or the Cal State University system would need to consider how to offer the degree, including faculty and lab space, and forecast demand from business and students. Or they could contract with the University of Washington, which has already invested in a department. Cost considerations would lead to subsidizing degree candidates to learn out-of-state while research considerations, e.g. rankings and funding, might lead a school to start their own department. The least cost option does not always win.
A change in tuition policy and practice such as Dr. Garland has proposed requires a change in the mindset of educators and education supporters. I was born in 1960 when President Kennedy was elected. He called for a man to reach the moon by the end of the decade. The goal was met in the context of a "space race" with the Russians that he and his supporters, as well as some Republicans, believed that the country had to win.
That did not mean that the dollars that were spent to go to the moon might have been better spent on other government programs or allowed to circulate freely in the economy. The same is true for education. Ambitious university presidents launched building programs and capital campaigns, both in the name of improving higher education. However, some of the results: rising tuition charges, excessive debt service and unexpectedly low graduation rates make people wonder if that money was well spent.
+ Scholarship recipients would be allowed to apply their scholarship aid to schools that are either in-state or out-of-state. It would be too time consuming to set limits on eligible schools or enforce them.
+ Tuition at the former state schools would be roughly the same from school to school, whether the student is from in-state or out-of-state. The schools, however, may have scholarship programs to augment the aid that the in-state students have already received.
+ Private schools would augment student aid through need-based, merit-based or service-based scholarships.
+ There would be a limited amount of time in which students could receive scholarship aid. At Miami University, Ohio Resident Scholarships or Ohio Leader Scholarships were limited to a period of six years per student.
+ The total amount of aid could not exceed the cost of attending the school. The scholarship aid from the state, for example, could not be used in conjunction with a ROTC scholarship or an athletic scholarship.
I would have to believe that the newly private former state universities with strong brand recognition as well a good history of aiding in-state students would still be winners. Good schools that have not built an endowment or other resources that are deep enough to provide additional scholarships would not. I could imagine that schools such as the University of Vermont or the University of Delaware, which have exceptionally large out-of-state populations would begin to treat in-state and out-of-state students equally, more like a private university would.
For upper-income students, I would believe that the home state university becomes a less attractive default option or safe school based on price alone. Some other advantage would need to be there: degree programs, campus life, proximity to home, job market might be strong considerations. But if price was less of a factor, and the home state school was in a dwindling job market or a declining metro area, I might have an easier time shopping for a school elsewhere.
I know that there are always political debates about keeping bright people at home, but state and local governments cannot create job opportunities as fast as new graduates enter the workforce. Helping them prosper elsewhere is preferable to having them suffer at home. I go back to many years working in Newark, New Jersey and living near Trenton, New Jersey, both places where concerned and thoughtful parents would like to see their children leave to find a better life.
I would also imagine that if state school tuition was far higher--out of state charges at some of the best state universities exceed $30,000--without subsidy, then there would be more pressures to hold down costs. It might drive schools to become more cooperative in areas where they might have been competitive losers.
For example, practically every residential four-year school runs a study abroad program. Some have access to more countries and foreign schools than others. Some have more staff to work with students and some have better access to airports and the lowest priced flights. Why can't similar schools contract with the school that runs the best program to run if for everybody?
Another example is courses and online education. Some state schools have had more success with online course offerings than others; they may be offering a larger catalog, have access to a greater number of willing faculty or have better technology to deliver the course. At present, state governments have worked together to create Western Governors University as an online institution. Why can't more schools join together to build comprehensive online course catalogs, share expenses and revenues and mutually accept degree credit for all courses?
Another area where costs are driven up is through the introduction of new majors, some proposed by faculty while other are backed by economic development or political motivations. Some of these efforts are justified, some are not.
For example, California's Silicon Valley is a center for semi-conductor manufacturing, among other electronics technology. Ceramics are used in the making of semi-conductors, yet there is no university in California that offers a bachelor's degree in ceramic engineering. The University of California and/or the Cal State University system would need to consider how to offer the degree, including faculty and lab space, and forecast demand from business and students. Or they could contract with the University of Washington, which has already invested in a department. Cost considerations would lead to subsidizing degree candidates to learn out-of-state while research considerations, e.g. rankings and funding, might lead a school to start their own department. The least cost option does not always win.
A change in tuition policy and practice such as Dr. Garland has proposed requires a change in the mindset of educators and education supporters. I was born in 1960 when President Kennedy was elected. He called for a man to reach the moon by the end of the decade. The goal was met in the context of a "space race" with the Russians that he and his supporters, as well as some Republicans, believed that the country had to win.
