Today I'm reading a story on NJ Spotlight that approximately 80 percent of New Jersey school district budgets were approved by voters throughout the state. Last year 59 percent of them were rejected. Part of the reason for the passage of so many budgets was that increases fell below a two percent cap supported by Governor Christie and passed by the state legislature last year.
With a cap in place, and school administrators diligently working within it to develop a budget, there was little reason for people to vote in school board elections. And that is precisely what happened. Turnout was higher than 20 percent in only one of New Jersey's 21 counties.
There has been talk of ways to get out the vote for school board elections, such as moving them to November, when voters vote in other races . However, unlike races for state or local office, school board elections are non-partisan. Mixing partisan and non-partisan races together could prove confusing--imagine designing the ballot and the display for the voting machine--and this would not necessarily mean that more people would take notice of their school board race.
But after reading about this week's voting, I still go back to a core belief: suburban communities should get rid of school boards. Let parents participate in the governance of the schools their children attend and designate a county or local government to make the non-academic business decisions.
School board members are ill-equipped to manage multi-million dollar budgets and negotiate expensive labor contracts. They are even less capable of making education decisions--for example, special education placements--on behalf of families. Parents could better resolve these issues by working with the principal and teachers in their neighborhood school. This is what they would do if they sent their children to a private or parochial school.
Aside from their capabilities, suburban school boards are so heavily regulated by the state board of education that they have little latitude to make decisions about budgets and curriculum. The two percent cap is state law. So are requirements on the numbers of days schools must be open to receive state aid. The academic programs are state mandates and so are high-stakes tests. While a school board provides a forum to complain about state-mandated policies, its members cannot vote to ignore them.
New Jersey is unique among the fifty states because it has more school districts than local governments, and they act as their own governments, too. This creates more confusion without necessarily enhancing local control. If most, if not all, of these boards went away, it is doubtful they would be missed.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The best educational buy might be a private liberal arts college
I've been going through a book called Liberal Arts on the Brink. Written by Victor Ferrall, an attorney and former Beloit College (WI) president, this book discusses why some liberal arts colleges struggle while others, mainly the more selective, continue to thrive.
Liberal arts colleges, according to Ferrall's findings, are primarily in more isolated locations and enroll an average of approximately 1,600 students. However, some such as Calvin College (MI), which offers engineering degrees, enroll as many as 4,000.
Ferrall makes several points throughout this book about liberal arts colleges that are worth noting:
+ The 225 colleges considered to be liberal arts schools represent only about five percent of all students enrolled in all colleges today.
+ The top 51 liberal arts colleges enroll approximately 105,000 students, or less than one percent of all students enrolled in all colleges.
+ In 2008, these top 51 schools discounted tuition and fees to admitted students by an average of nearly 34 percent. Ten of these schools discounted by more than 40 percent. With an endowment of over $1 billion, Grinnell College (IA) gave students an average discount of more than 57 percent.
+ These top 51 schools are, on average, dependent on tuition and fee revenues to cover less than half of their expenses. Amherst College, regarded as one of the top three liberal arts colleges in the country, relies on tuition and fee income to cover less than fifteen percent of the college's revenues.
+ The schools two tiers below discount tuition even more.
+ The lower the school is ranked, the more likely the school has leaned in the direction of offering vocational majors including business, education, health sciences and nursing. These schools have become more like pre-professional schools--and have been acquistion targets of for-profit education corporations wishing to add vocational offerings.
Depending on the education a student wants, the leading liberal arts colleges, meaning the top 51, plus a smattering of schools in the next tier, could be a better value than attending a public university as an out-of-state student.
For example, today it would cost a student from New Jersey approximately $25,000 in tuition and fees to attend Penn State, the University of Maryland or the University of Delaware; all have been popular destinations for Garden State residents. However, the average costs of these liberal arts colleges in Pennsylvania and Maryland may be lower, if the student qualifies for the average discount:
Tier One schools:
Bryn Mawr College
Dickinson College
Gettysburg College
Lafayette College
Haverford College
Swarthmore College
Tier Two schools:
Allegheny College
Goucher College
Juniata College
Muhlenberg College
Susquehanna University
Ursinus College
Washington and Jefferson College
Washington College (MD)
Westminster College (PA)
All of the schools in Tier One are exceptionally selective, though three, Dickinson, Lafayette and Gettysburg, accepted at least 40 percent of their applicants. The three most selective schools: Bryn Mawr, Haverford and Swarthmore all appeared on U.S. News 2011 list of Great Schools at Great Prices.
Among the Tier Two schools above, Westminster College also appears on the U.S. News Great Schools at Great Prices list. Allegheny, Goucher, Juniata, Susquehanna, Ursinus, Washington and Jefferson and Washington appear on the list of A-Plus Schools for B Students. Ursinus and Washington also appear on the 2011 Up and Comers list.
While U.S. News is a commercial publication and Liberal Arts on the Brink is more of an academic study, both show considerable overlap. They both also show that the more academically rigorous and fiscally stable liberal arts schools may be an excellent value--when that is the education you want.
The best liberal arts schools are showing no sign of decline in prestige or academic respect, and they sometimes pool resources to offer shared services such as job fairs in major employment centers and study abroad programs to try to collectively offer what the larger schools offer on their own. The key is to seek out the right information about the right schools.
Liberal arts colleges, according to Ferrall's findings, are primarily in more isolated locations and enroll an average of approximately 1,600 students. However, some such as Calvin College (MI), which offers engineering degrees, enroll as many as 4,000.
Ferrall makes several points throughout this book about liberal arts colleges that are worth noting:
+ The 225 colleges considered to be liberal arts schools represent only about five percent of all students enrolled in all colleges today.
+ The top 51 liberal arts colleges enroll approximately 105,000 students, or less than one percent of all students enrolled in all colleges.
+ In 2008, these top 51 schools discounted tuition and fees to admitted students by an average of nearly 34 percent. Ten of these schools discounted by more than 40 percent. With an endowment of over $1 billion, Grinnell College (IA) gave students an average discount of more than 57 percent.
+ These top 51 schools are, on average, dependent on tuition and fee revenues to cover less than half of their expenses. Amherst College, regarded as one of the top three liberal arts colleges in the country, relies on tuition and fee income to cover less than fifteen percent of the college's revenues.
+ The schools two tiers below discount tuition even more.
+ The lower the school is ranked, the more likely the school has leaned in the direction of offering vocational majors including business, education, health sciences and nursing. These schools have become more like pre-professional schools--and have been acquistion targets of for-profit education corporations wishing to add vocational offerings.
Depending on the education a student wants, the leading liberal arts colleges, meaning the top 51, plus a smattering of schools in the next tier, could be a better value than attending a public university as an out-of-state student.
For example, today it would cost a student from New Jersey approximately $25,000 in tuition and fees to attend Penn State, the University of Maryland or the University of Delaware; all have been popular destinations for Garden State residents. However, the average costs of these liberal arts colleges in Pennsylvania and Maryland may be lower, if the student qualifies for the average discount:
Tier One schools:
Bryn Mawr College
Dickinson College
Gettysburg College
Lafayette College
Haverford College
Swarthmore College
Tier Two schools:
Allegheny College
Goucher College
Juniata College
Muhlenberg College
Susquehanna University
Ursinus College
Washington and Jefferson College
Washington College (MD)
Westminster College (PA)
All of the schools in Tier One are exceptionally selective, though three, Dickinson, Lafayette and Gettysburg, accepted at least 40 percent of their applicants. The three most selective schools: Bryn Mawr, Haverford and Swarthmore all appeared on U.S. News 2011 list of Great Schools at Great Prices.
Among the Tier Two schools above, Westminster College also appears on the U.S. News Great Schools at Great Prices list. Allegheny, Goucher, Juniata, Susquehanna, Ursinus, Washington and Jefferson and Washington appear on the list of A-Plus Schools for B Students. Ursinus and Washington also appear on the 2011 Up and Comers list.
While U.S. News is a commercial publication and Liberal Arts on the Brink is more of an academic study, both show considerable overlap. They both also show that the more academically rigorous and fiscally stable liberal arts schools may be an excellent value--when that is the education you want.
The best liberal arts schools are showing no sign of decline in prestige or academic respect, and they sometimes pool resources to offer shared services such as job fairs in major employment centers and study abroad programs to try to collectively offer what the larger schools offer on their own. The key is to seek out the right information about the right schools.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Past legacy admissions practices thankfully long gone--or are they?
I am reading this series of essays entitled: Affirmative Action for the Rich. Issued by the Century Foundation, this series addressed legacy preferences in college admissions. While legacy practices, where children of alumni receive preferential treatment, are less prevalent today, they were once quite commonplace.
I thought it would be interesting to share some of the past practices and policies that were mentioned in this book in an essay by Peter Schmidt, who is a senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education. For example:
+ Between 1900 and 1920, as more Jews emigrated into the United States and their children performed well from outside the elite prep schools, the percentage if Jewish male students at Harvard rose from seven percent of the undergraduate student body in 1900 to 21.5 percent by 1919. Jewish male students accounted for two percent of the senior class of 1903 and nine percent of the class of 1921. It would be more than half a century before either of these schools would admit women. However, the growth in the Jewish population of these schools brought out anti-Semetic beliefs in alumni and administrators, since Jews did not attend the traditional feeder schools.
+ In 1946, following the end of World War II and the availability of educational benefits to veterans through the G.I Bill, Princeton accepted 82 percent of alumni sons who applied for admission that year, compared to less than 38 percent of the 2,000 applicants who had been recently released from military service. This was at a time when less than half of adult Americans had a high school education.
+ By 1958, legacies accounted for about 20 percent of all Princeton students, but about half of the bottom quarter of the admitted applicants. Throughout the 1960's, just before co-education, legacies made up more than half of the Princeton undergraduate student body. This was helped by a school committee network across the country that involved 1,400 alumni.
+ As late as 1974 Yale admitted 49 percent of legacy applicants.
+ The U.S. News rankings, which started in 1983, led schools across the country to increase their outreach to attract legacy applicants. The reason: the magazine based school rankings on the school's financial resources (10 percent), alumni giving (5 percent) and yield, the percentage of accepted applicants who attend. Improvements across all of these numbers would raise school's ranking.
+ As late as 2003, Texas A&M University awarded an additional four points, on a 100 point scale, to legacy applicants. That year, the Houston Chronicle reported that 312 white students, as opposed to 27 Hispanic students and six black students, would not have been admitted had they not been legacies.
+ Thanks to the efforts of a well-organized alumni council and legacy student buddy program, the University of Pennyslvania admitted approximately 42 percent of all legacy applicants who applied early decision in 2008 as well as slightly more than one-third of all applicants who applied through the regular admissions process.
Schmidt and the other authors in this book were selected not only because of their expertise, but also because of their opposition to legacy policies. As I read these essays and find examples such as those listed above, I wonder how far we have really gone to avoid providing spaces to legacy applicants who could have never gained admission on their own. However, even assuming the total removal of legacy admissions, the rich schools--those with the strongest reputations and most bountiful resources--will still get richer.
I thought it would be interesting to share some of the past practices and policies that were mentioned in this book in an essay by Peter Schmidt, who is a senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education. For example:
+ Between 1900 and 1920, as more Jews emigrated into the United States and their children performed well from outside the elite prep schools, the percentage if Jewish male students at Harvard rose from seven percent of the undergraduate student body in 1900 to 21.5 percent by 1919. Jewish male students accounted for two percent of the senior class of 1903 and nine percent of the class of 1921. It would be more than half a century before either of these schools would admit women. However, the growth in the Jewish population of these schools brought out anti-Semetic beliefs in alumni and administrators, since Jews did not attend the traditional feeder schools.
+ In 1946, following the end of World War II and the availability of educational benefits to veterans through the G.I Bill, Princeton accepted 82 percent of alumni sons who applied for admission that year, compared to less than 38 percent of the 2,000 applicants who had been recently released from military service. This was at a time when less than half of adult Americans had a high school education.
+ By 1958, legacies accounted for about 20 percent of all Princeton students, but about half of the bottom quarter of the admitted applicants. Throughout the 1960's, just before co-education, legacies made up more than half of the Princeton undergraduate student body. This was helped by a school committee network across the country that involved 1,400 alumni.
+ As late as 1974 Yale admitted 49 percent of legacy applicants.
+ The U.S. News rankings, which started in 1983, led schools across the country to increase their outreach to attract legacy applicants. The reason: the magazine based school rankings on the school's financial resources (10 percent), alumni giving (5 percent) and yield, the percentage of accepted applicants who attend. Improvements across all of these numbers would raise school's ranking.
+ As late as 2003, Texas A&M University awarded an additional four points, on a 100 point scale, to legacy applicants. That year, the Houston Chronicle reported that 312 white students, as opposed to 27 Hispanic students and six black students, would not have been admitted had they not been legacies.
+ Thanks to the efforts of a well-organized alumni council and legacy student buddy program, the University of Pennyslvania admitted approximately 42 percent of all legacy applicants who applied early decision in 2008 as well as slightly more than one-third of all applicants who applied through the regular admissions process.
Schmidt and the other authors in this book were selected not only because of their expertise, but also because of their opposition to legacy policies. As I read these essays and find examples such as those listed above, I wonder how far we have really gone to avoid providing spaces to legacy applicants who could have never gained admission on their own. However, even assuming the total removal of legacy admissions, the rich schools--those with the strongest reputations and most bountiful resources--will still get richer.
Toni Morrison packs Rutgers house at exclusive book preview
Sometimes you are glad to be proven wrong after you have written a post.
This morning I read on NJ.com that Pulitizer Prize winning author Toni Morrison addressed an overflow crowd as part of a writer's series on the Rutgers University-Newark campus.
Professor Morrison, who read from a stack of typewritten pages that will be part of a new book, addressed a packed house of 600 people. Another 150 watched via a TV monitor in another room nearby.
In a previous post I had asked who would be a larger draw, the event being equal, Toni Morrison or Snooki of the television show Jersey Shore. Snooki supposedly did two shows at Rutgers main campus that drew 2,000 people. However, I was also informed that only about 500 showed at one of them.
But I also said that Toni Morrison was noted long before Snooki was born and that her writing will be remembered long after the last episode of Jersey Shore has gone off the air.
On one score, audience size, I was glad to be proven wrong. Morrison drew an impressive crowd, as do other writers, such as Junot Diaz, who have previously participated in writer's talks at Rutgers-Newark. I could only believe that a main campus audience would be larger and fill a larger room. And that the audience, including students, would remember her more than Snooki. You don't need to be an English major to appreciate great writing.
On the other score, respect for the speaker, I was glad to be proven right. The news coverage of Snooki's appearance at Rutgers drew critical comments about the university and its students, many undeserved. A person's individual decisions to attend an event should not be a basis for judging their intellect. The coverage of Toni Morrison's appearance last night, by contrast, was quite positive.
Morrison, who will be paid $30,000 to be the university's commencement speaker through a corporate contribution by PepsiCo, was given a $2,000 honorarium to speak yesterday. Half the honorarium was paid by the university’s "Writers at Newark" program. The rest was paid by Rutgers’ Institute on Ethnicity, Culture and the Modern Experience.
It appears that Morrison gave them more than their money's worth last night.
This morning I read on NJ.com that Pulitizer Prize winning author Toni Morrison addressed an overflow crowd as part of a writer's series on the Rutgers University-Newark campus.
Professor Morrison, who read from a stack of typewritten pages that will be part of a new book, addressed a packed house of 600 people. Another 150 watched via a TV monitor in another room nearby.
