One of Donald Trump's biggest blunders was questioning President Obama's educational credentials, and I don't understand why he did it.
President Obama attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years. Long considered one of the leading liberal arts colleges in the country, Occidental has approximately 1900 students. In 2009, enrollment spiked to nearly 2,000. Occidental, or Oxy as it is called, was one of the first colleges in the West to have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. The 25-75 SAT range is between 1200 and 1380, according to the U.S. News Guide.
Even if the SATs needed to get into Oxy in 1979, when the future president started college, were 100 points lower than they are today--not an unusual trend with all selective schools--it was still an extremely competitive school.
Trump made hay that Obama transferred to Columbia as the result of an affirmative action program. If so, the program must not have had many students.
Columbia College, the undergraduate division of Columbia University in New York, has approximately 4,200 students. The enrollment has not grown very much over the past thirty years though the college has also become co-educational. It admitted only men while sister school Barnard, still in operation, enrolled all of the women.
However, most of the 1,400 students who make up a freshman class at Columbia stay at Columbia, and there are few spots for transfer students. According to the university Web site:
We typically admit fewer than 10 percent of those who apply for transfer admission each year. Though the number varies from year to year, in recent years, we have admitted roughly 150 transfers from over 2,200 applicants.
That's not great odds for any applicant from anyplace. Barack Obama might have been given some consideration on the grounds of diversity, being from Hawaii and of mixed heritage. But he would have still needed excellent grades in high school as well as college. According to Columbia's site:
High school grades, rigor of program and standardized test scores are all important in the evaluation of transfer credentials, especially for students applying for sophomore standing.
I seriously doubt that Columbia's standards in 1981, when Obama transferred, were lower than they are today.
It's very funny that these critical comments about the president's education came from a man who also transferred to an Ivy League school. While The Donald proudly calls himself a Wharton graduate, he spent his first two years of college at Fordham in New York. I wonder what he would say if Fordham claimed him as an alumnus. Or if he'd sue.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Book Review--The Geeks Shall Inherit the Earth: Popularity, Quirk Theory, and Why Outsiders Thrive After High School by Alexandra Robbins
As I read this book, I saw myself in high school. I never really fit into any of these stereotypes. I wasn't smart enough to be a Nerd, nor was I talented at gaming or music. I spent a lot of time by myself through half of high school, though I also achieved "civil" relations with most of the groups by the later half of my sophomore year. By civil, I mean that people who found it fun to bother me in grade school no longer had the time or inclination to bother me as our class moved closer towards graduation. Everyone had to take care of themselves.
But in this book, the stereotypes seemed to linger longer and they remain tied to a person well into their senior year. The author has students, including The Gamer, The Nerd and The Band Geek, all worried about getting through their senior year, all praying that they would get into colleges where they could leave the stereotypes behind and start over.
I'm not sure if the Millenials, subjects in this book, are longer-lasting victims of bullying due mainly to the Internet and the new forms of public expression it started. While the Internet, especially through Facebook, allows high school students to organize "hate" campaigns against classmates, it also helps the bullied find friends outside of school. Gossip has always been a part of high school life. Technology has always taken it beyond the school day, only the technology of the past was the telephone that parents paid for.
Also interesting were the sections about teachers and their cliques, which are little different than those of their students. A teacher who is a non-conformist is shunned, just like a student who is a non-conformist, too. Only the teachers have to keep that information to themselves. A teacher who is unpopular with students and colleagues has to hide a lot of hurt, while a teacher who is popular with students, but unpopular with colleagues is branded a trouble-maker or viewed with cynicism. It makes you wonder how many teachers know how to be effective in a school setting.
This is one book I hope parents of high school age children read no matter if their son or daughter is bothered by bullies in school. It is the first book that makes sense of the reasons why seven types of people: The Loner, The Popular Bitch, The Nerd, The New Girl, The Gamer, The Wierd Girl and The Band Geek all have a difficult time in high school and the coping mechanisms they have developed with the help of the author or others. It might keep other high school students from learning too late.
Monday, May 16, 2011
And a follow-up, charters and their future in New Jersey's cities. Takeovers not out of the question.
As follow-up to the last post, I'd like to touch on charters in the cities versus the suburbs. During last week's panel comments were made that charter schools have been set-up to be, in part, agents of educational innovation in areas of educational need. In other words, lets test an idea on a small set of students before we roll it out on an entire school.
The more effective charter schools start small, usually with one grade in the first year, partly because they have limited funds and also because they need the opportunity to be sure of the capabilities as well as the collegiality of their teachers and administrators. An effective school grows an effective faculty, and an effective faculty allows the school to advance and welcome new students.
However, I am concerned about a practice that has happened outside my home state of New Jersey in cities such as Detroit and Los Angeles, which is to ask charter operators, among others, to "take over" existing schools from the public school district. This politicians may claim that they lowered educational costs, managed change, provided for better schools and rid citizens of bureaucratic waste.
One book: Stray Dogs, Saints and Saviors by journalist Alexander Russo helps to show what happens when a district, in this case Los Angeles Unified, transfers ownership of a public school to a charter operator, in this case Green Dot schools. Green Dot operates schools in multiple states, including most recently New York Coty, where its teachers will work under a union contract.
In the case of the school in this book, Locke High, Green Dot managed a transition from the old faculty to the new. Older students were taught by faculty that had been there before the transition while entering students were taught under the Green Dot Way. As the older classes graduated, a new ninth grade. New teachers would come into the school, though some of the faculty on-site would be asked to stay.
Russo tried to show that a transition like this could not be abrupt when it affects the same students. Locke was to be a charter school, but not a charter where students had to enter a lottery. This was the local school and the union and school system administration viewed the new operator with cynicism. This also happened system-wide when private firms tried to run schools in Hartford and Philadelphia, and failed.
My concern is that Newark, with the pledged $100 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, as well as the additional $43 million raised by Mayor Cory Booker, might be swayed in this direction while Chris Christie remains governor and while the state remains in control of the school system.
Such an aggressive act would be popular with suburban voters, not to mention Newarkers and their supporters who have supposedly asked the administration for any choice that would replace the existing schools and state control. Christie has already pushed for vouchers as one means of choice, though the existing public, private and parochial that are in a position to accommodate new students under the state's proposed tuition rates can take too few of them.