That did not mean that the dollars that were spent to go to the moon might have been better spent on other government programs or allowed to circulate freely in the economy. The same is true for education. Ambitious university presidents launched building programs and capital campaigns, both in the name of improving higher education. However, some of the results: rising tuition charges, excessive debt service and unexpectedly low graduation rates make people wonder if that money was well spent.
Replace public university subsidies with student scholarships? Interview with Dr. James Garland, former president Miami University of Ohio
A former physics professor, department chairperson, and dean at Ohio State University, Dr. James Garland served as president of Miami University, in Oxford, Ohio from 1996-2006.
As president of the university, Dr. Garland led an initiative, First in 2009, that called for Miami to be the leader in the nation among public universities having a primary emphasis on undergraduate education with significant graduate and research programs. This initiative had numerous quantifiable goals, many of which were achieved before Garland retired in 2006.
While president, Garland, with the approval of university trustees, took a unique approach to revising the tuition structure at Miami. In 2004, all students enrolled at the main campus were billed the out-of-state rate, then approximately $18,000. Ohio students then received a Resident Scholarship of $5,000 plus a variable need-based Ohio Leader Scholarship. Students with further need could receive additional assistance. The purpose of this plan was to increase aid to in-state students from low and middle income in light of reduced subsidies from state government. The proposal immediately resulted in nearly 15,000 applications to Miami for 3,450 openings in fall 2004, then an all-time high. There was also a 100 percent increase in Ohio applicants whose parents did not have a college degree.
After his retirement from Miami, Dr. Garland penned Saving Alma Mater, which addressed, in his words: the chronic decline of public universities signified by rapidly rising tuitions, lagging faculty salaries, deteriorating campuses, a change-resistant campus culture, and an increasingly hostile public.
He calls for several reforms, including a redirection of subsidy funds to universities into need-based scholarships, much like vouchers. Students would then use these scholarships at the college of their choice, while publicly supported universities would operate more like private universities after gradual decreases in state aid.
Educated Quest would like to thank Dr. Garland for answering a few questions as to how this concept would be of help to students and their families.
+ You have advocated that state governments invest in public education through assistance to students as opposed to subsidies to publicly supported schools. Have any states gone in this direction? If so, has it helped students and their families? If no, would such a practice better help low and middle income families?
To my knowledge no states have yet replaced direct appropriations to state universities with student scholarships, although I know the idea is being discussed in many states. I think legislatures are mostly focused these days on cutting appropriations in order to reduce red ink in state budgets, but I am hopeful they will begin soon to think about restructuring the (now dysfunctional) appropriation model.
Here’s an analogy to explain why I think the current model is broken. Consider the federal Food Stamp program, which gives money to low-income persons to help them buy food. Imagine a scenario where the government instead gave the money to supermarkets rather than needy individuals, the hope being that the supermarkets would pass along the savings to their customers. Even if this dubious scheme worked as planned, needy individuals wouldn’t benefit very much, because any savings would be spread among all the supermarket’s customers, including those who didn’t need help.
But that’s exactly how public universities are funded. States give money to their state universities, hoping they will be able to pass on the savings to their students. The problem is that everybody benefits equally, even those students who don’t need financial help.
Under my proposal, the money would go to the low and middle-income students who really need the assistance. Of course, that means that upper income students would end up paying more to attend college, and while nobody wants to pay more, that strikes me as the lesser of evils. To my mind, the proper role of government is to help people who really need the help, even if the rest of us have to make some accommodation for them. For low and middle-income students the scholarships could make it possible for them to get a college degree.
+ Should parents expect the costs of education at a publicly supported school to go up dramatically over the next five years, or do you believe that the school and/or state government will do all they can to cap tuition increases?
As states cut back appropriations to state schools, those schools have little choice but to raise tuition charges. Unfortunately, I expect to see significant increases in tuition charges over the next few years.
Furthermore, history shows that state governments cannot “cap” tuition increases without damaging the schools. Price controls always have negative unintended consequences. When the Soviet Union tried to fix prices on consumer goods, the result was long lines and shoddy goods. When state governments try to regulate tuition charges, class sizes go up, student services decline, campuses become poorly maintained, the best faculty leave for greener pastures, and so forth. That has been happening in public universities for the past decade, and the current economic crunch has accelerated the process. Some public university systems are now in dire straits as a result.