In a previous post I had asked who would be a larger draw, the event being equal, Toni Morrison or Snooki of the television show Jersey Shore. Snooki supposedly did two shows at Rutgers main campus that drew 2,000 people. However, I was also informed that only about 500 showed at one of them.
But I also said that Toni Morrison was noted long before Snooki was born and that her writing will be remembered long after the last episode of Jersey Shore has gone off the air.
On one score, audience size, I was glad to be proven wrong. Morrison drew an impressive crowd, as do other writers, such as Junot Diaz, who have previously participated in writer's talks at Rutgers-Newark. I could only believe that a main campus audience would be larger and fill a larger room. And that the audience, including students, would remember her more than Snooki. You don't need to be an English major to appreciate great writing.
On the other score, respect for the speaker, I was glad to be proven right. The news coverage of Snooki's appearance at Rutgers drew critical comments about the university and its students, many undeserved. A person's individual decisions to attend an event should not be a basis for judging their intellect. The coverage of Toni Morrison's appearance last night, by contrast, was quite positive.
Morrison, who will be paid $30,000 to be the university's commencement speaker through a corporate contribution by PepsiCo, was given a $2,000 honorarium to speak yesterday. Half the honorarium was paid by the university’s "Writers at Newark" program. The rest was paid by Rutgers’ Institute on Ethnicity, Culture and the Modern Experience.
It appears that Morrison gave them more than their money's worth last night.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Romeo and Juliet remind me why the arts belong in the schools
A couple of weeks ago I attended a high school performance of Romeo and Juliet at the Harlem School of the Arts. I have been to high school productions before, even participated in them a long time ago, but they were all musicals.
Our high school musicals were very big productions. I went to a high school that had 1,800 students, and I would guess that 200 to 300 were involved in these shows whether they were in the cast, band, stage crew or helping with publicity. The only other activities that brought more people together were the football games.
But musicals discourage students who would like to act, but cannot sing, and not every school can afford to have a music teacher and a drama teacher in these times of austerity.
The Epic Theatre Ensemble works with four New York area high schools, including the Urban Assembly School of the Arts, which put on the production that I watched, are part of an ongoing series called Shakespeare Remix. Working with a professional actor/theatre educator, a playwright, a costume designer and a lighting technician, the students study a Shakespeare play, rewrite about a fifth of the text and perform it live.
I arrived about half an hour before this production to see Melissa Friedman, an Epic co-founder who leads the ensemble’s educational programming, take twenty students, and their principal, through a warm-up including tongue twisters and limbering exercises that are used to help professional actors get into character before the show.
While the tongue twisters were quite funny, and also quite provocative if said incorrectly, the students followed Melissa’s lead and took their job seriously. In one drill, each student says a line that stands out in their part. They cannot say that line again when the exercise is repeated. This helps each student remember the line, but also the proper way to enunciate it, especially important if the line was in the original Shakespeare text.
The group had made an urban adaption of Romeo and Juliet where the apothecary, a minor role in the original play, shares the narration with the officer who has arrested him. Drugs were important to the actors, as poison kills in the end. But what blew me away was the way the actors stepped into their roles and stayed in character through the entire production and through the post-production photo book work afterwards.
Probably few of these students will become actors, but acting has given them important skills that they can take with them to college and then to work. It builds confidence to stand up in front of others, teaches diverse people how to work in a group regardless of personal feelings and attachments, and in this case, improves reading and language skills.
Yet too many schools have sacrificed the arts in favor of other objectives such as better test scores or whatever elected leaders believe is necessary to help students keep up with their peers in places such as China, Finland or Singapore. Yet programs like Shakespeare Remix give students an appreciation of reading and writing that complements what they learn in a traditional classroom and gives them an experience they are less likely to forget.
Besides, schools are better off when they have activities other than music or sports that bring large groups together. While much time has been spent talking about individual achievement, students do not grow up to work as individuals. They need to learn how to lead, follow and listen, too.
Our high school musicals were very big productions. I went to a high school that had 1,800 students, and I would guess that 200 to 300 were involved in these shows whether they were in the cast, band, stage crew or helping with publicity. The only other activities that brought more people together were the football games.
But musicals discourage students who would like to act, but cannot sing, and not every school can afford to have a music teacher and a drama teacher in these times of austerity.
The Epic Theatre Ensemble works with four New York area high schools, including the Urban Assembly School of the Arts, which put on the production that I watched, are part of an ongoing series called Shakespeare Remix. Working with a professional actor/theatre educator, a playwright, a costume designer and a lighting technician, the students study a Shakespeare play, rewrite about a fifth of the text and perform it live.
I arrived about half an hour before this production to see Melissa Friedman, an Epic co-founder who leads the ensemble’s educational programming, take twenty students, and their principal, through a warm-up including tongue twisters and limbering exercises that are used to help professional actors get into character before the show.
While the tongue twisters were quite funny, and also quite provocative if said incorrectly, the students followed Melissa’s lead and took their job seriously. In one drill, each student says a line that stands out in their part. They cannot say that line again when the exercise is repeated. This helps each student remember the line, but also the proper way to enunciate it, especially important if the line was in the original Shakespeare text.
The group had made an urban adaption of Romeo and Juliet where the apothecary, a minor role in the original play, shares the narration with the officer who has arrested him. Drugs were important to the actors, as poison kills in the end. But what blew me away was the way the actors stepped into their roles and stayed in character through the entire production and through the post-production photo book work afterwards.
Probably few of these students will become actors, but acting has given them important skills that they can take with them to college and then to work. It builds confidence to stand up in front of others, teaches diverse people how to work in a group regardless of personal feelings and attachments, and in this case, improves reading and language skills.
Yet too many schools have sacrificed the arts in favor of other objectives such as better test scores or whatever elected leaders believe is necessary to help students keep up with their peers in places such as China, Finland or Singapore. Yet programs like Shakespeare Remix give students an appreciation of reading and writing that complements what they learn in a traditional classroom and gives them an experience they are less likely to forget.
Besides, schools are better off when they have activities other than music or sports that bring large groups together. While much time has been spent talking about individual achievement, students do not grow up to work as individuals. They need to learn how to lead, follow and listen, too.
The best questions to ask about an undergraduate business program
Both the New York Times Education section and the Chronicle of Higher Education have run very similar stories about the "dumbing down" of undergraduate business education at four-year colleges. While these stories are largely anecdotal, they raise several points:
+ Business majors represent approximately one-fifth of all bachelors degrees in the U.S.
+ Business majors spend less time studying outside of class--approximately 11 hours per week--than students in other majors.
+ Business majors score lower on tests of college-level proficiency in reading, writing and critical thinking than students in other majors.
+ Business majors also--and this was a surprise--have the lowest mean scores on the Graduate Management Admissions Test, a nearly mandatory examination to apply to graduate business schools.
+ Business education has become less rigorous, almost as a silent agreement between teachers and students.
I have a MBA, but I do not believe that a business education is necessary to succeed in many areas of business. A bright student with an economics major, strong writing and communications skills and a high comfort level with statistics could become a fine financial analyst. Substitute psychology for economics and that student could potentially do well in market research or management consulting. Substitute any other major and that person could be effective in sales. There are only two areas where specific education is necessary: accounting and information systems.
However, as I make these points and academics make similar arguments, this logic goes against the on-campus recruitment practices of employers of choice. Unless an applicant comes from one of the most selective universities or liberal arts colleges, s/he will need a pre-professional major such as finance, human resource management or marketing. It is very difficult for an employer to ignore enthusiasm for the field.
With this in mind, I would like to share some questions that students and parents should ask when comparing undergraduate business programs. Obviously, a long list of recruiting employers will make a very strong impression. However, the academics should become more challenging and engaging as one gets further into their major.
+ How many students are enrolled in courses past the introductory class in the major? A junior-senior level class with over 100 people is likely to be a lecture class; a smaller class will be more interactive. However, lecture courses rely on tests that can be graded faster by a machine or a teaching assistant. These favor students with the best memories. Memory does not always mean proficiency.
+ How many classes offer case work versus group projects. A good business course should offer a mix of cases where students may work together, but each one turns in their own assignment, as well as a group project where students learn to work as a team. Some students will excel in problem solving while others are better team players. The best can do both, and it will show in a final grade. The rest still have a chance to learn their weaknesses as well as their strengths.
+ Are there opportunities to work on projects with real businesses? There is no challenge like making an impression on an employer or managing serious money for investors. Knowing that a problem is a real real-world problem sharpens thinking.
+ Is there a senior project or a capstone course that revolves around a major business problem that a student is likely to be asked to help solve in their first three years on the job? Employees are routinely assigned to work in teams whose members have different levels of expertise in different fields and asked to bond with people they do not know very well. Group projects come and go early in a business program, but task forces work for several months. Those experiences are tiring, but they are also tests of followership and leadership.
+ What percentage of the students graduate within four years? Business programs, like any other degree program on campus, add and remove courses all the time. Sometimes students must attend for an extra semester,or even an extra year, to complete all of the required classes. This is not something they appreciate after they have invested in two or three years of their education.
My impression, as I read the news stories, is that there is an over-supply of graduates with business-related majors. Dumbing down the coursework will only increase that, not to mention the schools continue to live under accusations of grade inflation. This is a losing proposition.
The solution for students is to find the school that will ask you to do a lot, but will put you through an experiential and rewarding education. The only way to find the right school is to ask the right questions early.
+ Business majors represent approximately one-fifth of all bachelors degrees in the U.S.
+ Business majors spend less time studying outside of class--approximately 11 hours per week--than students in other majors.
+ Business majors score lower on tests of college-level proficiency in reading, writing and critical thinking than students in other majors.
+ Business majors also--and this was a surprise--have the lowest mean scores on the Graduate Management Admissions Test, a nearly mandatory examination to apply to graduate business schools.
+ Business education has become less rigorous, almost as a silent agreement between teachers and students.
I have a MBA, but I do not believe that a business education is necessary to succeed in many areas of business. A bright student with an economics major, strong writing and communications skills and a high comfort level with statistics could become a fine financial analyst. Substitute psychology for economics and that student could potentially do well in market research or management consulting. Substitute any other major and that person could be effective in sales. There are only two areas where specific education is necessary: accounting and information systems.
However, as I make these points and academics make similar arguments, this logic goes against the on-campus recruitment practices of employers of choice. Unless an applicant comes from one of the most selective universities or liberal arts colleges, s/he will need a pre-professional major such as finance, human resource management or marketing. It is very difficult for an employer to ignore enthusiasm for the field.
With this in mind, I would like to share some questions that students and parents should ask when comparing undergraduate business programs. Obviously, a long list of recruiting employers will make a very strong impression. However, the academics should become more challenging and engaging as one gets further into their major.
+ How many students are enrolled in courses past the introductory class in the major? A junior-senior level class with over 100 people is likely to be a lecture class; a smaller class will be more interactive. However, lecture courses rely on tests that can be graded faster by a machine or a teaching assistant. These favor students with the best memories. Memory does not always mean proficiency.
+ How many classes offer case work versus group projects. A good business course should offer a mix of cases where students may work together, but each one turns in their own assignment, as well as a group project where students learn to work as a team. Some students will excel in problem solving while others are better team players. The best can do both, and it will show in a final grade. The rest still have a chance to learn their weaknesses as well as their strengths.
+ Are there opportunities to work on projects with real businesses? There is no challenge like making an impression on an employer or managing serious money for investors. Knowing that a problem is a real real-world problem sharpens thinking.
+ Is there a senior project or a capstone course that revolves around a major business problem that a student is likely to be asked to help solve in their first three years on the job? Employees are routinely assigned to work in teams whose members have different levels of expertise in different fields and asked to bond with people they do not know very well. Group projects come and go early in a business program, but task forces work for several months. Those experiences are tiring, but they are also tests of followership and leadership.
+ What percentage of the students graduate within four years? Business programs, like any other degree program on campus, add and remove courses all the time. Sometimes students must attend for an extra semester,or even an extra year, to complete all of the required classes. This is not something they appreciate after they have invested in two or three years of their education.
My impression, as I read the news stories, is that there is an over-supply of graduates with business-related majors. Dumbing down the coursework will only increase that, not to mention the schools continue to live under accusations of grade inflation. This is a losing proposition.
The solution for students is to find the school that will ask you to do a lot, but will put you through an experiential and rewarding education. The only way to find the right school is to ask the right questions early.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Did Rutgers president Richard McCormick make the right decision to cancel RutgersFest?
Today I read in my local Trenton Times that Rutgers University president Richard McCormick has decided to cancel RutgersFest, a student-organized, campus-wide musical and carnival event that had run for 30 years. McCormick made the decision in the wake of two unrelated shootings near campus that involved college age persons who had no connection to the university.
RutgersFest, according to the story, did not even take place on the New Brunswick side of the campus. Divided by the Raritan River, the university's flagship campus is located in two towns: New Brunswick and Piscataway. The university acquired much of its land holdings in Piscataway when the U.S. Army deeded Camp Kilmer, a former military base, to them. The football stadium is perhaps the only building on the Piscataway side of the river that dates back more than half a century. This year's RutgersFest was held on the Piscataway side. Students and guests were bussed to and from the program, which attracted a reported audience of nearly 50,000 people.
But while the main event, a concert, ended at 8 PM, and it did not take place on the same side of the river as the shootings, the New Brunswick police chief blamed the university for inadequately addressing the city's security concerns. The reactions can best be described as over-reactions.
I understand why President McCormick decided to cancel the event for future years. Concerns about safety may or may not have stemmed from RutgersFest and he has the responsibility for the lives of the people who live and work on campus. This could be interpreted as doing the right thing.
However, RutgersFest is not the only campus event that attracts large audiences. The university plays six or seven home football games every season; in good years the average attendance has exceeded 40,000, just like RutgersFest. The alumni relations office runs a Rutgers Day held in late April in conjunction with several class reunions. Lastly, but not least, the university plans to host commencement in the football stadium next month, and Rutgers is a school that hands out a lot of degrees. All of these events are connected to informally organized social activities. Which leads me to ask: why was RutgersFest more difficult to secure than, for example, a football game?
But public relations-wise this school year has not been a good one for Rutger's main campus, which had become a more spirited place in recent years. The Tyler Clementi suicide; Eric LeGrand's spinal injuries; the poor record of a football team that was expected to have a promising season; Snooki-gate; and now these shootings are a lot for one campus community to face over two semesters. The university community came together over the tragedies, however the other incidents have embarassed the school in ways that put its profile in front of the state legislature at risk and likely hinder what has been a successful capital campaign. Cancelling RutgersFest was a decision that was within the president's control. So, he also did the right thing for different reasons.
Then there are the questions over student fees that have come out of Snooki-gate and RutgersFest. Should students be allowed to opt-out of them, as one legislator, Joe Kyrillos, a Republican, has proposed? Or should adults step in and set tighter conditions over how the monies collected from students are to be spent?
I would argue no, to the first question. the fees cover numerous student services and activities. While each and every student may not use each and every thing covered under their fees another student will. In addition, individual students should not be allowed to opt-out of all fees because the activities board brought in a speaker they didn't like.
While Snooki is no example of a scholar, she was an entertainer many students wanted to see. Toni Morrison will speak before a larger audience, but that is because the event is commencement. But, had the university offered a chance to hear her speak in a less formal setting, would she have drawn a larger student audience than Snooki? I've read many comments about the quality of the student body--if they invited Snooki, that says it all--but those are short-sighted and unfair. Anyone who took the time to look would see that Rutgers attracts many speakers on various topics and viewpoints, and the student affairs office handles any protests, as appropriate.