In addition to advocating vouchers, this governor keeps insisting that charter schools are better than the traditional public schools. So does the mayor. Both have little time to show results while neither cares about concensus and both want to lower costs. A push for takeovers fits well within such politics. But it may not lead to the overnight changes that parents want for their children.
The more effective charter schools start small, usually with one grade in the first year, partly because they have limited funds and also because they need the opportunity to be sure of the capabilities as well as the collegiality of their teachers and administrators. An effective school grows an effective faculty, and an effective faculty allows the school to advance and welcome new students.
However, I am concerned about a practice that has happened outside my home state of New Jersey in cities such as Detroit and Los Angeles, which is to ask charter operators, among others, to "take over" existing schools from the public school district. This politicians may claim that they lowered educational costs, managed change, provided for better schools and rid citizens of bureaucratic waste.
One book: Stray Dogs, Saints and Saviors by journalist Alexander Russo helps to show what happens when a district, in this case Los Angeles Unified, transfers ownership of a public school to a charter operator, in this case Green Dot schools. Green Dot operates schools in multiple states, including most recently New York Coty, where its teachers will work under a union contract.
In the case of the school in this book, Locke High, Green Dot managed a transition from the old faculty to the new. Older students were taught by faculty that had been there before the transition while entering students were taught under the Green Dot Way. As the older classes graduated, a new ninth grade. New teachers would come into the school, though some of the faculty on-site would be asked to stay.
Russo tried to show that a transition like this could not be abrupt when it affects the same students. Locke was to be a charter school, but not a charter where students had to enter a lottery. This was the local school and the union and school system administration viewed the new operator with cynicism. This also happened system-wide when private firms tried to run schools in Hartford and Philadelphia, and failed.
My concern is that Newark, with the pledged $100 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, as well as the additional $43 million raised by Mayor Cory Booker, might be swayed in this direction while Chris Christie remains governor and while the state remains in control of the school system.
Such an aggressive act would be popular with suburban voters, not to mention Newarkers and their supporters who have supposedly asked the administration for any choice that would replace the existing schools and state control. Christie has already pushed for vouchers as one means of choice, though the existing public, private and parochial that are in a position to accommodate new students under the state's proposed tuition rates can take too few of them.
In addition to advocating vouchers, this governor keeps insisting that charter schools are better than the traditional public schools. So does the mayor. Both have little time to show results while neither cares about concensus and both want to lower costs. A push for takeovers fits well within such politics. But it may not lead to the overnight changes that parents want for their children.
Public participation and transparency, but not local votes, are necessary to authorize new suburban New Jersey charter schools
Last week I attended a conference on charter schools sponsored by NJ Spotlight. While I have followed charter school issues in the state for a couple of years, the event was an eye-opener. It was a discussion along the lines of: "Now that we have had charter schools for more than ten years, how do we make sure we manage them right, in terms of authorising new schools, providing sufficient funding and managing enrollment?"
Acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf was one of the panelists. As the first speaker he took it upon himself to say that charter schools are public schools, and that charters are not always "the solution." He also added that children go to schools, not school districts. Then he was challenged when he said that Newark's approved charter schools were out-performing the traditional public schools by a wide margin.
Unfortunately, the panel format did not give Cerf enough time to present further evidence. However, continued challenges, including quantifiable ones, could have turned into the main part of the event. Thankfully, they didn't, for the issues around charters go beyond Newark.
New Jersey, as I've written many times, is a "home rule" state. Politics is local, and local politics in the 'burbs, as well as the larger cities, can be brutal. Yet, the state's association of school boards has called for local approval as part of the authorization process for charters.
This is aupposed to mean that the approval process would center on: will this new school fill a local or regional need that existing public schools are unable to fill? However, the battle is likely to shift to "adult issues" in the suburbs: why remove students--and funding--from the good schools we already have? Not to mention why remove good students and put our school's ratings at risk?
Lets consider situations where parents across a single suburban district or more than one may wish to see a charter school, instead of paying tuition for a private school
+ Advanced academic academies or "magnet" schools. There would need to be a process where parents prove that there is a demand, and demonstrate that they do not have the income to pay private school tuition. They also need to play a hand in finding the right teachers and administrators. If there is local approval, the battle becomes "my kids versus your's."
+ Language immersion schools. Here one battle becomes reinforcement of ethnic identity versus voluntary segregation by ethnicity, even if the school does not discriminate in enrollment. Would advocates of the enthnicity that would benefit from the school be, in effect, asking for "their own school?" Intentions can always be tested under law. A second battle comes over cost. Which is less expensive? Add new teachers paid under a union-negotiated contract to teach language and ethnic studies, possibly at the expense of other academic programs. Or, allow a charter school, where teachers are not under contract, and the school pays rent to the district, to provide such instruction?
+ Special needs schools. There are cost considerations, but also issues of educational philosophy. Should students in of certain special needs, for example, autism, be given their own school where they may be instructed by specialized teachers? For me, this is the area where I have the least objection to charter schools, and where I believe fiscal equity with traditional schools is most important.
In all of these cases it is not certain that the expertise lies within every voting school district to make a decision on a charter school application.
However, a neutral body--educators based at publicly supported colleges of education has been suggested--needs to be capable of managing public participation in the debate over the need for a new school. Evidence: demographics, available space, budgets, staffing must be transparent for the public as well as the panel of experts and the state's Department of Education.
Parents may not always be educational experts, but the thoughtful ones do not want to be left out of the process. Neither do the adversarial ones. The decisions of a state-appointed panel that go against the grain would be exceptionally difficult to overturn, and political rifts would be very difficult to mend. Locals resent a "solution" being "forced" upon them by a state. Such resentments would be worse with no public participation and no transparency.
Acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf was one of the panelists. As the first speaker he took it upon himself to say that charter schools are public schools, and that charters are not always "the solution." He also added that children go to schools, not school districts. Then he was challenged when he said that Newark's approved charter schools were out-performing the traditional public schools by a wide margin.
Unfortunately, the panel format did not give Cerf enough time to present further evidence. However, continued challenges, including quantifiable ones, could have turned into the main part of the event. Thankfully, they didn't, for the issues around charters go beyond Newark.