+ Will the leading public universities attempt to recruit out-of-state or international students more on the basis that they will have little to no financial need? Or will some of the lesser known flagship schools aggressively pursue out-of-state students through merit or need-based scholarship programs?
Yes, selective public universities (both flagship schools and lesser-known ones) increasingly try to recruit non-resident students, because state governments allow them to charge higher tuition for non-residents. This is one of the “unintended consequences” I was referring to earlier.
When states force tuition controls on universities, it creates incentives for those universities to make up the revenue shortfall by looking elsewhere for students. The universities aren’t being greedy. It is rather that they have no other choice if they are to avoid cutting programs and laying off teachers. Some public universities actually lose money on every in-state student they admit, even when their state appropriation is taken into account. For them, fee-paying out-of-state students are their lifeblood.
+ When should students and their families consider a public university outside their home state over one that is inside their home state?
There is no simple answer to this question, because family circumstances are so variable. These days, many college students are working adults who have no choice but to attend a local public university, so for them the choice is easy.
For other students, families obviously need to take a hard look at the price differences between an in-state and out-of-state public university. If price is not the overriding consideration, then other factors weigh in on the decision: size of the student body, distance from home, number of curricular options, the academic reputation of the school, etc.
Families who are considering a public university in another state should also consider private colleges and universities. Discounting of tuition at private universities is common, so the net cost for most applicants is likely to be considerably less than the school’s “sticker price.”
As president of the university, Dr. Garland led an initiative, First in 2009, that called for Miami to be the leader in the nation among public universities having a primary emphasis on undergraduate education with significant graduate and research programs. This initiative had numerous quantifiable goals, many of which were achieved before Garland retired in 2006.
While president, Garland, with the approval of university trustees, took a unique approach to revising the tuition structure at Miami. In 2004, all students enrolled at the main campus were billed the out-of-state rate, then approximately $18,000. Ohio students then received a Resident Scholarship of $5,000 plus a variable need-based Ohio Leader Scholarship. Students with further need could receive additional assistance. The purpose of this plan was to increase aid to in-state students from low and middle income in light of reduced subsidies from state government. The proposal immediately resulted in nearly 15,000 applications to Miami for 3,450 openings in fall 2004, then an all-time high. There was also a 100 percent increase in Ohio applicants whose parents did not have a college degree.
After his retirement from Miami, Dr. Garland penned Saving Alma Mater, which addressed, in his words: the chronic decline of public universities signified by rapidly rising tuitions, lagging faculty salaries, deteriorating campuses, a change-resistant campus culture, and an increasingly hostile public.
He calls for several reforms, including a redirection of subsidy funds to universities into need-based scholarships, much like vouchers. Students would then use these scholarships at the college of their choice, while publicly supported universities would operate more like private universities after gradual decreases in state aid.
Educated Quest would like to thank Dr. Garland for answering a few questions as to how this concept would be of help to students and their families.
+ You have advocated that state governments invest in public education through assistance to students as opposed to subsidies to publicly supported schools. Have any states gone in this direction? If so, has it helped students and their families? If no, would such a practice better help low and middle income families?
To my knowledge no states have yet replaced direct appropriations to state universities with student scholarships, although I know the idea is being discussed in many states. I think legislatures are mostly focused these days on cutting appropriations in order to reduce red ink in state budgets, but I am hopeful they will begin soon to think about restructuring the (now dysfunctional) appropriation model.
Here’s an analogy to explain why I think the current model is broken. Consider the federal Food Stamp program, which gives money to low-income persons to help them buy food. Imagine a scenario where the government instead gave the money to supermarkets rather than needy individuals, the hope being that the supermarkets would pass along the savings to their customers. Even if this dubious scheme worked as planned, needy individuals wouldn’t benefit very much, because any savings would be spread among all the supermarket’s customers, including those who didn’t need help.
But that’s exactly how public universities are funded. States give money to their state universities, hoping they will be able to pass on the savings to their students. The problem is that everybody benefits equally, even those students who don’t need financial help.
Under my proposal, the money would go to the low and middle-income students who really need the assistance. Of course, that means that upper income students would end up paying more to attend college, and while nobody wants to pay more, that strikes me as the lesser of evils. To my mind, the proper role of government is to help people who really need the help, even if the rest of us have to make some accommodation for them. For low and middle-income students the scholarships could make it possible for them to get a college degree.
+ Should parents expect the costs of education at a publicly supported school to go up dramatically over the next five years, or do you believe that the school and/or state government will do all they can to cap tuition increases?