Should wiser adults step in and provide more direction on where student money should be spent? It depends. If these efforts are part of a marketing strategy that will still draw audiences, then sure. If they are intended to ban speakers that students would like to hear, then no, unless security cannot be provided for the speaker and the audience, while the event remained free of charge to the university community.
The Rutgers community probably could have re-designed RutgersFest to allay some of the security concerns. But the New Brunswick police chief might have been so adament about non-cooperation that nothing could have swayed him. Further, he would be free to speak his mind on any other matters of town-gown relations and campus security, and that would have been far more damaging to the reputation of the university in the eyes of many, including future prospective students and their families.
That, to me, was a risk that Richard McCormick could not afford to take. There will be no future RutgersFest because a police chief could not account for crimes in the neighboring community that did not involve students. It was not because Rutgers did anything wrong.
RutgersFest, according to the story, did not even take place on the New Brunswick side of the campus. Divided by the Raritan River, the university's flagship campus is located in two towns: New Brunswick and Piscataway. The university acquired much of its land holdings in Piscataway when the U.S. Army deeded Camp Kilmer, a former military base, to them. The football stadium is perhaps the only building on the Piscataway side of the river that dates back more than half a century. This year's RutgersFest was held on the Piscataway side. Students and guests were bussed to and from the program, which attracted a reported audience of nearly 50,000 people.
But while the main event, a concert, ended at 8 PM, and it did not take place on the same side of the river as the shootings, the New Brunswick police chief blamed the university for inadequately addressing the city's security concerns. The reactions can best be described as over-reactions.
I understand why President McCormick decided to cancel the event for future years. Concerns about safety may or may not have stemmed from RutgersFest and he has the responsibility for the lives of the people who live and work on campus. This could be interpreted as doing the right thing.
However, RutgersFest is not the only campus event that attracts large audiences. The university plays six or seven home football games every season; in good years the average attendance has exceeded 40,000, just like RutgersFest. The alumni relations office runs a Rutgers Day held in late April in conjunction with several class reunions. Lastly, but not least, the university plans to host commencement in the football stadium next month, and Rutgers is a school that hands out a lot of degrees. All of these events are connected to informally organized social activities. Which leads me to ask: why was RutgersFest more difficult to secure than, for example, a football game?
But public relations-wise this school year has not been a good one for Rutger's main campus, which had become a more spirited place in recent years. The Tyler Clementi suicide; Eric LeGrand's spinal injuries; the poor record of a football team that was expected to have a promising season; Snooki-gate; and now these shootings are a lot for one campus community to face over two semesters. The university community came together over the tragedies, however the other incidents have embarassed the school in ways that put its profile in front of the state legislature at risk and likely hinder what has been a successful capital campaign. Cancelling RutgersFest was a decision that was within the president's control. So, he also did the right thing for different reasons.
Then there are the questions over student fees that have come out of Snooki-gate and RutgersFest. Should students be allowed to opt-out of them, as one legislator, Joe Kyrillos, a Republican, has proposed? Or should adults step in and set tighter conditions over how the monies collected from students are to be spent?
I would argue no, to the first question. the fees cover numerous student services and activities. While each and every student may not use each and every thing covered under their fees another student will. In addition, individual students should not be allowed to opt-out of all fees because the activities board brought in a speaker they didn't like.
While Snooki is no example of a scholar, she was an entertainer many students wanted to see. Toni Morrison will speak before a larger audience, but that is because the event is commencement. But, had the university offered a chance to hear her speak in a less formal setting, would she have drawn a larger student audience than Snooki? I've read many comments about the quality of the student body--if they invited Snooki, that says it all--but those are short-sighted and unfair. Anyone who took the time to look would see that Rutgers attracts many speakers on various topics and viewpoints, and the student affairs office handles any protests, as appropriate.
Should wiser adults step in and provide more direction on where student money should be spent? It depends. If these efforts are part of a marketing strategy that will still draw audiences, then sure. If they are intended to ban speakers that students would like to hear, then no, unless security cannot be provided for the speaker and the audience, while the event remained free of charge to the university community.
The Rutgers community probably could have re-designed RutgersFest to allay some of the security concerns. But the New Brunswick police chief might have been so adament about non-cooperation that nothing could have swayed him. Further, he would be free to speak his mind on any other matters of town-gown relations and campus security, and that would have been far more damaging to the reputation of the university in the eyes of many, including future prospective students and their families.
That, to me, was a risk that Richard McCormick could not afford to take. There will be no future RutgersFest because a police chief could not account for crimes in the neighboring community that did not involve students. It was not because Rutgers did anything wrong.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Jay Berwanger and the first NFL Draft
I follow the NFL Draft more closely than I probably should because it is still the most interesting recruitment process for finding entry level talent that I know of. However, that was not always the case. Until the late 1950's, pro football did not have the same cache' as major league baseball or college football.
In 1936, the year of the first profssional football draft, the National Football League had only nine teams, eight of which still exist as franchises today: the Boston (now Washington) Redskins, Chicago Bears, Chicago (now Arizona) Cardinals, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles and the Pittsburgh Pirates (now the Steelers). Only the Brooklyn Dodgers have been consigned to history.
In 1936 there was little air travel, nor televised college games, so reputations were made via radio and the print media. Aside from contacts with reporters and college coaches, professional football coaches had no better access to information about college players than the fans. The voting for the Downtown Athletic Club Trophy, later renamed the Heisman Trophy, upon the death of a famous coach, John Heisman, was done regionally, as it is today. No doubt the voters had as little information to rely on as the pro coaches of that day.
Eighty one players were selected in the original draft. Four: Joe Stuydahar (West Virginia/Chicago Bears), Tuffy Leemans (George Washington/New York Giants), Wayne Millner (Notre Dame/Washington Redskins) and Danny Fortmann (Colgate/Chicago Bears) would be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. One, Gomer Jones (Ohio State/Chicago Cardinals) would become a successful college coach at the University of Oklahoma, while another, Paul Bryant (Alabama/Brooklyn Dodgers) would become the winningest coach in college football for a long time.
While many of these players came from schools that have become traditional college football powers such as Notre Dame, Alabama, Ohio State and Stanford, others came from schools that have not attempted to qualify for the major bowl games for the last forty years. St. Mary's (CA) had three players taken in the first-ever draft. One, Eddie Erdelatz, later became the head coach at Navy as well as the first-ever coach of the Oakland Raiders. NYU's Ed Smith, taken in the third round by the Redskins, is the model for the running back figure that appears atop the Heisman Trophy.
Most significantly, the very first pick, Jay Berwanger, taken by the Philadelphia Eagles out of the University of Chicago, decided not to turn professional. He believed that a more lucrative career awaited him in the business world, so he became a foam rubber salesman while also writing a sports column for the Chicago Daily News. He also help coach players at Chicago and refereed college games.
After World War II, when he served as a naval officer, he set up Jay Berwanger, Inc., a manufacturer of plastic and sponge-rubber strips for car doors, trunks and farm machinery, based in a Chicago suburb. The business still operates today; its Web site still mentions Berwanger's athletic accomplishments.
While the University of Chicago has not been a sports-playing member of the Big Ten since 1949, and dropped football ten years earlier, Berwanger was awarded an Alumni Service Medal in 1984. He served as a member of the College Visiting Committee, chair of the President's Fund in 1993, and chair of his 55th and 60th alumni reunion committees.
Jay Berwanger might have never played a down as a professional football player, but he did set a good example for what a smart first-round pick could become, if he used his mind and managed his money right. There are far more opportunities in professional football than there were sixty five years ago, and a better chance for the best players to make money early in their working lives. Jay Berwanger did not start with those advantages, which makes his example all the more important.
In 1936, the year of the first profssional football draft, the National Football League had only nine teams, eight of which still exist as franchises today: the Boston (now Washington) Redskins, Chicago Bears, Chicago (now Arizona) Cardinals, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles and the Pittsburgh Pirates (now the Steelers). Only the Brooklyn Dodgers have been consigned to history.
In 1936 there was little air travel, nor televised college games, so reputations were made via radio and the print media. Aside from contacts with reporters and college coaches, professional football coaches had no better access to information about college players than the fans. The voting for the Downtown Athletic Club Trophy, later renamed the Heisman Trophy, upon the death of a famous coach, John Heisman, was done regionally, as it is today. No doubt the voters had as little information to rely on as the pro coaches of that day.
Eighty one players were selected in the original draft. Four: Joe Stuydahar (West Virginia/Chicago Bears), Tuffy Leemans (George Washington/New York Giants), Wayne Millner (Notre Dame/Washington Redskins) and Danny Fortmann (Colgate/Chicago Bears) would be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. One, Gomer Jones (Ohio State/Chicago Cardinals) would become a successful college coach at the University of Oklahoma, while another, Paul Bryant (Alabama/Brooklyn Dodgers) would become the winningest coach in college football for a long time.
While many of these players came from schools that have become traditional college football powers such as Notre Dame, Alabama, Ohio State and Stanford, others came from schools that have not attempted to qualify for the major bowl games for the last forty years. St. Mary's (CA) had three players taken in the first-ever draft. One, Eddie Erdelatz, later became the head coach at Navy as well as the first-ever coach of the Oakland Raiders. NYU's Ed Smith, taken in the third round by the Redskins, is the model for the running back figure that appears atop the Heisman Trophy.
Most significantly, the very first pick, Jay Berwanger, taken by the Philadelphia Eagles out of the University of Chicago, decided not to turn professional. He believed that a more lucrative career awaited him in the business world, so he became a foam rubber salesman while also writing a sports column for the Chicago Daily News. He also help coach players at Chicago and refereed college games.
After World War II, when he served as a naval officer, he set up Jay Berwanger, Inc., a manufacturer of plastic and sponge-rubber strips for car doors, trunks and farm machinery, based in a Chicago suburb. The business still operates today; its Web site still mentions Berwanger's athletic accomplishments.
While the University of Chicago has not been a sports-playing member of the Big Ten since 1949, and dropped football ten years earlier, Berwanger was awarded an Alumni Service Medal in 1984. He served as a member of the College Visiting Committee, chair of the President's Fund in 1993, and chair of his 55th and 60th alumni reunion committees.
Jay Berwanger might have never played a down as a professional football player, but he did set a good example for what a smart first-round pick could become, if he used his mind and managed his money right. There are far more opportunities in professional football than there were sixty five years ago, and a better chance for the best players to make money early in their working lives. Jay Berwanger did not start with those advantages, which makes his example all the more important.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Book Review-Intern Nation: How to Earn Nothing and Learn Little in the Brave New Economy by Ross Perlin
With all of the employment problems in this country, Ross Perlin has managed to uncover issues with a class of workers that has never been previously researched: student interns. While this book is not exactly an expose, the author has done a thorough job of explaining how the public and private sector offer illegal unpaid internships, sometimes with the complicity of colleges and universities.
The book begins with a look at the Disney College Program in Orlando where college students live (and pay for) company-financed housing and work in low-wage jobs for college credit (which the students also pay for). Disney also attracts international students to work during the school year, arranges for H1-B visas and matches them with U.S. colleges that will offer credits in exchange for work. While students employed through this program earn nothing after housing and educational costs--classes are taught on the premises--and some earn negative incomes, this has become the primary pipeline by which Disney hires its permanent employees.
But Disney is by no means the only employer of low wage labor or free workers labeled as interns. Government agencies, elected officials, employers in supposedly glamorous industries like entertainment and sports, non-profits, Internet start-ups, and even financial institutions such as Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney rely heavily on free labor. In the public and not-for-profit sector, such work has been misleadingly described as volunteerism. In the private sector, such workers are described as "in training," although they may receive little to no training at all. Worse, they are not protected through employment insurance, workman's compensation or any labor laws.
Internships are also increasingly brokered not by the colleges, but by clearinghouses such as the Washington Center, which matches students with available internship positions in the federal government and the legislative branch and also arranges partial scholarships to defray the costs of attendance and living in the nation's capital to Dream Careers, a less reputable firm that purports to arrange college credits through Menlo College, a California-based business school. In the book, the president of Menlo calls the credits continuing education credits and not academic credits; the former are not accepted towards a degree by any college,including Menlo. In either case, legitimate or not, the clearinghouse charges tuition, arranges the work assignment and housing, and coordinates any additional academic instruction. The problem with these arrangements, while convenient for the employers, is that students cannot easily afford to pay for work.
Internships have also been auctioned for charity by noted employers such as Southeby's and American Vogue. These arrangements also favor students from well-to-do families. The author has quoted professionals from politics and the non-profit world who are often asked by their well-to-do contributors to find jobs for their sons or daughters. The problem is not just access, but that the children of the well-to-do are quite often given nothing to do.
The problem of free labor runs in conjunction with issues of student disengagement on college campuses. For example, this week's New York Times ran a story: The B-School Blahs, criticizing the lack of academic rigor and student work effort at undergraduate business schools. Business students spend less than eleven hours per week studying outside of class, and this population represents just over a fifth of all bachelor's degrees. Combine the lack of academic rigor in the classroom with more limited access to internships, and their more limited rigor and you have a less prepared managerial class. Hardly a prescription for sending knowledge workers into a modern economy.
Worse, employers ask colleges to become partners in this process by asking their career services offices, cooperative education programs and academic departments to certify their positions as being credit-worthy. This is a dangerous practice when the employer has no plans to tie the student's free employment to any academic objective. The employer promises exposure to a work setting. The vast majority of professionals at the colleges want promise of a work product. However, it is unfair of employers to ask college officials to certify a position as credit worthy to help an employer avoid paying the minimum wage, or any money at all.
These problems are not recent. Over the time of attending and paying for college and two graduate degrees I held seven internships; all but one was a paid position. However, the cost of education was much lower and the wages covered a greater share of my educational expenses. However, this was at a time when internships were easier to get if you had decent grades and a commitment to a major. There were also opportunities where students could act as consultants to employers to solve a business problem. These are actually better than unpaid internships because student remain on-campus, work under the guidance of a faculty member and still get the opportunity to develop and deliver a professional presentation.
Today, when a year at a state university costs over $20,000 and student loan debts easily exceed that amount, the thought of paying to work in a job related to a major is more absurd. While there are major employers and organizations such as Inroads that attempt to arrange good jobs at a fair wage, there is far too much emphasis on a pay-to-work model.
The audience for Intern Nation appears to be career counselors and human resource professionals, but the problem is more serious for students and their families. While it is true that people need to invest in a career--there is so much talk about a 'Brand-Called-You'--the author points out that we have reached the time where parents and students have been asked to invest too much.
Friday, April 15, 2011
An expert system helps students choose college courses--and inadvertantly helps improve their grades
Today I read a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education about an "expert system" used at Austin Peay State University (TN) and also used at the University of Colorado flagship campus in Boulder to help students choose their courses. The use of this system has supposedly improved student grades while making course selection more convenient.
The expert system makes recommendations for students based on their intended major, past academic performance, and data on how similar students fared in that class. I would also presume that time required to graduation, course availability and degree requirements are factored in.
This is a brilliant use of technology to help students complete their degrees and while reducing the burdens on faculty who serve as academic advisers. The student keeps up with their progress while the adviser can lend his opinion on the courses s/he knows best. The story mentioned concerns that students would be led to "gut" courses, but so far that has not been the case. The school's tools can also be used in conjunction with sites such as RateMyProfessor.com to get a more complete picture of every course option.