New Jersey, as I've written many times, is a "home rule" state. Politics is local, and local politics in the 'burbs, as well as the larger cities, can be brutal. Yet, the state's association of school boards has called for local approval as part of the authorization process for charters.
This is aupposed to mean that the approval process would center on: will this new school fill a local or regional need that existing public schools are unable to fill? However, the battle is likely to shift to "adult issues" in the suburbs: why remove students--and funding--from the good schools we already have? Not to mention why remove good students and put our school's ratings at risk?
Lets consider situations where parents across a single suburban district or more than one may wish to see a charter school, instead of paying tuition for a private school
+ Advanced academic academies or "magnet" schools. There would need to be a process where parents prove that there is a demand, and demonstrate that they do not have the income to pay private school tuition. They also need to play a hand in finding the right teachers and administrators. If there is local approval, the battle becomes "my kids versus your's."
+ Language immersion schools. Here one battle becomes reinforcement of ethnic identity versus voluntary segregation by ethnicity, even if the school does not discriminate in enrollment. Would advocates of the enthnicity that would benefit from the school be, in effect, asking for "their own school?" Intentions can always be tested under law. A second battle comes over cost. Which is less expensive? Add new teachers paid under a union-negotiated contract to teach language and ethnic studies, possibly at the expense of other academic programs. Or, allow a charter school, where teachers are not under contract, and the school pays rent to the district, to provide such instruction?
+ Special needs schools. There are cost considerations, but also issues of educational philosophy. Should students in of certain special needs, for example, autism, be given their own school where they may be instructed by specialized teachers? For me, this is the area where I have the least objection to charter schools, and where I believe fiscal equity with traditional schools is most important.
In all of these cases it is not certain that the expertise lies within every voting school district to make a decision on a charter school application.
However, a neutral body--educators based at publicly supported colleges of education has been suggested--needs to be capable of managing public participation in the debate over the need for a new school. Evidence: demographics, available space, budgets, staffing must be transparent for the public as well as the panel of experts and the state's Department of Education.
Parents may not always be educational experts, but the thoughtful ones do not want to be left out of the process. Neither do the adversarial ones. The decisions of a state-appointed panel that go against the grain would be exceptionally difficult to overturn, and political rifts would be very difficult to mend. Locals resent a "solution" being "forced" upon them by a state. Such resentments would be worse with no public participation and no transparency.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Colorado State University's admissions and financial aid strategy aggressively targets disadvantaged residents and out-of-state students
Today's Chronicle of Higher Education has an interesting story about changes in admissions practices at five colleges, including Colorado State, a large state university with approximately 20,000 full-time undergraduates.
According to the latest U.S. News Guide, sixteen percent of Colorado State's undergraduate student body comes from out-of-state. According to the Chronicle story, this percentage has risen with successive freshman classes; the most recent class was 21 percent non-residents.
While each non-resident student pays more for their space in the class, their enrollment takes spaces away from resident students who might have been admitted to the university a short time ago.
Colorado State charged in-state students approximately $7,000 for this past school year,including campus fees. This will increase by at least $1,000 for the 2011-12 academic year, according to the Chronicle story. However, resident students who come from families hat earn incomes of $55,000 or less will pay only around $4,000 for tuition.
The story mentions nothing about an increase in out-of-state tuition, which is approximately $23,000. This was an increase of slightly less than $1,000 from the previous year, according to U.S. News and the university Website.
This year, there were approximately 7,300 applications for an estimated 900 spots for non-resident students in the freshman class. Last year, using data from U.S. News and the school's Web site, Colorado State's yield rate--the share of accepted students who choose to go--was 41 percent, so the school would admit approximately 3,600 of these applicants, maybe more, maybe less, depending on the scholarships awarded.
According to the Chronicle story, out-of-state applicants may receive grants that range from $3,000 through $9,000 depending on their academic records and how well they maintain their grades. The university is also a member of the Western Undergraduate Exchange. Out-of-state freshman who reside in any one of 14 states who major in one of 63 subjects at Colorado State pay 150 percent of in-state tuition. This reduces their tuition and fees to an estimated $12,000 for the coming academic year. This is an $11,000 discount from the out-of-state charges--almost half-off the sticker price.
For out-of-staters, the better student starts out with a financial advantage and possibly an academic one as well. The university has an Honors Program that admitted approximately 350 freshman last year. More money and special treatment can't hurt in bringing better students to campus.
As I read these numbers I see that Colorado State is becoming an academic bargain for disadvantaged students as well as out-of-state students if they qualify for scholarships. Not to mention, the school has not been impossible to get into. According to the U.S. News Guide, Colorado State accepted 72 percent of all applicants.
Last year, this school attracted a record freshman class with nearly 4,500 students so the aspects of this strategy: out-of-state enrollment increases, scholarship programs and the Honors Program, among others, must be working. This year's class likely comes from a larger applicant pool as tuition and fees have become more competitive while the scholarship programs have become more ambitious.
In an ideal state, a state university would be the near-exclusive province of in-state students who would face an exceptionally competitive admissions process, but would pay an exceptionally minimal fee for their education, a fee low enough to avoid major debt. Obviously, those days are gone in many states, Colorado certainly being one of them. But so far, Colorado State's admissions strategy is working in terms of bringing new freshmen through the front gate while helping the school make-up for lost revenues from state budget cuts.
However, one critical question cannot be answered until the members of the freshman classes of 2010 and 2010 get closer to graduation: If we got a larger and better qualified student body, did our graduation and retention rates go up?
The U.S. News Guide reported that 82 percent of Colorado State freshmen, on average from 2005 through 2008, continued on to their sophomore year. The same source also reported that 64 percent of the students who entered Colorado State in 2003 had graduated by 2009. The numbers are quite close to those of a sister school, the University of Colorado-Boulder (84 and 67 percent), but higher-rated state schools have freshman retention rates that are better than 90 percent and graduate more than three-quarters of their students within six years.
If the various scholarship programs lead to a highly qualified and highly satisfied student body, then Colorado State has developed a model that other state schools may use to raise revenues while getting better students.
