Ask The Blogger: Admission Revocation

Ask the Curmudgeon:

If I was accepted by Early Decision, can the college revoke my acceptance? Are there typical grades that must be maintained for the HS senior year in order to attend the college?

Curmudgeon:

“Senioritis” is students’ attempt to excuse lazy, selfish behavior. You may think this time is your “last months before getting serious” but it is actually not.

High school is for teens who are not quite ready to be adults. Senior year is the transition. Senior year is when you need to demonstrate to yourself that you can be an adult, accept responsibility, stand up under pressure, look out for your better interests, academically invest in yourself. (and to the faculty and parents, but mostly to *you*)

You need to arrive in college able to adapt to oddball professors, advocate for yourself (since advisors rarely do as much as you think they should), get out and learn rather than sit back and passively absorb whatever gets past your AirBud filters, discipline yourself with completing the workload, limit your distractions and maximize the education opportunities you’re paying a lot of money for.

If you can’t do that in the protected, slightly limited HS setting, what makes you think that you’ll magically be able to do so 6 months later when you are in college?

Why does anyone consider that doing nothing academically is a good preparation for spending $30,000 per year doing academic things?

Can the college revoke your acceptance? Yes.

If you prove that you can’t resist slacking off, if you aren’t ready for the challenges and sheer joys of college, then you should be grateful if they do.

Narrator:

Sadly, he heard the advice, but didn't listen to it.

Ask The Narrator: Mandatory College For All

Recently, the Narrator was asked if college would ever be made mandatory like K12 is. The narrator says no.

Ask The Narrator

"Will college ever be mandatory?" 

No.

K-12 students, by and large, are not yet adults. You can’t require college for adults. 

Being the Narrator allows for extending the question.

"Should there be college for all?"

Nope. 

College isn’t for everyone in the first place, isn’t appropriate for many who do wind up going, and isn’t appropriate for everyone at the exact age they graduate high school.

No, the most you can do is put policies into place to encourage college for all, but you need to have some mechanisms to keep out those who don’t really want to be there.

"Should there be programs to offer aid (up to free tuition) to all?" 

Yes.

Four-year college is the pinnacle in the minds of most Americans, but that's ridiculous. Two-year degrees are just as worthwhile to many people because of differing aspirations, abilities, and life situations. So are tech programs, certifications programs and that sort of thing. 

If we can provide tuition for a four-year degree at a State School (which I think we can and should do), why not also help out with the retraining costs for someone who wants to be a long-haul trucker and help them get a CDL? Why not help the office worker who wants to retrain as an accountant?

Why should we wait for the plant to close and lay off all its workers before we help them get training in another field if they want to put in the considerable time and effort?

AP courses are no big deal.

Jay Matthews on AP courses:

Most of the available data shows that high school students who do well in AP courses and tests do better in college than students who do not take AP.

Of course, you moron. AP students are, by definition, better students. What did you expect that research to show?

I think AP is a plus. Many high school students have told me their AP and IB courses made it easier for them to handle college academic demands. They have persuaded me that the AP approach to teaching and learning — smaller classes meeting more frequently with better-trained instructors — is better than what most colleges give their freshmen. But perhaps I am biased.

Jay is biased but that's not why he's wrong in this article. His basic premise is that AP courses are better than college freshman courses of the same name. He trots out a UNC freshman who feels that the AP History course had much more rigor than the freshman introductory course, and honestly seems disappointed that colleges are backing off their acceptance of the AP for credit.

Here's the deal.

Those AP courses enroll the best students in the school so they can be more rigorous than a general college course would be. College profs aren't stupid - they know their classes aren't filled with AP students. They know that they have to keep as many kids as possible in school or funding dries up and student evaluations get nasty.

Even though AP is better than the introductory courses, it can't hold a candle to the REAL courses.

Take my students, for example. They took AP Calculus and did well, worked hard, understood ... but every student in the room had a different plan, a different major lined up. Some wanted to do Marine Biology but they weren't totally sure, others engineering, one math, one history, one film, one psychology and some other BS degrees.