I hope this is a concept that expands to other schools. It can work very well in any type of academic setting, from a liberal arts school where few courses are actually devoted to a major and complementary classes are highly desired, or to a highly structured business or engineering degree program where students become less aware of the large choice of courses that are available outside their major, but still required to earn a degree.
The same is true for community colleges where there are students interested in transferring to a four-year school as well as students who are interested in a pre-professional degree program.
When I was involved in software development, I learned that projects often follow a series of decision questions, including:
+ Can the tasks that will be addressed by the software package be eliminated without developing it?
In this case the colleges would be dropping academic advising. While a recently and positively reviewed book, Academically Adrift, mentioned that students rarely consulted professors at all but the most selective liberal arts schools--which oddly enough makes a justification to eliminate academic advising from faculty workloads--students do need and often appreciate direction when it is thoughtful and well-presented. So, the answer here is no; students still need advising.
+ Can the tasks that will be addressed by the software package be simplified?
This was possible at Austin Peay, the lead school in the storybecause the school had access to student information as well as the student evaluations and grades in every faculty member's classes, class schedules and degree program requirements. If the package was never developed, students would be forced to chase down all of this information and juggle catalogs, past evaluations and class schedule forms.
The school used all of this data to develop an automated and personalized course catalog that works much like Amazon.com. It takes your past history of "purchases," in this case previous courses and past "customer satisfaction," in this case evaluations and grades from students similar to you and comes up with a personalized set of recommendations. This simplifies course selection, respects the student as an individual, and respects the faculty adviser's time.
So, the answer to the second question is yes.
+ Can the tasks that will be addressed be performed by the software in such a way that human interaction is not required?
This is very hard to answer. I would guess this is possible at a larger school where pre-professional degree programs are highly structured with very few electives. The number of courses that a student can choose from would be smaller. As these students got further into their major they would lack pre-requisites to take many advanced courses in subjects outside their major.
This, by the way, is the reason that many schools offer the so-called "gut" courses. The "guts" are considered to be more entertaining than the introductory lecture classes while also having the course numbers that are assigned to advanced classes.
But I don't believe that an expert system could completely replace academic advising in a liberal arts school. There are too few courses needed to complete a major, and not all of them have pre-requisites. And the choice of electives is far too large.
However, the right mix of technology and good advice is a win all around at any type of school. Kudos to Austin Peay, Colorado and other schools that have gotten on this bandwagon.
The expert system makes recommendations for students based on their intended major, past academic performance, and data on how similar students fared in that class. I would also presume that time required to graduation, course availability and degree requirements are factored in.
This is a brilliant use of technology to help students complete their degrees and while reducing the burdens on faculty who serve as academic advisers. The student keeps up with their progress while the adviser can lend his opinion on the courses s/he knows best. The story mentioned concerns that students would be led to "gut" courses, but so far that has not been the case. The school's tools can also be used in conjunction with sites such as RateMyProfessor.com to get a more complete picture of every course option.
I hope this is a concept that expands to other schools. It can work very well in any type of academic setting, from a liberal arts school where few courses are actually devoted to a major and complementary classes are highly desired, or to a highly structured business or engineering degree program where students become less aware of the large choice of courses that are available outside their major, but still required to earn a degree.
The same is true for community colleges where there are students interested in transferring to a four-year school as well as students who are interested in a pre-professional degree program.
When I was involved in software development, I learned that projects often follow a series of decision questions, including:
+ Can the tasks that will be addressed by the software package be eliminated without developing it?
In this case the colleges would be dropping academic advising. While a recently and positively reviewed book, Academically Adrift, mentioned that students rarely consulted professors at all but the most selective liberal arts schools--which oddly enough makes a justification to eliminate academic advising from faculty workloads--students do need and often appreciate direction when it is thoughtful and well-presented. So, the answer here is no; students still need advising.
+ Can the tasks that will be addressed by the software package be simplified?
This was possible at Austin Peay, the lead school in the storybecause the school had access to student information as well as the student evaluations and grades in every faculty member's classes, class schedules and degree program requirements. If the package was never developed, students would be forced to chase down all of this information and juggle catalogs, past evaluations and class schedule forms.
The school used all of this data to develop an automated and personalized course catalog that works much like Amazon.com. It takes your past history of "purchases," in this case previous courses and past "customer satisfaction," in this case evaluations and grades from students similar to you and comes up with a personalized set of recommendations. This simplifies course selection, respects the student as an individual, and respects the faculty adviser's time.
So, the answer to the second question is yes.
+ Can the tasks that will be addressed be performed by the software in such a way that human interaction is not required?
This is very hard to answer. I would guess this is possible at a larger school where pre-professional degree programs are highly structured with very few electives. The number of courses that a student can choose from would be smaller. As these students got further into their major they would lack pre-requisites to take many advanced courses in subjects outside their major.
This, by the way, is the reason that many schools offer the so-called "gut" courses. The "guts" are considered to be more entertaining than the introductory lecture classes while also having the course numbers that are assigned to advanced classes.
But I don't believe that an expert system could completely replace academic advising in a liberal arts school. There are too few courses needed to complete a major, and not all of them have pre-requisites. And the choice of electives is far too large.
However, the right mix of technology and good advice is a win all around at any type of school. Kudos to Austin Peay, Colorado and other schools that have gotten on this bandwagon.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Online education can work in elementary and secondary schools--if the right conditions are in place
During last week's Education Writer's Association conference, I listened to a panel presentation by Kristi Kipp, the national Online Teacher of the Year, who works in Jefferson County, Colorado. The Jefferson County school district offers online courses full-time to at-risk students and part-time to students who are enrolled in traditional brick and mortar schools.
Online courses and virtual schools have become more popular offering supplemental instruction as well as complete curricula to students. However, evidence that online education is working well in elementary and secondary education has been mainly anecdotal, stories of past achievements.
However, Kristi pointed out clear attributes of quality that must be part of an online class. She added that quality in an online is not necessarily less expensive than quality in a traditional class. Some points:
+ Courses cannot be online textbooks; they must have broader content that will also hold student attention. The technology and support materials, if purchased from a vendor, are not totally customizable.
+ Teachers must know the technology involved, as well as its strengths and limitations.
+ The one-to-one interaction between teachers and students cannot be lost. Neither can the opportunity for give and take in question and answer classes.
+ The teacher's personality must shine through; students must know that s/he is human.
+ Expectations for each student must be communicated early and students must be respected as individuals--just as a good teacher does in a brick and mortar class room.
+ Teachers do not necessarily need to be dynamic lecturers, but they do need to be articulate.
+ The online program must help students who cannot attend traditional classes so that they may keep up. Online courses are used, for example, to instruct students who have been hospitalized for long periods of time.
+ Teachers must interact with parents online as well as the students.
+ To make this happen, the school district must be capable of putting the right technology in parent's hands.
While online education can be effective under these conditions there are still disadvantages.
+ Students "go MIA." They can leave their desks and the teacher would not know that they left.
+ Learning, for reporting purposes, is based on traditional concepts such as seat time and in-class attendance. Since hours in an online setting are not necessarily fixed, these concepts are outdated.
+ Online schools cannot offer several of the same extracurricular activities as traditional schools such as team sports, plays or music ensembles.
I understand all of the points that Kristi made, but what I do not understand is why online education for elementary and secondary school students is perceived to be less expensive than traditional classes. While it is true that students do not need to be bussed or driven to school and that large classroom buildings become less necessary:
+ Teachers still need to use blackboard and other visual aids that they use in traditional classrooms. It's doubtful that PowerPoint is a more effective aid to coach kids through math problems or breaking down sentence structure, among other activities.
+ Teachers need to know where to place cameras so that students may see everything from distances as well as up close. For example, showing a scene where the teacher works through a math problem or a musical composition might be filmed from a longer distance than a scene showing only the problem or the musical notes.
+ Those cameras must deliver clear images and sound and so must the student computers. To be effective, every student needs to have the same equipment.
+ The best learning materials are interactive. For instance, a student who works through a math problem or a verb conjugation will need to know if they got the correct answer immediately. This is more expensive than broadcasting a lecture.
+ The one-to-one interaction between teacher and student is not limited to the classroom. Teachers would need their home offices set up to work with students via computers if they need to speak with students or their parents after-hours.
+ Because the one-to-one interactions are so important, classroom sizes cannot be larger than they are in a traditional setting.
In the end, regardless of whether a classroom is online or in a school building, the difference will be the effort and quality of the teacher. But when politicians change evaluation systems to favor testing, eliminate collective bargaining rights
Online courses and virtual schools have become more popular offering supplemental instruction as well as complete curricula to students. However, evidence that online education is working well in elementary and secondary education has been mainly anecdotal, stories of past achievements.
However, Kristi pointed out clear attributes of quality that must be part of an online class. She added that quality in an online is not necessarily less expensive than quality in a traditional class. Some points:
+ Courses cannot be online textbooks; they must have broader content that will also hold student attention. The technology and support materials, if purchased from a vendor, are not totally customizable.
+ Teachers must know the technology involved, as well as its strengths and limitations.
+ The one-to-one interaction between teachers and students cannot be lost. Neither can the opportunity for give and take in question and answer classes.
+ The teacher's personality must shine through; students must know that s/he is human.
+ Expectations for each student must be communicated early and students must be respected as individuals--just as a good teacher does in a brick and mortar class room.
+ Teachers do not necessarily need to be dynamic lecturers, but they do need to be articulate.
+ The online program must help students who cannot attend traditional classes so that they may keep up. Online courses are used, for example, to instruct students who have been hospitalized for long periods of time.
+ Teachers must interact with parents online as well as the students.
+ To make this happen, the school district must be capable of putting the right technology in parent's hands.
While online education can be effective under these conditions there are still disadvantages.
+ Students "go MIA." They can leave their desks and the teacher would not know that they left.
+ Learning, for reporting purposes, is based on traditional concepts such as seat time and in-class attendance. Since hours in an online setting are not necessarily fixed, these concepts are outdated.
+ Online schools cannot offer several of the same extracurricular activities as traditional schools such as team sports, plays or music ensembles.
I understand all of the points that Kristi made, but what I do not understand is why online education for elementary and secondary school students is perceived to be less expensive than traditional classes. While it is true that students do not need to be bussed or driven to school and that large classroom buildings become less necessary:
+ Teachers still need to use blackboard and other visual aids that they use in traditional classrooms. It's doubtful that PowerPoint is a more effective aid to coach kids through math problems or breaking down sentence structure, among other activities.
+ Teachers need to know where to place cameras so that students may see everything from distances as well as up close. For example, showing a scene where the teacher works through a math problem or a musical composition might be filmed from a longer distance than a scene showing only the problem or the musical notes.
+ Those cameras must deliver clear images and sound and so must the student computers. To be effective, every student needs to have the same equipment.
+ The best learning materials are interactive. For instance, a student who works through a math problem or a verb conjugation will need to know if they got the correct answer immediately. This is more expensive than broadcasting a lecture.
+ The one-to-one interaction between teacher and student is not limited to the classroom. Teachers would need their home offices set up to work with students via computers if they need to speak with students or their parents after-hours.
+ Because the one-to-one interactions are so important, classroom sizes cannot be larger than they are in a traditional setting.
In the end, regardless of whether a classroom is online or in a school building, the difference will be the effort and quality of the teacher. But when politicians change evaluation systems to favor testing, eliminate collective bargaining rights
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Book Review--Politics and Pasta: How I Prosecuted Mobsters, Rebuilt a Dying City, Dined with Sinatra, Spent Five Years in a Federally Funded Gated Community, and Lived to Tell the Tale by Vincent "Buddy" Cianci Jr.
For the first eight years of my working life, I was quite involved in the politics of downtown redevelopment in a large city, Newark, New Jersey and I still follow these issues as a writer. But good books on the art of big city politics are rare and far between. This one is good because a former mayor, now talk show host, tells all as much as he can.
A doctor's son, Vincent 'Buddy' Cianci was mayor of Providence, Rhode Island for 21 years. The second largest city in New England, with nearly 160,000 people while Cianci was mayor, Providence is considered a national success story in urban redevelopment, especially historic preservation. It is also a state capital and a major college town, led by Brown University, Johnson and Wales and the Rhode Island School of Design.
Read this book, as well Mike Stanton's Prince of Providenceto get the full picture of the behind-the-scenes negotiations that made Providence the envy of large cities. After reading both books, you'll be intrigued, but you will also want to take a cold shower.
Providence and Rhode Island politics are as nasty as things get, though the state has elected patrician governors and senators such as Bruce Sundlin, Claiborne Pell and John and Lincoln Chaffey who give it a less tarnished image than it deserves. However, Stanton's book calls Rhode Island "the Louisiana of the North" when it comes to state politics. That's not exactly a complement.
But when I read the mayor's view of things, I laugh and accept the reality of his office. I also admire him. Few mayors get elected five times to try to solve a big city's problems. Not that Cianci lacked ambition for higher office or a new job, he just never got the timing down. He lost a race for governor and backed away from opportunities to run for the U.S. Senate when Republicans asked him to step aside for another candidate.
Only 33 when he was first elected in 1974, Cianci was a Republican at a time when a Republican administration still held the White House, but had suffered devastating losses at the polls. While noted as a Democratic stronghold, Cianci developed a strong relationship with Gerald Ford, and was brought into the inner circle of his losing campaign. But he delivered the state for Ford and he would help to put Rhode Island securely in the Reagan column four years later. He wanted to become a U.S. ambassador after Reagan was elected, but later resigned from the party when he was asked to come up with a $100,000 donation to a presidential war chest.
While his first term got off to a shaky start, including a snow storm, Cianci worked the art of politics, of deals and compromises, better than any northeastern mayor. He banned discrimination against homosexuals in local businesses and public hiring because he needed the gay community as a voting bloc. He also won favor with numerous ethnic groups, important as Providence is extremely diverse. But his greatest victories involved reshaping the city's waterfronts.
In the book he denies ever taking payoffs, though he cites others who did. However, the FBI was able to use RICO predicates to send him to jail during his last term. He does admit, however, that patronage, the use of jobs to curry favors, was a practice he could never avoid.
When I read this book I understand the mayor and want to laugh along with him--there are many punchlines here--but I would imagine those unaccustomed to big city urban politics will cringe. All I can tell them is that the more familiar fiction, The Last Hurrah and All the King's Menis not far beyond belief. Just ask Buddy.
Better yet, read his book and read Stanton's too. Anyone who is angry at the federal government would learn how the federal money really works when it is applied properly. They might not be so quick to stop their representatives from bringing home the bacon during their time in Washington.
The Donald for President. Is that really so far-fetched?
I don't see what the fuss has been over Donald Trump as a potential presidential candidate. While The Apprentice and his glibness have kept him in the public eye for more than 30 years, the nation is used to seeing wealthy men and women--I can't exclude Hillary Clinton--seek the highest office. We have even seen billionaires such as Michael Bloomburg and Jon Corzine win election; one has succeeded beyond expectations, the other failed badly in the end.
The problem with Trump is not his wealth, or even his mannerisms, but his lack of alignment with any type of political base. Hiring an investigator to pursue President Obama's birth records might seem like an appeal to the Tea Party crowd, but he has also supported Democrats when it suited his business interests. He might have conservative views on some issues--the news coverage says that he is 'pro-life' and 'pro-gun'--but he has shown that he will work with anybody who will help him get a favorable ruling on his projects. That makes him no different from any other real estate developer who operates in his arena.