As states cut back appropriations to state schools, those schools have little choice but to raise tuition charges. Unfortunately, I expect to see significant increases in tuition charges over the next few years.
Furthermore, history shows that state governments cannot “cap” tuition increases without damaging the schools. Price controls always have negative unintended consequences. When the Soviet Union tried to fix prices on consumer goods, the result was long lines and shoddy goods. When state governments try to regulate tuition charges, class sizes go up, student services decline, campuses become poorly maintained, the best faculty leave for greener pastures, and so forth. That has been happening in public universities for the past decade, and the current economic crunch has accelerated the process. Some public university systems are now in dire straits as a result.
+ Will the leading public universities attempt to recruit out-of-state or international students more on the basis that they will have little to no financial need? Or will some of the lesser known flagship schools aggressively pursue out-of-state students through merit or need-based scholarship programs?
Yes, selective public universities (both flagship schools and lesser-known ones) increasingly try to recruit non-resident students, because state governments allow them to charge higher tuition for non-residents. This is one of the “unintended consequences” I was referring to earlier.
When states force tuition controls on universities, it creates incentives for those universities to make up the revenue shortfall by looking elsewhere for students. The universities aren’t being greedy. It is rather that they have no other choice if they are to avoid cutting programs and laying off teachers. Some public universities actually lose money on every in-state student they admit, even when their state appropriation is taken into account. For them, fee-paying out-of-state students are their lifeblood.
+ When should students and their families consider a public university outside their home state over one that is inside their home state?
There is no simple answer to this question, because family circumstances are so variable. These days, many college students are working adults who have no choice but to attend a local public university, so for them the choice is easy.
For other students, families obviously need to take a hard look at the price differences between an in-state and out-of-state public university. If price is not the overriding consideration, then other factors weigh in on the decision: size of the student body, distance from home, number of curricular options, the academic reputation of the school, etc.
Families who are considering a public university in another state should also consider private colleges and universities. Discounting of tuition at private universities is common, so the net cost for most applicants is likely to be considerably less than the school’s “sticker price.”
NFL Players Association had no business asking top college players to boycott draft selection show
I have written here a few times about the NFL Draft, mainly because it is one of the most interesting entry-level talent searches around. Like other job seekers, prospective professional football players are interviewed and sized up quickly, then asked to prove their aptitude and qualifications.
Obviously, the investment that a professional football team makes in its draft picks is higher-per-candidate than in other industries, but the thoughts are the same: ability, character and fit with the business model and/or corporate culture.
But this week I've read numerous stories where the National Football League Players Association, which has recently de-certified, had asked top college players, who are not yet members of the association, not to come to the televised NFL Draft selection show on ESPN. Supposedly, they have offered an alternative event, where the draft choices will be welcomed by fellow players, possibly some of their future teammates.
This is the first time I have ever heard that the union in a field that is a union environment--there would still be a player's union even if the de-certified association is never resurrected and the owners fill rosters with all-new players--that the union has asked future members, assuming there still is a union, to boycott in solidarity.
This is an asinine and unfair request on the part of the players. Worst, it hurts the fans who, anxious to show support for their team, tune in or show up to watch the draft. The draft, as an event, is for the fans more than anyone else. While the league has held a draft in various forms since 1936, and made the event open to the public, ESPN's full broadcasts have made it more accessible and more popular. It is safe to say that the draft has fermented many dreams in the minds of young football players to hear their name called, hold up a jersey for their new team, and hear their first cheers as a pro.
For the union to ask players to deny themselves an opportunity that they, too, once dreamed about, is cold and uncaring. I know that each drafted player will be a member of the union, presuming it is re-certified, and that is not the case in most other fields that recruit college students for entry-level positions.
But athletes are unique in their competitive nature as individuals as well as team players. The Player's Association is not asking its best players to, for instance, share their endorsement money with their less acclaimed brothers in solidarity. There is an unwritten agreement that the best players earned what they have earned as individuals.
In addition, the Player's Association and the owners have already agrees on the need for a rookie wage scale, which will lower salaries and/or signing bonuses for the players who would appear at the televised draft selection show. So, the union that agreed to reduce the future earnings of these players asks them to stay home and miss out on the biggest day of their life?
Aside from their first endorsement deals, like Cam Newton's $1 million-plus agreement with Under-Armour, all that a top draft choice has earned so far is the cheers and a hat and a jersey for the photo-op for that moment under the lights with the commissioner, their family and friends. The current players have no business trying to take that away from the draft picks, their families and most important, their fans.