The administrations of state schools with exceptionally low percentages of out-of-state students--the University of California system and Rutgers-New Brunswick are two prominent examples--will be following Colorado State's efforts closely. If Colorado State succeeds, other schools will follow with similar strategies. In-state students will be less likely to take their state schools for granted.
According to the latest U.S. News Guide, sixteen percent of Colorado State's undergraduate student body comes from out-of-state. According to the Chronicle story, this percentage has risen with successive freshman classes; the most recent class was 21 percent non-residents.
While each non-resident student pays more for their space in the class, their enrollment takes spaces away from resident students who might have been admitted to the university a short time ago.
Colorado State charged in-state students approximately $7,000 for this past school year,including campus fees. This will increase by at least $1,000 for the 2011-12 academic year, according to the Chronicle story. However, resident students who come from families hat earn incomes of $55,000 or less will pay only around $4,000 for tuition.
The story mentions nothing about an increase in out-of-state tuition, which is approximately $23,000. This was an increase of slightly less than $1,000 from the previous year, according to U.S. News and the university Website.
This year, there were approximately 7,300 applications for an estimated 900 spots for non-resident students in the freshman class. Last year, using data from U.S. News and the school's Web site, Colorado State's yield rate--the share of accepted students who choose to go--was 41 percent, so the school would admit approximately 3,600 of these applicants, maybe more, maybe less, depending on the scholarships awarded.
According to the Chronicle story, out-of-state applicants may receive grants that range from $3,000 through $9,000 depending on their academic records and how well they maintain their grades. The university is also a member of the Western Undergraduate Exchange. Out-of-state freshman who reside in any one of 14 states who major in one of 63 subjects at Colorado State pay 150 percent of in-state tuition. This reduces their tuition and fees to an estimated $12,000 for the coming academic year. This is an $11,000 discount from the out-of-state charges--almost half-off the sticker price.
For out-of-staters, the better student starts out with a financial advantage and possibly an academic one as well. The university has an Honors Program that admitted approximately 350 freshman last year. More money and special treatment can't hurt in bringing better students to campus.
As I read these numbers I see that Colorado State is becoming an academic bargain for disadvantaged students as well as out-of-state students if they qualify for scholarships. Not to mention, the school has not been impossible to get into. According to the U.S. News Guide, Colorado State accepted 72 percent of all applicants.
Last year, this school attracted a record freshman class with nearly 4,500 students so the aspects of this strategy: out-of-state enrollment increases, scholarship programs and the Honors Program, among others, must be working. This year's class likely comes from a larger applicant pool as tuition and fees have become more competitive while the scholarship programs have become more ambitious.
In an ideal state, a state university would be the near-exclusive province of in-state students who would face an exceptionally competitive admissions process, but would pay an exceptionally minimal fee for their education, a fee low enough to avoid major debt. Obviously, those days are gone in many states, Colorado certainly being one of them. But so far, Colorado State's admissions strategy is working in terms of bringing new freshmen through the front gate while helping the school make-up for lost revenues from state budget cuts.
However, one critical question cannot be answered until the members of the freshman classes of 2010 and 2010 get closer to graduation: If we got a larger and better qualified student body, did our graduation and retention rates go up?
The U.S. News Guide reported that 82 percent of Colorado State freshmen, on average from 2005 through 2008, continued on to their sophomore year. The same source also reported that 64 percent of the students who entered Colorado State in 2003 had graduated by 2009. The numbers are quite close to those of a sister school, the University of Colorado-Boulder (84 and 67 percent), but higher-rated state schools have freshman retention rates that are better than 90 percent and graduate more than three-quarters of their students within six years.
If the various scholarship programs lead to a highly qualified and highly satisfied student body, then Colorado State has developed a model that other state schools may use to raise revenues while getting better students.
The administrations of state schools with exceptionally low percentages of out-of-state students--the University of California system and Rutgers-New Brunswick are two prominent examples--will be following Colorado State's efforts closely. If Colorado State succeeds, other schools will follow with similar strategies. In-state students will be less likely to take their state schools for granted.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Why are southern states celebrating the house divided?
This morning's USA Today ran a story: Confederate group fights for state specialty plates. The story is partly about the efforts of a non-profit organization, the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), to market Confederate-inspired license plates through state divisions of motor vehicles.
According to the story, SCV has succeeded in marketing these plates in nine states: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. A Florida program was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge because it gave "unfettered direction to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The state legislature there has not made a decision to rework their statutes to allow the plates. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board did not approve a Confederate-inspired plate, though the SCV has grounds to appeal the decision; only eight of the nine board members were present. The SCV's Kentucky office wants to collect all monies towards Confederate-inspired plates in advance of production, as the state permitted the sponsor of a Lincoln Bicentennial plate to do four years ago.
I grew up in New Jersey and admittedly I have never lived in a state that was once a member of the Confederacy. Aside from the obvious issues that led the nation into civil war--secession and slavery--it bothers me when people want to celebrate a nation that was a house divided, especially now, during very difficult economic times. It bothers me more when a group asks state governments to be a complicit partner in the celebration.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that there is a difference between private speech and government-sponsored speech. If the SCV sold license plate frames or produced front bumper plates to be sold in states where a front bumper plate is not mandated then there is nothing a citizen could do to stop them. This is protected speech. It may offend many, but still it is privately funded.
But in this case the states are seceeding, not from the nation, but in their endorsement of the Confederacy by allowing their motor vehicle offices to manufacture and help market the plates, especially in states that have a large African American population.
According to the recent U.S. Census, there are slightly more than 39 million African Americans living in the country. Of this total, more than 14.1 million reside in the nine states that have permitted the issuance of these plates.
The additions of Florida, Kentucky and Texas would permit the marketing of these plates into three states with a total of 6.1 million African American residents. These plates would thus be sold in the states where the majority of African Americans live. Equally significant: Florida and Texas have the second and fourth-largest African-American populations in the country.
I also find it interesting that, with the exception of Maryland and North Carolina, these states are led by Republican governors. I wonder what history books those governors have been reading. In the early years of Reconstruction free blacks helped bring the Republican Party into power in the South; it was the Democrats who took a more conservative view on civil rights and voting rights for nearly a century.