But the modern Republican base is not interested in bi-partisanship, so his past business dealings and campaign contribution history could become a liability. Conservative Republicans are interested in iron-handedness whether they lead half of one legislative branch or both houses plus the White House.
I cannot see a Trump candidacy or a Trump presidency being so blatantly right wing because The Donald is about The Ask and The Deal. He doesn't care who would vote for what he wants or what party they belong to, as long as he gets what he wants. I could imagine President Trump backing both Democrats and Republicans who are running for re-election, because The Donald is not about We the People; he is about I the Donald. I don't believe he would put party before The Deal.
If Trump were to ask me what I thought about him making a run, I would tell him to declare before any of the Republicans do and run directly against Obama. Forget the primaries and make your own schedule. I would want him to grab attention early, because I know he would hold on. I would tell him to prepare for the negatives early--three marriages, the fiscal woes of the casino business, the hard-handed tactics used by real estate developers, his celebrity, and simply being from New York. Once he gets those out of the way--and he would handle his negatives better than any other candidate--he can match wits and quips with anybody, even Obama.
I don't know how voters everywhere will react to his vanity. Even when he plays golf, he is neatly coiffed, not a spec or dirt touches him, no hair blows out of place. We are used to candidates who take off their jackets and roll up their sleeves on the campaign trail, possibly to be more comfortable, but presumably to look more like regular guys. George W. Bush had this down to perfection, which is one reason he won two presidential elections when he deserved to win none. But no jacket and rolled up sleeves are so unlike The Donald. But who knows, maybe he doesn't sweat in the sun or the bright lights.
The problem with Trump is not his wealth, or even his mannerisms, but his lack of alignment with any type of political base. Hiring an investigator to pursue President Obama's birth records might seem like an appeal to the Tea Party crowd, but he has also supported Democrats when it suited his business interests. He might have conservative views on some issues--the news coverage says that he is 'pro-life' and 'pro-gun'--but he has shown that he will work with anybody who will help him get a favorable ruling on his projects. That makes him no different from any other real estate developer who operates in his arena.
But the modern Republican base is not interested in bi-partisanship, so his past business dealings and campaign contribution history could become a liability. Conservative Republicans are interested in iron-handedness whether they lead half of one legislative branch or both houses plus the White House.
I cannot see a Trump candidacy or a Trump presidency being so blatantly right wing because The Donald is about The Ask and The Deal. He doesn't care who would vote for what he wants or what party they belong to, as long as he gets what he wants. I could imagine President Trump backing both Democrats and Republicans who are running for re-election, because The Donald is not about We the People; he is about I the Donald. I don't believe he would put party before The Deal.
If Trump were to ask me what I thought about him making a run, I would tell him to declare before any of the Republicans do and run directly against Obama. Forget the primaries and make your own schedule. I would want him to grab attention early, because I know he would hold on. I would tell him to prepare for the negatives early--three marriages, the fiscal woes of the casino business, the hard-handed tactics used by real estate developers, his celebrity, and simply being from New York. Once he gets those out of the way--and he would handle his negatives better than any other candidate--he can match wits and quips with anybody, even Obama.
I don't know how voters everywhere will react to his vanity. Even when he plays golf, he is neatly coiffed, not a spec or dirt touches him, no hair blows out of place. We are used to candidates who take off their jackets and roll up their sleeves on the campaign trail, possibly to be more comfortable, but presumably to look more like regular guys. George W. Bush had this down to perfection, which is one reason he won two presidential elections when he deserved to win none. But no jacket and rolled up sleeves are so unlike The Donald. But who knows, maybe he doesn't sweat in the sun or the bright lights.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
What happens as flagship state schools go private?
Why is a top state university like a popular Japanese car? Answer: some people pay over list price to get the same thing. And this will be a continuing trend. More and more of the leading state universities will be opening their doors to out-of-state students, especially those who can pay close to a private college tuition for the experience of attending their school.
I understand why this is happening. State universities have continually lost state support in real dollars while state governments have also cut back on financial aid to their own residents. More out of state students paying full freight can make up the difference.
This was less of a concern when I was looking at colleges more than thirty years ago as the differences in cost between attending the home state university and going to a similar school out-of-state could be made up within only two or three years of income.
But today, for example, the difference between going to Rutgers, my state university and the University of Maryland is about $12,000 a year. I'd be wary about paying an additional $50,000 or more over four years to go to any school. I don't know if I could make up the additional debt over ten years from the "premium" of paying to go to a school that might have been better than my in-state option. And, as state schools shift the proportion of their student bodies to welcome more out-of-state students, they could shut the door on needy students in their own states.
So, here's what I wonder. Since state schools are becoming more welcoming to out-of-state students, then why not abolish the concept of a state university? Put all financial aid under a federal system with three parts: grants, loans and vouchers. Here is how this might work.
+ Each college bound student would receive a voucher equal to one-third the average tuition of all universities--public, private or for-profit. Let's say, for sake of round numbers, that this amount is $10,000. This would be considered as the public subsidy that the state provides to educate each student. No state would subsidize their schools anymore.
+ Each student who had greater need would receive an additional grant which could be as high as $10,000, depending on the cost of the college they are attending. This grant would be tied to household income. For the sake of round numbers, lets say that all households earning under $50,000 would get $10,000 and the amount goes down by $2,500 for each additional $25,000 in household income. So, a $75,000 family income means $7,500 per student; $100,000 means $5,000; $125,000 means $2,500. Over $150,000 means zero.
+ Each student may borrow the difference in the form of an interest subsidized loan; the interest is covered for a total of eight semesters or four years. After that, the student and/or their family must pay the interest.
+ Each former state school would be free to set whatever price they believe the market will bear. The school would then have the option of providing matching grants to aid those students they want the most, and also need financial aid. While state governments would not be forbidden from providing grants or work-study jobs, these would be required to be need-based. The school would still be allowed to use any scholarship money they raise on their own for the purposes their donors intended.
+ Privately supported schools would be free to provide their own match as well.
These actions would simplify the financial aid process for all students. Enter your income once and you get the amount you can work with. Less need for bureaucracy to make financial aid decisions. State governments could also take themselves out of the financial aid business as the money they now administer and award would be awarded at a federal level instead. They could still subsidize students if their voters wanted to.
As state schools welcome more out-of-state students and cease to become state-supported, they essentially become private schools. Only now, some state governments are less capable of subsidizing higher education--and some always will be, because they do not have a diverse economic base. California, for example, or Texas have major commercial and industrial centers, as does North Carolina. However, New Hampshire, Vermont and North Dakota do not.
It might actually be less expensive for the policy makers in those states to send all of their students out-of-state than it is to for them to operate a state university to keep them at home. While the thought of closing down a flagship school is beyond belief, the idea of helping a student to go anywhere they want, while encouraging the school to show their intentions, is not so far-fetched.
I know this sounds like a conservative Republican idea, but these thoughts make the more sense than status quo. Assuming they are more liberally funded than a conservative Republican would usually accept.
I understand why this is happening. State universities have continually lost state support in real dollars while state governments have also cut back on financial aid to their own residents. More out of state students paying full freight can make up the difference.
This was less of a concern when I was looking at colleges more than thirty years ago as the differences in cost between attending the home state university and going to a similar school out-of-state could be made up within only two or three years of income.
But today, for example, the difference between going to Rutgers, my state university and the University of Maryland is about $12,000 a year. I'd be wary about paying an additional $50,000 or more over four years to go to any school. I don't know if I could make up the additional debt over ten years from the "premium" of paying to go to a school that might have been better than my in-state option. And, as state schools shift the proportion of their student bodies to welcome more out-of-state students, they could shut the door on needy students in their own states.
So, here's what I wonder. Since state schools are becoming more welcoming to out-of-state students, then why not abolish the concept of a state university? Put all financial aid under a federal system with three parts: grants, loans and vouchers. Here is how this might work.
+ Each college bound student would receive a voucher equal to one-third the average tuition of all universities--public, private or for-profit. Let's say, for sake of round numbers, that this amount is $10,000. This would be considered as the public subsidy that the state provides to educate each student. No state would subsidize their schools anymore.
+ Each student who had greater need would receive an additional grant which could be as high as $10,000, depending on the cost of the college they are attending. This grant would be tied to household income. For the sake of round numbers, lets say that all households earning under $50,000 would get $10,000 and the amount goes down by $2,500 for each additional $25,000 in household income. So, a $75,000 family income means $7,500 per student; $100,000 means $5,000; $125,000 means $2,500. Over $150,000 means zero.
+ Each student may borrow the difference in the form of an interest subsidized loan; the interest is covered for a total of eight semesters or four years. After that, the student and/or their family must pay the interest.
+ Each former state school would be free to set whatever price they believe the market will bear. The school would then have the option of providing matching grants to aid those students they want the most, and also need financial aid. While state governments would not be forbidden from providing grants or work-study jobs, these would be required to be need-based. The school would still be allowed to use any scholarship money they raise on their own for the purposes their donors intended.
+ Privately supported schools would be free to provide their own match as well.
These actions would simplify the financial aid process for all students. Enter your income once and you get the amount you can work with. Less need for bureaucracy to make financial aid decisions. State governments could also take themselves out of the financial aid business as the money they now administer and award would be awarded at a federal level instead. They could still subsidize students if their voters wanted to.
As state schools welcome more out-of-state students and cease to become state-supported, they essentially become private schools. Only now, some state governments are less capable of subsidizing higher education--and some always will be, because they do not have a diverse economic base. California, for example, or Texas have major commercial and industrial centers, as does North Carolina. However, New Hampshire, Vermont and North Dakota do not.
It might actually be less expensive for the policy makers in those states to send all of their students out-of-state than it is to for them to operate a state university to keep them at home. While the thought of closing down a flagship school is beyond belief, the idea of helping a student to go anywhere they want, while encouraging the school to show their intentions, is not so far-fetched.
I know this sounds like a conservative Republican idea, but these thoughts make the more sense than status quo. Assuming they are more liberally funded than a conservative Republican would usually accept.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Q and A about the 'other' college admissions test-- the ACT
Growing up in the Seventies, the SAT was the college admissions test that was most accepted by higher education institutions across the country. Midwestern and southern schools required the ACT, at least for their state residents. The more selective schools also required achievement tests--now known as SAT IIs in Language Arts, Mathematics and a subject of the student's choice.
Today, according to Ed Colby, senior media relations associate at ACT, the ACT examination is also accepted at practically every college as the SAT. I met Ed last week and asked if he could share some information about the ACT and how it compares with the SAT. I would like to thank Ed for for his time and his answers below.
+ How is the ACT structured and how is it different from the SAT? Is there
academic research behind the differences between the two tests? Do they
predict different things with respect to college admissions?
The ACT is and has always been a curriculum-based achievement exam that
measures the knowledge and skills taught in schools and deemed important
for success in first-year college coursework.
It is much like an end-of-course exam, designed to assess what students have learned in school, everything from basic to advanced skills in each subject area. The idea behind the ACT is that by measuring what students have learned so far,
we can predict how ready they are to successfully perform at the next level
-- that is, in first-year college courses.
The SAT began as an aptitude test. More recently, it has been described by the College Board as a reasoning skills or critical thinking test, but I'm not sure they use those terms to describe it today. It is not an achievement exam, but I would defer to the College Board in describing what, exactly, it is, and what specifically it is designed to predict.
There are four required exams in the ACT (English, mathematics, reading, and science) plus an optional essay-based Writing Test. The SAT has three required tests (reading, mathematics, and writing), and its essay test is mandatory. Both tests are designed to measure college readiness -- likely success in first-year college coursework.
+ How is the ACT organized to be taken on a test day?
The ACT tests are administered in the following order: English (75
questions, 45 minutes), Mathematics (60 questions, 60 minutes), Reading (40
questions, 35 minutes), Science (40 questions, 35 minutes), Writing
(optional; 1 essay, 30 minutes). The total testing time is 2 hours, 55
minutes for the ACT without writing and 3 hours, 25 minutes for the ACT
Plus Writing.
With the exception of the optional writing test (which requires students to write an essay response), all ACT test questions are multiple choice in format. .
+ Given how traditional college students take either the SAT or ACT or
possibly both during the second half of their junior year in high school,
what is the best way for these students to prepare in advance for the ACT?
Do prep courses help in any way to raise a score between the first and
second time a student takes the test?
Because the ACT is designed to measure what students have learned in
school, the best way for students to prepare for the ACT is to take the
most challenging courses they can, study hard, and learn the material.
There is simply no substitute for long-term academic preparation. The data
we have seen suggest that test prep courses have only minor positive impact
on performance on the ACT. However, the effects of taking advanced
coursework in school can be clearly and easily demonstrated in our annual
score reports.
On a short-term basis, the best thing students can do is to take one or
more practice ACT tests (available for free on our website --
actstudent.org) to familiarize themselves with the format of the tests and the types of questions asked. We strongly urge all students to take a practice test before they take the actual exam. If they want additional test prep, we suggest they focus on content-based reviews of course
material.
+ Between the ACT and the SAT, which test would be less difficult for a
non-traditional student, someone who has not been in school for some time,
to prepare for?
That question is really impossible to answer, I'm afraid. There are so many
different variables that can impact performance on the exams. If someone
who has been out of school for an extended period wants to take the ACT, we
would recommend they prepare by reviewing the types of knowledge and skills
they learned in school, as those are what the ACT measures. They can learn
a lot by taking a practice test (again, offered free on our website) to
assess their current academic strengths and weaknesses.
+ Are ACT scores a valid indicator of the quality of the student body of a
college and a high school?
ACT scores are an indicator of how much students have learned in school.
They can be and often are used to measure student learning at a particular
school, district, and/or state, particularly when all students take the
exam. However, the ACT does not measure quality. It measures only learning,
which can be impacted by a wide variety of factors.
+ Does the ACT as a corporation believe that:
--Colleges have placed too much emphasis on test scores, too little or just
the right amount?
--Parents have placed too much emphasis on test scores, too little or just
the right amount?
--College-bound students have placed too much emphasis on test scores, too
little or just the right amount?
--High school guidance counselors have placed too much emphasis on test
scores, too little or just the right amount?
The answer to these questions will vary from college to college, parent to
parent, student to student, and counselor to counselor.
What I can tell you is this: ACT urges colleges to use ACT scores as just one of many factors to determine whether or not a student applicant is ready for success at
their institution; ACT scores should never be used as the sole criterion
for making high-stakes decisions about a student. And we're not aware of
any colleges or universities that do not abide by this recommendation.
Most colleges consider test scores along with grades, courses taken, class rank,
involvement in activities, references, etc., when making admission decisions. So, students, parents, and counselors should be aware that a student's ACT score, while important, is not the be-all, end-all in college admission decisions.
Today, according to Ed Colby, senior media relations associate at ACT, the ACT examination is also accepted at practically every college as the SAT. I met Ed last week and asked if he could share some information about the ACT and how it compares with the SAT. I would like to thank Ed for for his time and his answers below.
+ How is the ACT structured and how is it different from the SAT? Is there
academic research behind the differences between the two tests? Do they
predict different things with respect to college admissions?
The ACT is and has always been a curriculum-based achievement exam that
measures the knowledge and skills taught in schools and deemed important
for success in first-year college coursework.
It is much like an end-of-course exam, designed to assess what students have learned in school, everything from basic to advanced skills in each subject area. The idea behind the ACT is that by measuring what students have learned so far,
we can predict how ready they are to successfully perform at the next level
-- that is, in first-year college courses.