Obviously, the investment that a professional football team makes in its draft picks is higher-per-candidate than in other industries, but the thoughts are the same: ability, character and fit with the business model and/or corporate culture.
But this week I've read numerous stories where the National Football League Players Association, which has recently de-certified, had asked top college players, who are not yet members of the association, not to come to the televised NFL Draft selection show on ESPN. Supposedly, they have offered an alternative event, where the draft choices will be welcomed by fellow players, possibly some of their future teammates.
This is the first time I have ever heard that the union in a field that is a union environment--there would still be a player's union even if the de-certified association is never resurrected and the owners fill rosters with all-new players--that the union has asked future members, assuming there still is a union, to boycott in solidarity.
This is an asinine and unfair request on the part of the players. Worst, it hurts the fans who, anxious to show support for their team, tune in or show up to watch the draft. The draft, as an event, is for the fans more than anyone else. While the league has held a draft in various forms since 1936, and made the event open to the public, ESPN's full broadcasts have made it more accessible and more popular. It is safe to say that the draft has fermented many dreams in the minds of young football players to hear their name called, hold up a jersey for their new team, and hear their first cheers as a pro.
For the union to ask players to deny themselves an opportunity that they, too, once dreamed about, is cold and uncaring. I know that each drafted player will be a member of the union, presuming it is re-certified, and that is not the case in most other fields that recruit college students for entry-level positions.
But athletes are unique in their competitive nature as individuals as well as team players. The Player's Association is not asking its best players to, for instance, share their endorsement money with their less acclaimed brothers in solidarity. There is an unwritten agreement that the best players earned what they have earned as individuals.
In addition, the Player's Association and the owners have already agrees on the need for a rookie wage scale, which will lower salaries and/or signing bonuses for the players who would appear at the televised draft selection show. So, the union that agreed to reduce the future earnings of these players asks them to stay home and miss out on the biggest day of their life?
Aside from their first endorsement deals, like Cam Newton's $1 million-plus agreement with Under-Armour, all that a top draft choice has earned so far is the cheers and a hat and a jersey for the photo-op for that moment under the lights with the commissioner, their family and friends. The current players have no business trying to take that away from the draft picks, their families and most important, their fans.
Monday, March 14, 2011
A sampling of dual graduate degree programs for school administrators, a guest post by Brian Jenkins
Brian Jenkins writes about a variety of education topics, including degree programs for school administrators as well as Master's of Business Administration (MBA) programs for BrainTrack.com. EducatedQuest would like to thank him and BrainTrack.com for this guest post
These days taxpayers are demanding more organizational and fiscal accountability from school administrators. It's vital that administrators make smart budgetary decisions. To meet this need, schools such as Stanford University offer a joint Master's of Arts (MA) in Education and Master's in Business Administration (MBA) program to properly prepare current and future administrators.
Regarding education, Debra Meyerson, co-founder of the Organization and Leadership Studies program at the Stanford School of Education, said, "People who have a growing amount of influence are people who can at least speak in business terms or at least be familiar with that way of thinking."
Laura Pappano is a former education columnist and author of Inside School Turnarounds. In that same article, she said, "The maturing of the charters school movement and the interest of philanthropists like Bill Gates in school reform mean leaders need a grasp not only of budgets but also of fundraising, strategic partnering, grant writing, and administering dramatic culture change."
Charter Schools
The typical charter school has no central office to rely on to manage school finances and to raise money. Education leaders at these schools need the knowledge and skills to plan the school's growth and build its capacity. A solid background in financial management would help them make better fiscal decisions. Due to a lack of staff with business skills, some charter schools rely on management organizations to take care of the business elements of operating the school.
To ensure the business aspects of educational leadership are effectively addressed, Joe Nathan, director of the Center for School Change at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, consulted with 25 chief executives before initiating the Leadership Academy for Minnesota Charter and Alternative Public Schools. Each student in the program has a mentor who works in the business world and a mentor from the education field.
My note: It is interesting that a program with a charter school focus comes out of a leading school in Minnesota, which was the first state to approve and welcome charter schools.
Joint Graduate Degrees in Education and Business
There are several schools offering this joint program. Texas Christian University, for example, offers an MBA/Doctor of Education (Ed.D) in Educational Leadership joint program. Students must first gain admission to the MBA program before they pursue the Doctor of Education degree. After showing satisfactory process in the trial period, students can enroll in the Ed.D program.