Supporters of the Confederate plates say that their intention is to honor the service of military veterans who served the Confederate cause. While it is not fair to make inferences, I have to ask if these same people also want to honor the rights those men fought for. I leave it to them to answer that question.
In the meantime I would hope that no more state governments join in to celebrate an era of a house divided, an indentured class, and a lost cause by permitting the manufacture, sales and issuance of these plates.
According to the story, SCV has succeeded in marketing these plates in nine states: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. A Florida program was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge because it gave "unfettered direction to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The state legislature there has not made a decision to rework their statutes to allow the plates. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board did not approve a Confederate-inspired plate, though the SCV has grounds to appeal the decision; only eight of the nine board members were present. The SCV's Kentucky office wants to collect all monies towards Confederate-inspired plates in advance of production, as the state permitted the sponsor of a Lincoln Bicentennial plate to do four years ago.
I grew up in New Jersey and admittedly I have never lived in a state that was once a member of the Confederacy. Aside from the obvious issues that led the nation into civil war--secession and slavery--it bothers me when people want to celebrate a nation that was a house divided, especially now, during very difficult economic times. It bothers me more when a group asks state governments to be a complicit partner in the celebration.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that there is a difference between private speech and government-sponsored speech. If the SCV sold license plate frames or produced front bumper plates to be sold in states where a front bumper plate is not mandated then there is nothing a citizen could do to stop them. This is protected speech. It may offend many, but still it is privately funded.
But in this case the states are seceeding, not from the nation, but in their endorsement of the Confederacy by allowing their motor vehicle offices to manufacture and help market the plates, especially in states that have a large African American population.
According to the recent U.S. Census, there are slightly more than 39 million African Americans living in the country. Of this total, more than 14.1 million reside in the nine states that have permitted the issuance of these plates.
The additions of Florida, Kentucky and Texas would permit the marketing of these plates into three states with a total of 6.1 million African American residents. These plates would thus be sold in the states where the majority of African Americans live. Equally significant: Florida and Texas have the second and fourth-largest African-American populations in the country.
I also find it interesting that, with the exception of Maryland and North Carolina, these states are led by Republican governors. I wonder what history books those governors have been reading. In the early years of Reconstruction free blacks helped bring the Republican Party into power in the South; it was the Democrats who took a more conservative view on civil rights and voting rights for nearly a century.
Supporters of the Confederate plates say that their intention is to honor the service of military veterans who served the Confederate cause. While it is not fair to make inferences, I have to ask if these same people also want to honor the rights those men fought for. I leave it to them to answer that question.
In the meantime I would hope that no more state governments join in to celebrate an era of a house divided, an indentured class, and a lost cause by permitting the manufacture, sales and issuance of these plates.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Some interesting facts about athletic scholarships
Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of FinAid and FastWeb, both comprehensive resources on scholarships and student financial, released a brief, and very interesting paper with some facts about athletic scholarships.
This paper has come in the wake of public comments by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who has called for the replacement of athletic scholarships with need-based aid, which is done at the lowest level of NCAA competition as well as the Ivy League, and by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who has asked the NCAA to limit eligible schools to those that have a six-year graduation rate of 40 percent or better.
Among Kantrowitz' findings:
+ Total athletic scholarship funding went gone up at a rate of 4.5 percent per year, lower than the rate of tuition increases from 1992-93 through 2007-08. A total of $1.1 billion is spent on athletic grants in aid.
+ The average institutional grant in aid for athletes in 2007-08 was nearly $4,000 more than the average awarded for a non-athlete. Institutional grants are sources of funds that come directly from the school.
+ Cumulative debt after graduation for athletes is lower than it is for non-athletes.
+ While the gendar split among athletic scholarship recipients has weighted less heavily upon male athletes--from about 68 percent in 1992-93 to 54 percent in 2007-08, women have made up the majority of the student body during the entire fifteen years.
+ The recipients of athletic scholarships tend to come from somewhat wealthier families than those of non-recipients.
+ The average GPA for athletic scholarship recipients in 2007-08 was slightly under 2.9, while for non-recipients it was slightly below 3.0. The difference, from reading the report, does not appear significant considering that athletes entered college with slightly lower grade-point-averages and lower SAT and ACT scores.
+ Athletic scholarship recipients are less likely to come from a city and more likely to come from a rural area than non-recipients.
+ Nearly 73 percent of athletic scholarship recipients who entered college in 2003 earned their bachelor's degree within six years versus 63 percent of non-recipients.
These pieces of information, among others, help to justify athletic aid as a worthwhile form of scholarship. However, it must be added that scholarship recipients were not broken down by sport nor were revenues for a particular sport mesaured against expenses. It is less expensive, for example, to field a track team versus a football team, however track is not usually viewed as a revenue sport. I chose this comparison because these are also the two sports that involve the largest number of scholarship athletes; neither become the targets of cuts.
My greater concern comes when athletes, especially football and men's basketball players, are admitted into situations where they are not prepared to succeed, nor appear to care. This does not represent every football or basketball player, only those with the most blatant disregard for the school, their teammmates and fellow students. The sctions of these few do not justify taking away the scholarships of the many who use them appropriately.
This paper has come in the wake of public comments by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who has called for the replacement of athletic scholarships with need-based aid, which is done at the lowest level of NCAA competition as well as the Ivy League, and by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who has asked the NCAA to limit eligible schools to those that have a six-year graduation rate of 40 percent or better.
Among Kantrowitz' findings:
+ Total athletic scholarship funding went gone up at a rate of 4.5 percent per year, lower than the rate of tuition increases from 1992-93 through 2007-08. A total of $1.1 billion is spent on athletic grants in aid.
+ The average institutional grant in aid for athletes in 2007-08 was nearly $4,000 more than the average awarded for a non-athlete. Institutional grants are sources of funds that come directly from the school.
+ Cumulative debt after graduation for athletes is lower than it is for non-athletes.
+ While the gendar split among athletic scholarship recipients has weighted less heavily upon male athletes--from about 68 percent in 1992-93 to 54 percent in 2007-08, women have made up the majority of the student body during the entire fifteen years.
+ The recipients of athletic scholarships tend to come from somewhat wealthier families than those of non-recipients.