The SAT began as an aptitude test. More recently, it has been described by the College Board as a reasoning skills or critical thinking test, but I'm not sure they use those terms to describe it today. It is not an achievement exam, but I would defer to the College Board in describing what, exactly, it is, and what specifically it is designed to predict.
There are four required exams in the ACT (English, mathematics, reading, and science) plus an optional essay-based Writing Test. The SAT has three required tests (reading, mathematics, and writing), and its essay test is mandatory. Both tests are designed to measure college readiness -- likely success in first-year college coursework.
+ How is the ACT organized to be taken on a test day?
The ACT tests are administered in the following order: English (75
questions, 45 minutes), Mathematics (60 questions, 60 minutes), Reading (40
questions, 35 minutes), Science (40 questions, 35 minutes), Writing
(optional; 1 essay, 30 minutes). The total testing time is 2 hours, 55
minutes for the ACT without writing and 3 hours, 25 minutes for the ACT
Plus Writing.
With the exception of the optional writing test (which requires students to write an essay response), all ACT test questions are multiple choice in format. .
+ Given how traditional college students take either the SAT or ACT or
possibly both during the second half of their junior year in high school,
what is the best way for these students to prepare in advance for the ACT?
Do prep courses help in any way to raise a score between the first and
second time a student takes the test?
Because the ACT is designed to measure what students have learned in
school, the best way for students to prepare for the ACT is to take the
most challenging courses they can, study hard, and learn the material.
There is simply no substitute for long-term academic preparation. The data
we have seen suggest that test prep courses have only minor positive impact
on performance on the ACT. However, the effects of taking advanced
coursework in school can be clearly and easily demonstrated in our annual
score reports.
On a short-term basis, the best thing students can do is to take one or
more practice ACT tests (available for free on our website --
actstudent.org) to familiarize themselves with the format of the tests and the types of questions asked. We strongly urge all students to take a practice test before they take the actual exam. If they want additional test prep, we suggest they focus on content-based reviews of course
material.
+ Between the ACT and the SAT, which test would be less difficult for a
non-traditional student, someone who has not been in school for some time,
to prepare for?
That question is really impossible to answer, I'm afraid. There are so many
different variables that can impact performance on the exams. If someone
who has been out of school for an extended period wants to take the ACT, we
would recommend they prepare by reviewing the types of knowledge and skills
they learned in school, as those are what the ACT measures. They can learn
a lot by taking a practice test (again, offered free on our website) to
assess their current academic strengths and weaknesses.
+ Are ACT scores a valid indicator of the quality of the student body of a
college and a high school?
ACT scores are an indicator of how much students have learned in school.
They can be and often are used to measure student learning at a particular
school, district, and/or state, particularly when all students take the
exam. However, the ACT does not measure quality. It measures only learning,
which can be impacted by a wide variety of factors.
+ Does the ACT as a corporation believe that:
--Colleges have placed too much emphasis on test scores, too little or just
the right amount?
--Parents have placed too much emphasis on test scores, too little or just
the right amount?
--College-bound students have placed too much emphasis on test scores, too
little or just the right amount?
--High school guidance counselors have placed too much emphasis on test
scores, too little or just the right amount?
The answer to these questions will vary from college to college, parent to
parent, student to student, and counselor to counselor.
What I can tell you is this: ACT urges colleges to use ACT scores as just one of many factors to determine whether or not a student applicant is ready for success at
their institution; ACT scores should never be used as the sole criterion
for making high-stakes decisions about a student. And we're not aware of
any colleges or universities that do not abide by this recommendation.
Most colleges consider test scores along with grades, courses taken, class rank,
involvement in activities, references, etc., when making admission decisions. So, students, parents, and counselors should be aware that a student's ACT score, while important, is not the be-all, end-all in college admission decisions.
Over-ambitious Louisiana state scholarship program is not the tops
During the Education Writer's Association conference last week, I briefly met Louisiana State University president John Lombardi, who had spoken after a panel on degree completion rates. A conservative state, Louisiana has one of the most liberal college tuition assistance programs in the country.
Under the Taylor Opportunity Program Scholarships aka TOPS, any student who has at least a 2.5 grade-point-average and a 20 or better on the ACT can go to any public university in-state for free, depending on space available. Other assistance called Go-Grants is provide for needier students. TOPS is broken into three incentive categories based on GPA and ACT scores; the lowest performing students get only tuition and some fees, the best get as much as an extra 800 bucks. The state's brochure shows that standards for each award have had to be raised.
I asked Dr. Lombardi what the cost of a LSU education was, and he told me that "you could get it for $1.95 through TOPS." Lombardi has already gone on record in opposing the program, and he is right to do so. This is Huey Long socialism at its finest.
For one thing, this program was intended to keep the brightest students in-state after they finished college. According to Dr. Lombardi, they have left instead. Louisiana does not have a labor market that can absorb all of these graduates.
Secondly, the in-state tuition at the state schools is significantly lower than comparable schools in other states. LSU charges the fourth-lowest tuition in its sports conference after Florida, Mississippi and Mississippi State. Out-of-state tuition is slightly less than $15,000 and a significant seventeen percent of the student body comes from outside Louisiana. Other Louisiana state-supported universities, including Grambling, Louisiana Tech, McNeese State and Southern University, among others, charge even less than LSU.
Third, the incentive is not tied to academic progress in future years. It's one thing to get the scholarship as a freshman. If you have tuition free then you supposedly do not have to work as many hours, and therefore you have more time to study. Yet the lowest tier, the Opportunity Scholarship calls for a minimum GPA of only 2.3 in the freshman year and 2.5 for all other years. The other two tiers, which have tuition plus incentives, require the student to maintain a B average or better.
Fourth, I have to wonder if this structure is also a disincentive to declare a challenging major such as a STEM subject: science, technology, engineering or mathematics. Incentives are usually planned around directing students to majors where there is a high level of employer demand, but too few degree candidates. However, TOPS favors students who declare easier majors and encourages grade inflation. Professors do have a heart for those students who need a scholarship to
stay in school.
Last, while LSU, according to the latest U.S. News Guide, retains 84 percent of its freshmen and graduated sixty one percent of its 2004 entrants within six years, the other Louisiana public institutions performed far more poorly. Louisiana-Lafayette and Louisiana Tech, two examples, graduated less than half of their 2004 entrants within six years. TOPS support is available for only eight semesters or four years. This leads me to believe that too much TOPS money was wasted on students who could not graduate on time.
TOPS, while well-intentioned, is the result of what happens when a state goes overboard to provide college for everyone. Hand out too many awards and too many people will line up to take them. If that line gets too long, as in overcrowded classes, then everyone's education suffers. The best students who didn't need the money will leave; they can afford something better. Too many others will have been give too easy a ride.
However, you cannot just wave a wand and take away a program like TOPS overnight. Too many students are dependent on these scholarships; at these low hurdles its got to be like a crack addiction. The best solution is to allow current students who are making adequate progress to finish their degrees under TOPS support, then revise requirements beginning with entering freshmen this year. TOPS costs Louisiana citizens $139 million that could be better spent on assisting the neediest students or allocated in direct aid to the universities themselves to strengthen academics or the student life experience.
Under the Taylor Opportunity Program Scholarships aka TOPS, any student who has at least a 2.5 grade-point-average and a 20 or better on the ACT can go to any public university in-state for free, depending on space available. Other assistance called Go-Grants is provide for needier students. TOPS is broken into three incentive categories based on GPA and ACT scores; the lowest performing students get only tuition and some fees, the best get as much as an extra 800 bucks. The state's brochure shows that standards for each award have had to be raised.
I asked Dr. Lombardi what the cost of a LSU education was, and he told me that "you could get it for $1.95 through TOPS." Lombardi has already gone on record in opposing the program, and he is right to do so. This is Huey Long socialism at its finest.
For one thing, this program was intended to keep the brightest students in-state after they finished college. According to Dr. Lombardi, they have left instead. Louisiana does not have a labor market that can absorb all of these graduates.
Secondly, the in-state tuition at the state schools is significantly lower than comparable schools in other states. LSU charges the fourth-lowest tuition in its sports conference after Florida, Mississippi and Mississippi State. Out-of-state tuition is slightly less than $15,000 and a significant seventeen percent of the student body comes from outside Louisiana. Other Louisiana state-supported universities, including Grambling, Louisiana Tech, McNeese State and Southern University, among others, charge even less than LSU.
Third, the incentive is not tied to academic progress in future years. It's one thing to get the scholarship as a freshman. If you have tuition free then you supposedly do not have to work as many hours, and therefore you have more time to study. Yet the lowest tier, the Opportunity Scholarship calls for a minimum GPA of only 2.3 in the freshman year and 2.5 for all other years. The other two tiers, which have tuition plus incentives, require the student to maintain a B average or better.
Fourth, I have to wonder if this structure is also a disincentive to declare a challenging major such as a STEM subject: science, technology, engineering or mathematics. Incentives are usually planned around directing students to majors where there is a high level of employer demand, but too few degree candidates. However, TOPS favors students who declare easier majors and encourages grade inflation. Professors do have a heart for those students who need a scholarship to
stay in school.
Last, while LSU, according to the latest U.S. News Guide, retains 84 percent of its freshmen and graduated sixty one percent of its 2004 entrants within six years, the other Louisiana public institutions performed far more poorly. Louisiana-Lafayette and Louisiana Tech, two examples, graduated less than half of their 2004 entrants within six years. TOPS support is available for only eight semesters or four years. This leads me to believe that too much TOPS money was wasted on students who could not graduate on time.
TOPS, while well-intentioned, is the result of what happens when a state goes overboard to provide college for everyone. Hand out too many awards and too many people will line up to take them. If that line gets too long, as in overcrowded classes, then everyone's education suffers. The best students who didn't need the money will leave; they can afford something better. Too many others will have been give too easy a ride.
However, you cannot just wave a wand and take away a program like TOPS overnight. Too many students are dependent on these scholarships; at these low hurdles its got to be like a crack addiction. The best solution is to allow current students who are making adequate progress to finish their degrees under TOPS support, then revise requirements beginning with entering freshmen this year. TOPS costs Louisiana citizens $139 million that could be better spent on assisting the neediest students or allocated in direct aid to the universities themselves to strengthen academics or the student life experience.
A talk by two teacher's union leaders
As part of attending the Education Writers Association conference last week, I had the privilege to listen to Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers as they shared the podium.
Both argued that the changes in the political mindset, where teachers are the solution to all problems, but also the cause of all ills, are not causes about budgeting or debt, but about neutralizing the voices of professionals who have usually had a very powerful voice. "Quality," they stated, is used by opponents to justify cuts, when it should not.
Had Van Roekel or Weingarten gone into examples of where collaboration between unions and school boards and/or state government had been constructive, and devoted their time to discussing them, I would have been swayed more by their talk. Instead, they denied that reported problems in labor relations did not exist--to an audience of reporters. For example:
+ "Last-in, first-out does not exist in any public school system. Different teaching positions have different qualifications and certification requirements."
True, but the more experience teachers often switch between elementary and secondary grades, and they can rely on their past credentials to "save" them when they are in danger of losing their jobs. This is one reason why the "lemon dance," where bad teachers are constantly reassigned to new jobs, exists today. As data collection on teachers and students becomes more sophisticated and fair evaluation protocols are defined, the lemon dance should end.
+ "Bad teachers are the fault of the hiring process and the lack of effort on development on the administrative level."
If they had said that peer teachers should be part of the hiring process in any school system I would not argue. However, I also wonder if this is possible in every school, especially schools where turnover is dramatic and the principal must over-rely on permanent substitutes.
I would also wonder if traditional teachers would treat teachers sourced from alternate routes such as Teach for America with enough tact to develop a more inclusive hiring process. I don't see peer interviewing being a problem in schools in well-to-do communities.
Where I do agree is that the hiring process must also have a better firing process. Blatant and obvious misconduct should be answered with immediate dismissal. The time frame from citation to hearing should be faster. I would think that would be in the union's best interest, too. A slot once occupied by an unprofessional teacher can be filled by someone better qualified who might also be more valued.
+ "Teachers do not peak after two years." I won't argue. But the same is true of any worker in any other profession. The difference with teachers is that children are their primary customers. Understanding the mind of a child is not easier than understanding the mind of a peer adult in a workplace.
+ "Tenure has been used as an excuse not to evaluate teachers. Evaluation is more about continuous improvement than 'gotcha'."
The leaders of both unions are for fair evaluation processes, though I wish they spent some time discussing how this is working on a local level. They agree that evaluation should not be overly based on test results. I agree, too.
However, the national union exists to guide the locals, at least to share best practices. I have not seen that in New Jersey. But also to be fair, Van Roekel and Weingarten did say that the unions should have shown more leadership on evaluation in the past, and they did not.
+ "Never allow a principal to not be a teacher." This was an answer to my question about contrasts in leadership development.
Two types of school leaders stand out. The first are principals who started as teachers and pursued graduate degrees at night while they became tenured in their school system. The second are former Teach for America corps members who go to graduate school, often not in education but in fields such as law or public policy, then move into positions of authority shortly after.
I see the case for both. The traditional leader has taught with the teachers around them and is more likely to be capable of managing the dynamics than a total newcomer. However, this is not as true for schools where teachers and school leaders are frequently in transition.
Listening to this panel, I wondered about the relationship between the national and local unions. Randi Weingarten has shown a willingness to try new approaches such as union collaboration in New York City charter schools as well as realistic proposals for the Newark schools that can work with some tweaking. However, each and every local and state bargaining relationship has its unique history--and they are not all good.
In New Jersey the voters did not merely get mad about teacher's union contracts; they got even by electing Chris Christie, who is firmly anti-union, to be their governor. Other states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida have also elected governors who were more fiscally conservative than their predecessors. Clearly the voters in these states believed that teachers have benefits packages or pensions that are more generous than their own, and they asked their governor for a change.
I would agree that these governors, especially Christie, have gone overboard with their demands on teachers with respect to performance standards and merit, and yes, taking away the union voice. Other professions participate in the process by which their ethics, qualifications and standards are regulated, teachers should, too. However, in other fields additional credentials do not mean automatic pay raises or job protections that may be stated in union contracts.
I can understand that unions would not want to work their way backwards on hard-fought gains, but it is up to their leadership to find ways to win when conservative politics are in vogue. States must meet obligations to their retired teachers, as well as those approaching the end of a long career. However, they must redefine career paths and compensation strategies for the youngest generation of teachers. These teachers will not be satisfied with little feedback nor low annual raises such as the two percent increases proposed by Chris Christie, so they will leave.
I'd say the union leaders are on to one area, teacher evaluations, where they might be able to find common ground. Otherwise future governors will continue to announce that there are more failing schools that are also losing good teachers. And that is a losing proposition all around.
Both argued that the changes in the political mindset, where teachers are the solution to all problems, but also the cause of all ills, are not causes about budgeting or debt, but about neutralizing the voices of professionals who have usually had a very powerful voice. "Quality," they stated, is used by opponents to justify cuts, when it should not.
Had Van Roekel or Weingarten gone into examples of where collaboration between unions and school boards and/or state government had been constructive, and devoted their time to discussing them, I would have been swayed more by their talk. Instead, they denied that reported problems in labor relations did not exist--to an audience of reporters. For example:
+ "Last-in, first-out does not exist in any public school system. Different teaching positions have different qualifications and certification requirements."