Stanford University's joint program allows students to simultaneously pursue both degrees. The program includes 84 hours of business and 35 hours of education course credits. Students can take courses that count for credit towards both programs, and the program can be completed in as little as two years. Stanford also offers a nine-month program that provides students access to coursework with more policy and business content.
Lehigh University offers a joint MBA and MA in Educational Leadership. The program consists of 15 credit hours in core business courses, 8 elective credit hours, and 22 credit hours in core education courses. Courses in economics are provided to help graduates effectively lead in an educational setting. Some of the courses are available online, and these can be very convenient options for busy professionals.
The program focuses on skills like budgeting, planning, and making personnel decisions and is taught in an interactive manner. Prerequisites (not required for admission) include basis statistics, principles of economics, financial accounting, and proficiency in Microsoft Office or equivalent.
Graduates of these joint programs are adequately prepared to be school superintendents, business managers, principles, and school district administrators.
Fixing failing schools requires more than great teachers and effective academic strategies: it requires folks with excellent business skills. More colleges and universities should offer these joint programs.
My note: one option is that colleges and universities may partner with non-profit academies that have been set up to train school principals in urban and rural public schools. Such programs may need to offer a combination of online and distance education, possibly group projects, in conjunction with residences outside of the school year. Doctoral programs, as Brian mentions above, such as the community college leadership program at the University of Maryland, operate along this model
These days taxpayers are demanding more organizational and fiscal accountability from school administrators. It's vital that administrators make smart budgetary decisions. To meet this need, schools such as Stanford University offer a joint Master's of Arts (MA) in Education and Master's in Business Administration (MBA) program to properly prepare current and future administrators.
Regarding education, Debra Meyerson, co-founder of the Organization and Leadership Studies program at the Stanford School of Education, said, "People who have a growing amount of influence are people who can at least speak in business terms or at least be familiar with that way of thinking."
Laura Pappano is a former education columnist and author of Inside School Turnarounds. In that same article, she said, "The maturing of the charters school movement and the interest of philanthropists like Bill Gates in school reform mean leaders need a grasp not only of budgets but also of fundraising, strategic partnering, grant writing, and administering dramatic culture change."
Charter Schools
The typical charter school has no central office to rely on to manage school finances and to raise money. Education leaders at these schools need the knowledge and skills to plan the school's growth and build its capacity. A solid background in financial management would help them make better fiscal decisions. Due to a lack of staff with business skills, some charter schools rely on management organizations to take care of the business elements of operating the school.
To ensure the business aspects of educational leadership are effectively addressed, Joe Nathan, director of the Center for School Change at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, consulted with 25 chief executives before initiating the Leadership Academy for Minnesota Charter and Alternative Public Schools. Each student in the program has a mentor who works in the business world and a mentor from the education field.
My note: It is interesting that a program with a charter school focus comes out of a leading school in Minnesota, which was the first state to approve and welcome charter schools.
Joint Graduate Degrees in Education and Business
There are several schools offering this joint program. Texas Christian University, for example, offers an MBA/Doctor of Education (Ed.D) in Educational Leadership joint program. Students must first gain admission to the MBA program before they pursue the Doctor of Education degree. After showing satisfactory process in the trial period, students can enroll in the Ed.D program.
Stanford University's joint program allows students to simultaneously pursue both degrees. The program includes 84 hours of business and 35 hours of education course credits. Students can take courses that count for credit towards both programs, and the program can be completed in as little as two years. Stanford also offers a nine-month program that provides students access to coursework with more policy and business content.
Lehigh University offers a joint MBA and MA in Educational Leadership. The program consists of 15 credit hours in core business courses, 8 elective credit hours, and 22 credit hours in core education courses. Courses in economics are provided to help graduates effectively lead in an educational setting. Some of the courses are available online, and these can be very convenient options for busy professionals.
The program focuses on skills like budgeting, planning, and making personnel decisions and is taught in an interactive manner. Prerequisites (not required for admission) include basis statistics, principles of economics, financial accounting, and proficiency in Microsoft Office or equivalent.
Graduates of these joint programs are adequately prepared to be school superintendents, business managers, principles, and school district administrators.
Fixing failing schools requires more than great teachers and effective academic strategies: it requires folks with excellent business skills. More colleges and universities should offer these joint programs.
My note: one option is that colleges and universities may partner with non-profit academies that have been set up to train school principals in urban and rural public schools. Such programs may need to offer a combination of online and distance education, possibly group projects, in conjunction with residences outside of the school year. Doctoral programs, as Brian mentions above, such as the community college leadership program at the University of Maryland, operate along this model
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)