+ The average GPA for athletic scholarship recipients in 2007-08 was slightly under 2.9, while for non-recipients it was slightly below 3.0. The difference, from reading the report, does not appear significant considering that athletes entered college with slightly lower grade-point-averages and lower SAT and ACT scores.
+ Athletic scholarship recipients are less likely to come from a city and more likely to come from a rural area than non-recipients.
+ Nearly 73 percent of athletic scholarship recipients who entered college in 2003 earned their bachelor's degree within six years versus 63 percent of non-recipients.
These pieces of information, among others, help to justify athletic aid as a worthwhile form of scholarship. However, it must be added that scholarship recipients were not broken down by sport nor were revenues for a particular sport mesaured against expenses. It is less expensive, for example, to field a track team versus a football team, however track is not usually viewed as a revenue sport. I chose this comparison because these are also the two sports that involve the largest number of scholarship athletes; neither become the targets of cuts.
My greater concern comes when athletes, especially football and men's basketball players, are admitted into situations where they are not prepared to succeed, nor appear to care. This does not represent every football or basketball player, only those with the most blatant disregard for the school, their teammmates and fellow students. The sctions of these few do not justify taking away the scholarships of the many who use them appropriately.
Public college payrolls should be studied as thoroughly as government payrolls
Tuesday's USA Today ran a story: Who's Making $180,000+? as an analysis of the highest paid positions within the federal government. A similar story ran on Sunday about employees in New Jersey state government. I have no doubt that reporters are making requests for information from publicly supported colleges and universities. They employ similar personnel.
For example, according to the USA Today story, eight of ten federal employees earning in excess of $180,000 are physicians; the vast majority, nearly 13,000, are employed by the Veterans Health Administration. Other agencies that employ physicians include the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Indian Health Service and the U.S. Army Medical Command. The highest paid employee in a New Jersey state agency is also a physician; the medical director of the state's Department of Human Services earns just under $217,000.
The American people, including New Jersey's citizens, should not be upset about the wages paid to physicians, especially those who treat those who have served our country at war. They risked their lives in battle and a nation that values its military highly must make the expense to restore its former soldiers to good health so that they may become working citizens. The thought of cutting veterans medical care is ridiculous since the nation is at war and veteran's advocates are very well organized.
If public agencies, even those known to do good, can be placed under such scrutiny by reporters and politicians, then so can the payrolls of publicly supported colleges. And maybe they should. It is not unusual for a university president or even a campus provost to earn more than the governor of the state where his university is located. It is probably impossible to find a state where a football coach does not earn more than the governor or the university president.
However, football coaches can justify their salaries through their record, the graduation rates of their players and their ability to work with an athletic director, who raises the money to pay their salary. University presidents are becoming more subject to performance standards, though the academic portion of their work may be protected through tenure. Their direct reports, who may also earn more than the governor of their state, are not always so fortunate.
The larger colleges and universities, especially those that have medical schools, also employ high-salaried physicians. They also employ tenured faculty whose longevity has been rewarded by high salaries. Those schools that manage campuses must provide services commonly found in cities, including security, property maintenance and information technology that are not practical to outsource.
If the news media continue to investigate public payrolls it is only logical that they look at faculty salaries. Untenured faculty are, of course, quite vulnerable to termination, and so are adjuncts who are hired to teach when resources are pinched. However, tenured faculty who do not teach many students and/or receive little in the way of grants or outside support for their research should also fall under greater scrutiny.
A college exists first to provide an education to students and second to facilitate breakthrough research in various fields. Faculty who contribute to neither mission are a cost center. At least a football program has fans and donors to help pay its bills.
For example, according to the USA Today story, eight of ten federal employees earning in excess of $180,000 are physicians; the vast majority, nearly 13,000, are employed by the Veterans Health Administration. Other agencies that employ physicians include the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Indian Health Service and the U.S. Army Medical Command. The highest paid employee in a New Jersey state agency is also a physician; the medical director of the state's Department of Human Services earns just under $217,000.
The American people, including New Jersey's citizens, should not be upset about the wages paid to physicians, especially those who treat those who have served our country at war. They risked their lives in battle and a nation that values its military highly must make the expense to restore its former soldiers to good health so that they may become working citizens. The thought of cutting veterans medical care is ridiculous since the nation is at war and veteran's advocates are very well organized.
If public agencies, even those known to do good, can be placed under such scrutiny by reporters and politicians, then so can the payrolls of publicly supported colleges. And maybe they should. It is not unusual for a university president or even a campus provost to earn more than the governor of the state where his university is located. It is probably impossible to find a state where a football coach does not earn more than the governor or the university president.
However, football coaches can justify their salaries through their record, the graduation rates of their players and their ability to work with an athletic director, who raises the money to pay their salary. University presidents are becoming more subject to performance standards, though the academic portion of their work may be protected through tenure. Their direct reports, who may also earn more than the governor of their state, are not always so fortunate.
The larger colleges and universities, especially those that have medical schools, also employ high-salaried physicians. They also employ tenured faculty whose longevity has been rewarded by high salaries. Those schools that manage campuses must provide services commonly found in cities, including security, property maintenance and information technology that are not practical to outsource.
If the news media continue to investigate public payrolls it is only logical that they look at faculty salaries. Untenured faculty are, of course, quite vulnerable to termination, and so are adjuncts who are hired to teach when resources are pinched. However, tenured faculty who do not teach many students and/or receive little in the way of grants or outside support for their research should also fall under greater scrutiny.
A college exists first to provide an education to students and second to facilitate breakthrough research in various fields. Faculty who contribute to neither mission are a cost center. At least a football program has fans and donors to help pay its bills.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Merit scholarship awards not the best reason to choose a law school
This weekend the New York Times ran a story about law school merit scholarships. One example, Golden Gate University in San Francisco, provides scholarships valued at $30,000 to first year students. The scholarship is renewable, contigent on maintaining a 3.0 or B average during the first year and the year after.
I was a poli-sci major in college and I considered going to law school. I considered it while I was in college and after I started working. I passed the first time because I was more interested in urban planning and real estate than I was in being a lawyer. I have no regrets. I got the jobs I wanted. I also got enough financial aid to make the graduate degree worthwhile.