True, but the more experience teachers often switch between elementary and secondary grades, and they can rely on their past credentials to "save" them when they are in danger of losing their jobs. This is one reason why the "lemon dance," where bad teachers are constantly reassigned to new jobs, exists today. As data collection on teachers and students becomes more sophisticated and fair evaluation protocols are defined, the lemon dance should end.
+ "Bad teachers are the fault of the hiring process and the lack of effort on development on the administrative level."
If they had said that peer teachers should be part of the hiring process in any school system I would not argue. However, I also wonder if this is possible in every school, especially schools where turnover is dramatic and the principal must over-rely on permanent substitutes.
I would also wonder if traditional teachers would treat teachers sourced from alternate routes such as Teach for America with enough tact to develop a more inclusive hiring process. I don't see peer interviewing being a problem in schools in well-to-do communities.
Where I do agree is that the hiring process must also have a better firing process. Blatant and obvious misconduct should be answered with immediate dismissal. The time frame from citation to hearing should be faster. I would think that would be in the union's best interest, too. A slot once occupied by an unprofessional teacher can be filled by someone better qualified who might also be more valued.
+ "Teachers do not peak after two years." I won't argue. But the same is true of any worker in any other profession. The difference with teachers is that children are their primary customers. Understanding the mind of a child is not easier than understanding the mind of a peer adult in a workplace.
+ "Tenure has been used as an excuse not to evaluate teachers. Evaluation is more about continuous improvement than 'gotcha'."
The leaders of both unions are for fair evaluation processes, though I wish they spent some time discussing how this is working on a local level. They agree that evaluation should not be overly based on test results. I agree, too.
However, the national union exists to guide the locals, at least to share best practices. I have not seen that in New Jersey. But also to be fair, Van Roekel and Weingarten did say that the unions should have shown more leadership on evaluation in the past, and they did not.
+ "Never allow a principal to not be a teacher." This was an answer to my question about contrasts in leadership development.
Two types of school leaders stand out. The first are principals who started as teachers and pursued graduate degrees at night while they became tenured in their school system. The second are former Teach for America corps members who go to graduate school, often not in education but in fields such as law or public policy, then move into positions of authority shortly after.
I see the case for both. The traditional leader has taught with the teachers around them and is more likely to be capable of managing the dynamics than a total newcomer. However, this is not as true for schools where teachers and school leaders are frequently in transition.
Listening to this panel, I wondered about the relationship between the national and local unions. Randi Weingarten has shown a willingness to try new approaches such as union collaboration in New York City charter schools as well as realistic proposals for the Newark schools that can work with some tweaking. However, each and every local and state bargaining relationship has its unique history--and they are not all good.
In New Jersey the voters did not merely get mad about teacher's union contracts; they got even by electing Chris Christie, who is firmly anti-union, to be their governor. Other states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida have also elected governors who were more fiscally conservative than their predecessors. Clearly the voters in these states believed that teachers have benefits packages or pensions that are more generous than their own, and they asked their governor for a change.
I would agree that these governors, especially Christie, have gone overboard with their demands on teachers with respect to performance standards and merit, and yes, taking away the union voice. Other professions participate in the process by which their ethics, qualifications and standards are regulated, teachers should, too. However, in other fields additional credentials do not mean automatic pay raises or job protections that may be stated in union contracts.
I can understand that unions would not want to work their way backwards on hard-fought gains, but it is up to their leadership to find ways to win when conservative politics are in vogue. States must meet obligations to their retired teachers, as well as those approaching the end of a long career. However, they must redefine career paths and compensation strategies for the youngest generation of teachers. These teachers will not be satisfied with little feedback nor low annual raises such as the two percent increases proposed by Chris Christie, so they will leave.
I'd say the union leaders are on to one area, teacher evaluations, where they might be able to find common ground. Otherwise future governors will continue to announce that there are more failing schools that are also losing good teachers. And that is a losing proposition all around.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Will a former LSU football hero and New Orleans business leader fall from grace?
One of my favorite sports novels is Everybody's All American. Written by Sports Illustrated writer Frank Deford, who was also publisher of The National, a short-lived sports daily, it is the story of a college football player who goes downhill from his glory days.
The story, set at the University of North Carolina in the 1950's, was made into a movie starring Dennis Quade and Jessica Lange. While the book is a tale of a tragedy in North Carolina, the movie was reset as a Louisiana love story. This was due to weather when the movie was filmed and Quade's being a native of that state.
The hero, Gavin Gray, aka the Gray Ghost, is treated like a god in college and through the beginning of his pro career. His star fades after he can no longer play, though hero worshippers hang on to listen to the stories of his big games. Eventually the stories become so big, Gavin wonders who he is as an adult, and sadly, some of the people who have worshipped him have also cheated him. His best friend, who blocked for him in college, runs his restaurant into the ground and robs him blind. The local Chevy dealer who tries to lease him a car for a buck while he is a star, steals the restaurant in bankruptcy. Gavin lives the rest of his working life as an assistant manager of a golf course.
Why I am writing about an old book and an old movie? Because I have just read of a former college football player I knew personally. While not as mythical as Gavin Gray, his story is also set in Louisiana.
Recruited as a quarterback out of John Curtis High School in New Orleans, Steve Rehage played defensive back for LSU in the early 1980's. A co-captain, Steve was not only a leader on his team, he was also one of the players who had the honor of feeding Mike the Tiger, the legendary LSU mascot, during the season. Projected as a fifth round draft choice, he injured his knee and was forced to miss most of his senior season. Fortunately Steve had been red-shirted as a freshman, so he was able to complete his degree in finance within five years.
During the 1987 season the NFL went on strike. Steve had gotten tryouts from the Chiefs and the Chargers before the season, then the New York Giants called. They offered him a job as a replacement player. He started three games, intercepting a pass in his last one against the Redskins. But once the striking players returned Steve was cut. He hooked on with the Ottawa Rough Riders, playing on a horrible two-win team.
After leaving football Steve lived in Greece and he did commercials in Japan. I met him after that while he was working for an entertainment and sports marketing firm in Newark. My employer and his had considered working together on some projects, though they did not come to fruition. However, Steve was a good guy who told me many stories about playing for LSU and the Giants as well as life in New Orleans. I love to watch college and pro football, however I was far from good enough to play the sport at any age.
Steve told me everything I could possibly want to know about the game and did not make me feel inadequate about what I didn't know. But the longer I got to know him I realized that he, like Gavin Gray, probably got tired of my questions and telling old football stories. He had friends who were playing in the NFL and he shared their stories, too. But I should have been smart enough to realize that he wanted to move on.
The last time I saw Steve he told me that he was returning home to New Orleans to put on events at the Superdome. Shortly after, he formed his own marketing firm. In 1999, he created a major musical event called the Voodoo Experince, which runs annually every fall. The festival brings over a million people to New Orleans around Halloween. He has also produced the Essence Music Festival every July--until this year. Unlike Gavin Gray, Steve Rehage became a star in his life after football. LSU may remember him as a football player, but he has become a better businessman.
However, when I was in New Orleans this weekend, I read on the front page of the Times-Picayune, the local paper, that Steve had been accused of date rape. A woman has alledged that in November he slipped her a drug cocktail during a drink-heavy date. The local district attorney now plans to bring his case before a grand jury. Here are links to the November story, LSU fan reactions and the story I read this weekend.
Everybody's All American, Gavin Gray, was not a completely moral man; he had quite a love life outside his home while he was in the pro game. However, he was not a philanderer in his post-sports life. But his wife became tired of competing with his legend for attention. In the book his marriage becomes irreparably damaged. In the movie his wife decides to save him from his past.
While the recent story mentions that Steve has never married nor been a father, like Gavin Gray, I can't help but say "say it isn't so." LSU and Louisiana revere their sports heroes, probably more than they should. But Steve Rehage earned respect for more than his game.
Should he be found guilty the tragedy will impact more than the image of a school and its football team. It will resonate within a healing city and its business community, both of which Steve helped to make stronger.
The story, set at the University of North Carolina in the 1950's, was made into a movie starring Dennis Quade and Jessica Lange. While the book is a tale of a tragedy in North Carolina, the movie was reset as a Louisiana love story. This was due to weather when the movie was filmed and Quade's being a native of that state.
The hero, Gavin Gray, aka the Gray Ghost, is treated like a god in college and through the beginning of his pro career. His star fades after he can no longer play, though hero worshippers hang on to listen to the stories of his big games. Eventually the stories become so big, Gavin wonders who he is as an adult, and sadly, some of the people who have worshipped him have also cheated him. His best friend, who blocked for him in college, runs his restaurant into the ground and robs him blind. The local Chevy dealer who tries to lease him a car for a buck while he is a star, steals the restaurant in bankruptcy. Gavin lives the rest of his working life as an assistant manager of a golf course.
Why I am writing about an old book and an old movie? Because I have just read of a former college football player I knew personally. While not as mythical as Gavin Gray, his story is also set in Louisiana.
Recruited as a quarterback out of John Curtis High School in New Orleans, Steve Rehage played defensive back for LSU in the early 1980's. A co-captain, Steve was not only a leader on his team, he was also one of the players who had the honor of feeding Mike the Tiger, the legendary LSU mascot, during the season. Projected as a fifth round draft choice, he injured his knee and was forced to miss most of his senior season. Fortunately Steve had been red-shirted as a freshman, so he was able to complete his degree in finance within five years.
During the 1987 season the NFL went on strike. Steve had gotten tryouts from the Chiefs and the Chargers before the season, then the New York Giants called. They offered him a job as a replacement player. He started three games, intercepting a pass in his last one against the Redskins. But once the striking players returned Steve was cut. He hooked on with the Ottawa Rough Riders, playing on a horrible two-win team.
After leaving football Steve lived in Greece and he did commercials in Japan. I met him after that while he was working for an entertainment and sports marketing firm in Newark. My employer and his had considered working together on some projects, though they did not come to fruition. However, Steve was a good guy who told me many stories about playing for LSU and the Giants as well as life in New Orleans. I love to watch college and pro football, however I was far from good enough to play the sport at any age.
Steve told me everything I could possibly want to know about the game and did not make me feel inadequate about what I didn't know. But the longer I got to know him I realized that he, like Gavin Gray, probably got tired of my questions and telling old football stories. He had friends who were playing in the NFL and he shared their stories, too. But I should have been smart enough to realize that he wanted to move on.
The last time I saw Steve he told me that he was returning home to New Orleans to put on events at the Superdome. Shortly after, he formed his own marketing firm. In 1999, he created a major musical event called the Voodoo Experince, which runs annually every fall. The festival brings over a million people to New Orleans around Halloween. He has also produced the Essence Music Festival every July--until this year. Unlike Gavin Gray, Steve Rehage became a star in his life after football. LSU may remember him as a football player, but he has become a better businessman.
However, when I was in New Orleans this weekend, I read on the front page of the Times-Picayune, the local paper, that Steve had been accused of date rape. A woman has alledged that in November he slipped her a drug cocktail during a drink-heavy date. The local district attorney now plans to bring his case before a grand jury. Here are links to the November story, LSU fan reactions and the story I read this weekend.
Everybody's All American, Gavin Gray, was not a completely moral man; he had quite a love life outside his home while he was in the pro game. However, he was not a philanderer in his post-sports life. But his wife became tired of competing with his legend for attention. In the book his marriage becomes irreparably damaged. In the movie his wife decides to save him from his past.
While the recent story mentions that Steve has never married nor been a father, like Gavin Gray, I can't help but say "say it isn't so." LSU and Louisiana revere their sports heroes, probably more than they should. But Steve Rehage earned respect for more than his game.
Should he be found guilty the tragedy will impact more than the image of a school and its football team. It will resonate within a healing city and its business community, both of which Steve helped to make stronger.
College ready by 16? It might not be impossible
I've been attending the Education Writer's Association conference in New Orleans for the past three days. One theme that has run through several panels is college readiness--are students as prepared for college as they should be, even if their transcripts and test scores say they are?
One panel featured, among others, the president of Pima Community College, located in the Tuscan (AZ) metropolitan area. One of the largest community colleges in the U.S., Pima enrolls over 74,000 students. This year, according to Dr. Roy Flores, Pima's president, the college faces a 55 percent budget cut and it must cut enrollment by ten percent. The college will do this by referring the students who show the poorest results on their math and language arts placement tests to their adult school--and not enroll them as college students.
This appears to be a drastic measure. Community colleges are usually regarded as open admissions institutions that serve many constituents. Most enroll for the purposes of enrichment or employment; they take only a course or sequence of courses to help with an immediate objective. Less than one in five students actually earns an associate's degree. Of those students, the majority need to take at least one remedial course, sometimes two to four, to relearn material that is taught at a high school or even middle school level. On the panel Dr. Flores said that Pima was a great community college in a America, "but not the best middle school in America."
Community college students are asked to take placement tests because they usually have no other numbers behind them. They may be non-traditional students who are returning to school after taking no coursework for several years or they may be recent high school graduates who did not take college prep courses or one of the standardized tests, the SAT or ACT, that other students take when they apply to four-year schools. According to Dr. Flores, the test results are matched to probabilities. Students who score in the lowest percentiles in math and language arts, and need the most remedial help, typically have a five percent chance of earning an associates degree.
Remedial education has not only become a necessity; it has also become an industry. There are test preparation courses for the placement examinations to help students place out of the lower level courses, or worse, to help them pass after failing on previous attempts. If college were inexpensive and jobs were plentiful the issue of remediation would not be so alarming, but in a state like New Jersey, where I live, where community college tuition is $6,000 per year, the costs of repeating courses can add up. Two-year degrees can turn into 30 month or three-year degrees. More likely remediation leads to no degree at all.
So here I wonder, after asking not only Dr. Flores, but also Bruce Vandal of the Education Commission of the States, a non-partisan policy organization, and Michael Collins, director of Boston-based Jobs for the Future, which designs blended education and job training programs for high school students, why not have high school students take the community college placement tests earlier--as in the tenth grade? State-mandated high school exit examinations are geared towards a ninth or tenth grade knowledge level. California is leading the way along these lines.
Basically, the community college placement examinations, if given towards the end of tenth grade, would replace the exit examination, sometimes known as a "high-stakes test." Students who pass these examinations would be certified as ready to attend college, at least at the community college level. Students who do not would be given remediation beginning in summer after tenth grade or at the start the eleventh grade. At the end of that year these students would be tested again. They would either receive continued remediation or they will have earned their readiness stripes.
Students who do not need remediation could continue in a college prep or pre-employment course of their choice at their high school, community college or local four-year college--at their school district's expense. There is no reason why college credits could not be applied to a high school diploma, especially at a time when more and more advanced placement courses taken in high schools are applied to bachelor's degrees at four-year colleges.
The worlds of K-12 and higher education at the community college level need to work together to turn ideas like this into "win-win-win" for students, parents and themselves. Neither system can afford to operate in its own silo during difficult economic times. Both need to manage costs better but they also need to produce better results. At the same time they must both join to create a meaningful education experience for the same students.
One panel featured, among others, the president of Pima Community College, located in the Tuscan (AZ) metropolitan area. One of the largest community colleges in the U.S., Pima enrolls over 74,000 students. This year, according to Dr. Roy Flores, Pima's president, the college faces a 55 percent budget cut and it must cut enrollment by ten percent. The college will do this by referring the students who show the poorest results on their math and language arts placement tests to their adult school--and not enroll them as college students.
This appears to be a drastic measure. Community colleges are usually regarded as open admissions institutions that serve many constituents. Most enroll for the purposes of enrichment or employment; they take only a course or sequence of courses to help with an immediate objective. Less than one in five students actually earns an associate's degree. Of those students, the majority need to take at least one remedial course, sometimes two to four, to relearn material that is taught at a high school or even middle school level. On the panel Dr. Flores said that Pima was a great community college in a America, "but not the best middle school in America."
Community college students are asked to take placement tests because they usually have no other numbers behind them. They may be non-traditional students who are returning to school after taking no coursework for several years or they may be recent high school graduates who did not take college prep courses or one of the standardized tests, the SAT or ACT, that other students take when they apply to four-year schools. According to Dr. Flores, the test results are matched to probabilities. Students who score in the lowest percentiles in math and language arts, and need the most remedial help, typically have a five percent chance of earning an associates degree.
Remedial education has not only become a necessity; it has also become an industry. There are test preparation courses for the placement examinations to help students place out of the lower level courses, or worse, to help them pass after failing on previous attempts. If college were inexpensive and jobs were plentiful the issue of remediation would not be so alarming, but in a state like New Jersey, where I live, where community college tuition is $6,000 per year, the costs of repeating courses can add up. Two-year degrees can turn into 30 month or three-year degrees. More likely remediation leads to no degree at all.
So here I wonder, after asking not only Dr. Flores, but also Bruce Vandal of the Education Commission of the States, a non-partisan policy organization, and Michael Collins, director of Boston-based Jobs for the Future, which designs blended education and job training programs for high school students, why not have high school students take the community college placement tests earlier--as in the tenth grade? State-mandated high school exit examinations are geared towards a ninth or tenth grade knowledge level. California is leading the way along these lines.
Basically, the community college placement examinations, if given towards the end of tenth grade, would replace the exit examination, sometimes known as a "high-stakes test." Students who pass these examinations would be certified as ready to attend college, at least at the community college level. Students who do not would be given remediation beginning in summer after tenth grade or at the start the eleventh grade. At the end of that year these students would be tested again. They would either receive continued remediation or they will have earned their readiness stripes.
Students who do not need remediation could continue in a college prep or pre-employment course of their choice at their high school, community college or local four-year college--at their school district's expense. There is no reason why college credits could not be applied to a high school diploma, especially at a time when more and more advanced placement courses taken in high schools are applied to bachelor's degrees at four-year colleges.
The worlds of K-12 and higher education at the community college level need to work together to turn ideas like this into "win-win-win" for students, parents and themselves. Neither system can afford to operate in its own silo during difficult economic times. Both need to manage costs better but they also need to produce better results. At the same time they must both join to create a meaningful education experience for the same students.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Pretty soon it might pay to be a top dawg in the classroom in Georgia
Today I read a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education that the governor of Georgia has prepared a proposal to revise the state's merit-based Hope Scholarship program.
The proposal calls for scholarships to be set at two tiers. Public school students who rank in the top ten percent of their class will continue to receive full tuition to attend an in-state public university, while other students who have at least a B average will receive approximately 90 percent of last's year tuition. This proposal is a reaction to a shortfall of $244 million in the scholarship program. Funded by lottery revenues, the program was expected to be bankrupt within two years.
The Hope Scholarship seemed like a noble ideal: anyone who had a B-average or better could go to college for free, as long as they stayed in-state. The better students would stay home--supposedly there would be a market for their talents after they graduated. The problem is that every dollar that went to a student who did not need the money was taken away from someone who did.
Now instead of going to a need-based program, the governor is separating the smartest people from the merely smart; in effect he is saying that we want the A-list students to stay and the B-list students to find more money to pay for college. We want the people who did the best in high school to have more money before they spend a single minute in a college classroom/
That's not fair; the B-list student will have to borrow more or work more hours to get the same money as the A-list one. I would think that the B-list student would be the one who would need more help on the academic side, with less time for work, as well as fun. The solution solves a problem by making a bigger one and it does not help the student who really needs the money.
As I mentioned in a previous post, public policy should acknowledge the true cost for a bright person from a family of limited means--I previously used a $60,000 family income--to attend their flagship state university or the best public liberal arts college in their state for no charge.
This would be a need-based award as well as a merit-based one. This is less ambitious than the Hope Scholarship program, but it helps ensure that the neediest students who can do the work have an opportunity to attend a very good school. If they get a similar package somewhere else, then fine; there will always be another needy student who wants to stay in-state.
The proposal calls for scholarships to be set at two tiers. Public school students who rank in the top ten percent of their class will continue to receive full tuition to attend an in-state public university, while other students who have at least a B average will receive approximately 90 percent of last's year tuition. This proposal is a reaction to a shortfall of $244 million in the scholarship program. Funded by lottery revenues, the program was expected to be bankrupt within two years.
The Hope Scholarship seemed like a noble ideal: anyone who had a B-average or better could go to college for free, as long as they stayed in-state. The better students would stay home--supposedly there would be a market for their talents after they graduated. The problem is that every dollar that went to a student who did not need the money was taken away from someone who did.
Now instead of going to a need-based program, the governor is separating the smartest people from the merely smart; in effect he is saying that we want the A-list students to stay and the B-list students to find more money to pay for college. We want the people who did the best in high school to have more money before they spend a single minute in a college classroom/
That's not fair; the B-list student will have to borrow more or work more hours to get the same money as the A-list one. I would think that the B-list student would be the one who would need more help on the academic side, with less time for work, as well as fun. The solution solves a problem by making a bigger one and it does not help the student who really needs the money.
As I mentioned in a previous post, public policy should acknowledge the true cost for a bright person from a family of limited means--I previously used a $60,000 family income--to attend their flagship state university or the best public liberal arts college in their state for no charge.
This would be a need-based award as well as a merit-based one. This is less ambitious than the Hope Scholarship program, but it helps ensure that the neediest students who can do the work have an opportunity to attend a very good school. If they get a similar package somewhere else, then fine; there will always be another needy student who wants to stay in-state.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Pell grant eligibility is an unreliable indicator of a college's assistance to disadvantaged students
Yesterday I read an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the decline in the number of Pell Grant-eligible students at the nation's most selective colleges. The story is interesting, but I wonder if it was somewhat misleading. The regulations and appropriations of Pell Grants change as often as the political winds blow.
Pell-eligible students, it seems for the purpose of this story, means either independent students of low income or dependents who are in low income families. The story does not make it clear whether the students qualified for the maximum grant, which is approximately $4700. That is a more relevant indicator, presuming that the school or the federal government collects the information.
The problem with using Pell-eligible in these times is that as the budget for the grant program grows larger and the economy weakens, the pool grows larger, too. People who were not previously eligible for grants become eligible. The demand for spots in freshman class grows. But more people eligible for grants get rejected to the college(s) where they want to go.
If the total appropriation for grants goes down, and the maximum grant decreases , as House Republicans have proposed, then the pool of grant recipients will not grow. The bottom will kick out from under the students from the best-off families. More students will gravitate to the less expensive schools as well as those that are known to provide generous financial aid. These schools will reject more applicants as well, including those who are Pell-eligible.
In either case tracking and criticizing schools based on the numbers of Pell-eligible students they have is sometimes an unfair indication of their commitment to assisting students of limited means.
Yale, as one example, provides exceptionally generous aid, enough to reduce the average cost to about $14,000 per year, but only nine percent of Yale students are Pell-eligible, according to the Chronicle story. But Yale also accepts fewer than ten percent of those who apply.
The only way Yale can admit more students is to make room for more of them, and that would be very expensive for Yale. Alumni may believe that admitting more students would devalue the degree, though I find that argument elitist and silly.
However, the costs of constructing another residential college and hiring more faculty must be less than the added revenue that would be realized from hosting the new students. That's means those students must come to Yale with money or aid that someone else has given them. Under the Republican proposal, it's more likely that Yale would take more well-to-do students. The school would not be able to count on the student who walks in with federal aid, because that aid can be cut or taken away.
My concern is not so much for Yale, which has an exceptionally large endowment, but our state universities. Being public institutions they are supposed to be affordable for the residents of their state, and residents should receive priority in admissions.
But as state government subsidies and federal grants are cut, these schools usually take the most heat for reducing access to disadvantaged students, and they should. More spaces are given to out-of-state students who can pay more--so their Pell-eligible percentage drops, too.
So, I would like to see a policy whereby every bright student from a family earning less than $60,000 a year can go to their flagship public university or the best public liberal arts school in their state--tuition free.
This would not mean that the federal government would pay 100 percent of the costs of attending the most expensive state university. Rather, it would pay the school an average of all flagship schools indexed to inflation. The schools would, in turn, consider those students as paid-in-full. They could ask and aid them to cover other expenses such as room and board or transportation, but not tuition. The student could also use the money as a credit against tuition at an out-of-state public school or a private school; s/he would need to find someone to make up the balance whether it be the school, individuals or state government.
If we are to assure affordability and accessibility we should do it for the most deserving students to help them go to a very good school. As a nation we have no obligation to send students of limited means to Yale, nor can we force Yale to admit more of them. And if Yale already discounts tuition by an average of more than seventy percent, then we have no right to scold the school because it may fail to meet ideals that stem from an indicator, Pell-eligibility, that is neither reliable nor valid.
Pell-eligible students, it seems for the purpose of this story, means either independent students of low income or dependents who are in low income families. The story does not make it clear whether the students qualified for the maximum grant, which is approximately $4700. That is a more relevant indicator, presuming that the school or the federal government collects the information.
The problem with using Pell-eligible in these times is that as the budget for the grant program grows larger and the economy weakens, the pool grows larger, too. People who were not previously eligible for grants become eligible. The demand for spots in freshman class grows. But more people eligible for grants get rejected to the college(s) where they want to go.
If the total appropriation for grants goes down, and the maximum grant decreases , as House Republicans have proposed, then the pool of grant recipients will not grow. The bottom will kick out from under the students from the best-off families. More students will gravitate to the less expensive schools as well as those that are known to provide generous financial aid. These schools will reject more applicants as well, including those who are Pell-eligible.
In either case tracking and criticizing schools based on the numbers of Pell-eligible students they have is sometimes an unfair indication of their commitment to assisting students of limited means.
Yale, as one example, provides exceptionally generous aid, enough to reduce the average cost to about $14,000 per year, but only nine percent of Yale students are Pell-eligible, according to the Chronicle story. But Yale also accepts fewer than ten percent of those who apply.
The only way Yale can admit more students is to make room for more of them, and that would be very expensive for Yale. Alumni may believe that admitting more students would devalue the degree, though I find that argument elitist and silly.
However, the costs of constructing another residential college and hiring more faculty must be less than the added revenue that would be realized from hosting the new students. That's means those students must come to Yale with money or aid that someone else has given them. Under the Republican proposal, it's more likely that Yale would take more well-to-do students. The school would not be able to count on the student who walks in with federal aid, because that aid can be cut or taken away.
My concern is not so much for Yale, which has an exceptionally large endowment, but our state universities. Being public institutions they are supposed to be affordable for the residents of their state, and residents should receive priority in admissions.
But as state government subsidies and federal grants are cut, these schools usually take the most heat for reducing access to disadvantaged students, and they should. More spaces are given to out-of-state students who can pay more--so their Pell-eligible percentage drops, too.
So, I would like to see a policy whereby every bright student from a family earning less than $60,000 a year can go to their flagship public university or the best public liberal arts school in their state--tuition free.
This would not mean that the federal government would pay 100 percent of the costs of attending the most expensive state university. Rather, it would pay the school an average of all flagship schools indexed to inflation. The schools would, in turn, consider those students as paid-in-full. They could ask and aid them to cover other expenses such as room and board or transportation, but not tuition. The student could also use the money as a credit against tuition at an out-of-state public school or a private school; s/he would need to find someone to make up the balance whether it be the school, individuals or state government.
If we are to assure affordability and accessibility we should do it for the most deserving students to help them go to a very good school. As a nation we have no obligation to send students of limited means to Yale, nor can we force Yale to admit more of them. And if Yale already discounts tuition by an average of more than seventy percent, then we have no right to scold the school because it may fail to meet ideals that stem from an indicator, Pell-eligibility, that is neither reliable nor valid.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Why the second guessing over Snooki?
This past week there have been news stories about how Snooki, one of the stars of the television show Jersey Shore, earned more from an appearance at Rutgers than Toni Morrison will receive for being the commencement speaker next month. I can't understand the fuss. Snooki supposedly filled two thousand seats, so apparently some people wanted to hear what she had to say.
When I was in college, I used to see people veg out in front of the television to watch soap operas that were no less "intelligent" than Jersey Shore. I can probably say the same about South Park, which was a popular Gen-X show. However, I am quite sure that the creator of South Park or a soap opera actor from the eighties would have received no less a reception on campus in the past than Snooki. Students like to make connections with the culture of their times.
At least Snooki was not a confirmed Marxist. Then the faculty would have defended the right for her to appear on campus while conservatives would have protested 'round the clock. Governor Christie would be mocking the "liberal students," threatening to cut the university's appropriations, encouraged by the Tea Party. Instead, all he or anyone else can do is scold the students,but why? Snooki, the promotion company who arranges her appearances, and Adam Ace, a comic who played interviewer, got paid because there were enough students who wanted to see them.
Toni Morrison, by contrast, is a far more accomplished artist than Snooki. I have never seen Jersey Shore,but I have read The Bluest Eye twice. I'm sure that would make me odd on today's Rutgers campus. I don't have an opinion on the decision to invite Professor Morrison to speak. Her fee is not being covered by Rutgers, but by private funds. I'm sure she will speak very well, although far more briefly than Snooki. However, Toni Morrison is also a Princeton professor. Given the Rutgers-Princeton "rivalry" over the years, I wonder if Ross Baker, a Rutgers political scientist of high profile, or one of his colleagues, might have been a better choice.
I don't know how much mileage Snooki has left in her fame, but I'm quite confident that Toni Morrison will be writing long after Jersey Shore goes off the air. It's up to Rutgers to make their students realize why. That's what makes a great school great.
When I was in college, I used to see people veg out in front of the television to watch soap operas that were no less "intelligent" than Jersey Shore. I can probably say the same about South Park, which was a popular Gen-X show. However, I am quite sure that the creator of South Park or a soap opera actor from the eighties would have received no less a reception on campus in the past than Snooki. Students like to make connections with the culture of their times.
At least Snooki was not a confirmed Marxist. Then the faculty would have defended the right for her to appear on campus while conservatives would have protested 'round the clock. Governor Christie would be mocking the "liberal students," threatening to cut the university's appropriations, encouraged by the Tea Party. Instead, all he or anyone else can do is scold the students,but why? Snooki, the promotion company who arranges her appearances, and Adam Ace, a comic who played interviewer, got paid because there were enough students who wanted to see them.
Toni Morrison, by contrast, is a far more accomplished artist than Snooki. I have never seen Jersey Shore,but I have read The Bluest Eye twice. I'm sure that would make me odd on today's Rutgers campus. I don't have an opinion on the decision to invite Professor Morrison to speak. Her fee is not being covered by Rutgers, but by private funds. I'm sure she will speak very well, although far more briefly than Snooki. However, Toni Morrison is also a Princeton professor. Given the Rutgers-Princeton "rivalry" over the years, I wonder if Ross Baker, a Rutgers political scientist of high profile, or one of his colleagues, might have been a better choice.
I don't know how much mileage Snooki has left in her fame, but I'm quite confident that Toni Morrison will be writing long after Jersey Shore goes off the air. It's up to Rutgers to make their students realize why. That's what makes a great school great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)