After I had been working in the public sector for two years I considered law school again. Had I remained with the agency where I was employed, I would have been reimbursed for tuition--if I got a grade of B or better in each class. But then I asked around. I spoke with co-workers who were going to law school at night. They warned me that B's were very hard to come by; law school would be nothing like college or even graduate school in planning or public policy. Law school, I was told, was best meant for people who really wanted to be lawyers.
The people who are offered these merit scholarships have to make the same decision: do they want to be lawyers so badly that they would borrow so much money and study so hard to pursue the dream?
The way I understand the law school world, it is best to go to the best law school you can get into in the place where you would most like to work. This may not always be the highest ranked school or the least expensive, but it will be the one where you can become best acquainted with the legal community you want to join without having to worry about carrying double rents or finding a sublet while paying for school. So if I wanted to work in DC, I'd look at law schools there. If I wanted to work in New York I'd look at schools in the city. I would pass on conditional scholarships to schools that would be of less help in securing work. The money provided for those scholarships should not be at the expense of my ability to find a job.
Some might not agree with my strategy but it is one that worked for me when I went to business school instead of law school. I worked part-time, first at my old job, then at an internship I got through the school. I figured it was easier to build a resume and show commitment to a field through work than to try to get the top grades in my class. I would have felt the same way had I decided to be a lawyer.
I was a poli-sci major in college and I considered going to law school. I considered it while I was in college and after I started working. I passed the first time because I was more interested in urban planning and real estate than I was in being a lawyer. I have no regrets. I got the jobs I wanted. I also got enough financial aid to make the graduate degree worthwhile.
After I had been working in the public sector for two years I considered law school again. Had I remained with the agency where I was employed, I would have been reimbursed for tuition--if I got a grade of B or better in each class. But then I asked around. I spoke with co-workers who were going to law school at night. They warned me that B's were very hard to come by; law school would be nothing like college or even graduate school in planning or public policy. Law school, I was told, was best meant for people who really wanted to be lawyers.
The people who are offered these merit scholarships have to make the same decision: do they want to be lawyers so badly that they would borrow so much money and study so hard to pursue the dream?
The way I understand the law school world, it is best to go to the best law school you can get into in the place where you would most like to work. This may not always be the highest ranked school or the least expensive, but it will be the one where you can become best acquainted with the legal community you want to join without having to worry about carrying double rents or finding a sublet while paying for school. So if I wanted to work in DC, I'd look at law schools there. If I wanted to work in New York I'd look at schools in the city. I would pass on conditional scholarships to schools that would be of less help in securing work. The money provided for those scholarships should not be at the expense of my ability to find a job.
Some might not agree with my strategy but it is one that worked for me when I went to business school instead of law school. I worked part-time, first at my old job, then at an internship I got through the school. I figured it was easier to build a resume and show commitment to a field through work than to try to get the top grades in my class. I would have felt the same way had I decided to be a lawyer.
Did UC-Riverside get image boost from Undercover Boss?
This weekend I watched Undercover Boss as Timothy White, chancellor of the University of California-Riverside disguised himself as Pete Weston, a visiting administrator from a small private college attempting to learn the ways of the big public university.
During the show, White moved out of his home into a hotel near campus and worked in four different jobs: teaching assistant in a chemistry lecture class, assistant track coach, library book stacker and desk worker and tour guide. He had difficulty doing all of the jobs. However, he had no difficulty rewarding the professor, the track coach and two students for the work they did, and he rewarded them in very significant ways. The professor has a scholarship named after her, a full year's tuition for a woman interested in a career in the sciences. The track coach is being sent to school, plus his facilties will be upgraded, so that his team will be able to host a home meet. The two students had student loans forgiven and were have been provided with scholarships as well. All of these people must feel very lucky to have run into the chancellor. I certainly would.
More interesting to me was the perspective I got of UC-Riverside. Ranked 41st among public universities in the 2011 U.S. News Guide, this is an extremely diverse school. Asians represent 40 percent of the student population. Twenty nine percent of the student body is Hispanic and eight percent is African-American. Practically every student ranked in the top quarter of their high school class.
And, unlike the flagship campuses at Berkeley and Los Angeles, none of the spots are reserved for football players. UC-Riverside does not play football. However, the school competes in Division 1 in 17 sports, so athletic scholarships are available.
While UC-Riverside is not the most selective of the University of California campuses--it recently accepted 78 percent of all applicants, almost all from California--it graduates more than two-thirds of its students within six years. Considering both numbers together, this is a very good school. Looking at the U.S. News numbers, they are better than those for the flagship campuses at universities in 24 states.
It seems like Chancellor White runs a school that Californians should be proud of, although it is more expensive--about $12,000 in state--than it probably should be. Those who work on behalf of education in California can only hope that Undercover Boss made for good publicity for a school that is representative of not only the diversity of the state, but also the quality of the students beyond the flagship schools. They deserve better than a bare-bones education. California still educates more fine students than most nations. The state's citizens and politicians should take more notice.
During the show, White moved out of his home into a hotel near campus and worked in four different jobs: teaching assistant in a chemistry lecture class, assistant track coach, library book stacker and desk worker and tour guide. He had difficulty doing all of the jobs. However, he had no difficulty rewarding the professor, the track coach and two students for the work they did, and he rewarded them in very significant ways. The professor has a scholarship named after her, a full year's tuition for a woman interested in a career in the sciences. The track coach is being sent to school, plus his facilties will be upgraded, so that his team will be able to host a home meet. The two students had student loans forgiven and were have been provided with scholarships as well. All of these people must feel very lucky to have run into the chancellor. I certainly would.
More interesting to me was the perspective I got of UC-Riverside. Ranked 41st among public universities in the 2011 U.S. News Guide, this is an extremely diverse school. Asians represent 40 percent of the student population. Twenty nine percent of the student body is Hispanic and eight percent is African-American. Practically every student ranked in the top quarter of their high school class.
And, unlike the flagship campuses at Berkeley and Los Angeles, none of the spots are reserved for football players. UC-Riverside does not play football. However, the school competes in Division 1 in 17 sports, so athletic scholarships are available.
While UC-Riverside is not the most selective of the University of California campuses--it recently accepted 78 percent of all applicants, almost all from California--it graduates more than two-thirds of its students within six years. Considering both numbers together, this is a very good school. Looking at the U.S. News numbers, they are better than those for the flagship campuses at universities in 24 states.
It seems like Chancellor White runs a school that Californians should be proud of, although it is more expensive--about $12,000 in state--than it probably should be. Those who work on behalf of education in California can only hope that Undercover Boss made for good publicity for a school that is representative of not only the diversity of the state, but also the quality of the students beyond the flagship schools. They deserve better than a bare-bones education. California still educates more fine students than most nations. The state's citizens and politicians should take more notice.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Nebraska 'un-recognized' as a prestigeous research university
On Friday I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education that the University of Nebraska is being kicked out of the Association of American Universities (AAU). The university has been a member since 1909.
The news coverage of the AAU's decision mentions that Nebraska's departure is in part due to the medical school's presence outside of the flagship campus. Yet, the most recent admit to the AAU, Georgia Tech, does not have a medical school. Neither does SUNY-Stony Brook, which was invited in 2001. In addition, other members including Brandeis, Cal Tech, Iowa State, MIT, Princeton, Purdue and Rutgers, among others, do not.
Being a school to this association is like being a five-star general who gets a sixth star. You've done a tremendous amount of service to the country, more than your peers, so now you get an extra reward. You don't really need the recognition to be respected, but it's very nice to have. According to their Web site:
AAU member universities are on the leading edge of innovation, scholarship, and solutions that contribute to the nation's economy, security, and well-being. The 60 AAU universities in the United States award more than one-half of all U.S. doctoral degrees and 55 percent of those in the sciences and engineering.
That first sentence is a very broad statement of what constitutes an AAU school. It says nothing about the types of innovations member schools must pursue, only that they be of public benefit. However, I'll take the second statement to mean that advances in STEM--science, technology, engineering and mathematical subjects.
What is interesting about Nebraska's situation is that the school has been a member longer than most. In 1900, according to the organization's member page, the original AAU members were the Ivy League schools (excluding Dartmouth, which is still not a member) Johns Hopkins, Stanford, the University of Chicago, the University of California-Berkeley, University of Michigan and University of Wisconsin. The University of Virginia was admitted four years later. During the years 1908 and 1909, five land grant schools that were also flagship schools, the universities of Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Nebraska were invited to join, as well as Indiana University.
So, the University of Nebraska, then and still one of the best agricultural universities in the nation was among the first 25 members of this great body--and now they're being asked to leave? It was not like Nebraska has become less of a research university. In fact, the school has attracted more research dollars than eleven member schools, including Princeton and Brown.
What will this mean to an undergraduate student at Nebraska? Probably nothing, unless s/he decides to go to a graduate school in a STEM subject. There may be someone at an AAU school who questions the Nebraska pedigree, even if the student has excellent grades and test scores. But there will always be admissions committees that appreaciate a good student with a commitment to their field.
But it will mean more to current and prospective faculty members as well as candidates for scientific doctorates. Academia, from my exposure to it, is a very small fraternity--and word gets around when a school gets black-balled. Prospective science doctorates are more likely to be directed to AAU member schools and members schools are more likely to hire new faculty who have graduated from member schools. The school's rating determines an academic future.
Nebraska also loses a voice. The AAU is a national voice on scientific research budgets as well as education policy. The more associations that represent your interests, the better your chances for your voice to be heard in Washington.
I don't know what inspires academics to make decisions like this. They compromise the research future of a school, while reducing the size and their membership. The people who kicked Nebraska out deserve a dunce cap for this decision.
The news coverage of the AAU's decision mentions that Nebraska's departure is in part due to the medical school's presence outside of the flagship campus. Yet, the most recent admit to the AAU, Georgia Tech, does not have a medical school. Neither does SUNY-Stony Brook, which was invited in 2001. In addition, other members including Brandeis, Cal Tech, Iowa State, MIT, Princeton, Purdue and Rutgers, among others, do not.
Being a school to this association is like being a five-star general who gets a sixth star. You've done a tremendous amount of service to the country, more than your peers, so now you get an extra reward. You don't really need the recognition to be respected, but it's very nice to have. According to their Web site:
AAU member universities are on the leading edge of innovation, scholarship, and solutions that contribute to the nation's economy, security, and well-being. The 60 AAU universities in the United States award more than one-half of all U.S. doctoral degrees and 55 percent of those in the sciences and engineering.
That first sentence is a very broad statement of what constitutes an AAU school. It says nothing about the types of innovations member schools must pursue, only that they be of public benefit. However, I'll take the second statement to mean that advances in STEM--science, technology, engineering and mathematical subjects.
What is interesting about Nebraska's situation is that the school has been a member longer than most. In 1900, according to the organization's member page, the original AAU members were the Ivy League schools (excluding Dartmouth, which is still not a member) Johns Hopkins, Stanford, the University of Chicago, the University of California-Berkeley, University of Michigan and University of Wisconsin. The University of Virginia was admitted four years later. During the years 1908 and 1909, five land grant schools that were also flagship schools, the universities of Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Nebraska were invited to join, as well as Indiana University.
So, the University of Nebraska, then and still one of the best agricultural universities in the nation was among the first 25 members of this great body--and now they're being asked to leave? It was not like Nebraska has become less of a research university. In fact, the school has attracted more research dollars than eleven member schools, including Princeton and Brown.
What will this mean to an undergraduate student at Nebraska? Probably nothing, unless s/he decides to go to a graduate school in a STEM subject. There may be someone at an AAU school who questions the Nebraska pedigree, even if the student has excellent grades and test scores. But there will always be admissions committees that appreaciate a good student with a commitment to their field.
But it will mean more to current and prospective faculty members as well as candidates for scientific doctorates. Academia, from my exposure to it, is a very small fraternity--and word gets around when a school gets black-balled. Prospective science doctorates are more likely to be directed to AAU member schools and members schools are more likely to hire new faculty who have graduated from member schools. The school's rating determines an academic future.
Nebraska also loses a voice. The AAU is a national voice on scientific research budgets as well as education policy. The more associations that represent your interests, the better your chances for your voice to be heard in Washington.
I don't know what inspires academics to make decisions like this. They compromise the research future of a school, while reducing the size and their membership. The people who kicked Nebraska out deserve a dunce cap for this decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)