I couldn't incorporate the business examples the one kid needed, the physics that the other needed or the computer programming the others needed. My calculus, of necessity, had to be fairly general. I couldn't teach Calc121 for mechanical engineers because they weren't that specialized yet and because there was an incredible range of interest and course preparation in the room.

There were things missing, examples that I couldn't use because the physics was beyond them or because the economics was beyond me.

Far better for these kids to take the specialized calculus through their new department and get an easy A. Then they can excel by discussing the finer points with the professor, working beyond the class, and learning to work with calculus in a fluent and beautiful way.  this builds the network, allows them to succeed in college and get on the right track through a very big transition in their lives.

The history major who took AP Calc because he could, and who didn't really need it for his major, should absolutely get credit for the AP course.

Somewhat necessary.

The math major for whom the rest of his career will depend on a solid calculus foundation, should not. The engineering, or economics, or physics majors should not. No matter how good a job I do, there will always be a ton of stuff missing, stuff that a calculus for physics majors class will incorporate seamlessly.

What could possibly be missing from my spectacular class? Well, for one thing, computer solution techniques. Did I do the same amount of work using MatLab as the CALC121 class did? No, because it isn't allowed on the AP exam, wasn't included in the syllabus and was not demanded in the audit. Should those kids get credit for a course that doesn't really resemble the college course at all?

The takeaway: If you NEED a course for your major, AP courses should not count. A good foundation is too important.

How To Ask for a Recommendation

Ricochet spoke of a parent asking for a recommendation and mentioned this article detailing the tips for getting one from any teacher.  Here's what works for me:

Why ask me?

Ask me for a recommendation if you've taken a complete course from me and you tried your best in that class. It's even better if you've had me more than once. Writing a recommendation for someone I had in the fall semester three years ago is tough. I have no idea of growth or current ability. If you've only been in my class for a couple of weeks/months, I'm not the person to ask. If you skipped a lot or didn't do any work, ask a teacher for whom you DID work hard.

... poor behavior in class, frequent absences/tardies, chronic late assignments or incidents of academic dishonesty are reasons for declining ... Poor choices made at athletic and co-curricular events or crass behavior in non-classroom environments ...

Yeah, it matters. Childish or stupid behavior stays in my mind. Stealing someone's candy and throwing at another student, shooting spitballs in class ... really? Got caught drinking ... it depends. Did you admit the mistake and learn from it? I see you in lots of places and I remember both the good and the bad. If the bad outweighs the good, ask someone else.

Being an "A" student is not a requirement because I could talk about your willingness to work hard and persevere even though math isn't your strong point. Colleges want to know that you'll fit it to their programs and those immeasurable qualities are important ... that's what the recommendation is for ... those things not on the transcript.

I won't lie TO you and I won't lie FOR you.

We also need to define the difference between an evaluation and a recommendation:

If I agree to write a recommendation, I will say good things. In my mind, there can be no bad recommendation - the meaning of recommend includes the idea that I believe you are a good fit for the program or school. If I can't write positive things, I won't lie to you and I won't lie for you. An evaluation, on the other hand, is an honest assessment of the good and bad and may include wording that suggests against the placement.

These are totally different animals and you must be clear on that difference. Some applications ask for one or the other specifically. Don't mess that up.


So, you've decided to ask me for a recommendation.


Ask personally and early. 

This is critical for me. If you can't come and see me personally to ask for the recommendation, then you have no business moving on to college. If your mother emails me instead, the answer will be "I don't think that I can write a recommendation for your child." If guidance has to email me and the words "deadline is next week" appear anywhere in the conversation, then you have failed.

Time: I can whip up a recommendation fairly quickly, but I'd like some lead time. Three to four weeks minimum is a good length of time.  That is, I'd like 3-4 weeks before you plan on sending the rest of the application, not 3-4 weeks before the drop-dead deadline for admissions. If you know that you will be asking in five or six months, tell me now. What possible reason could there be to wait? Planning ahead is the mark of an adult.

Bottom Line: This is YOUR future. You need to be planning for it and be responsible enough to get  it going. Everyone is here to help you by doing our part but not by doing your part for you.

Minimize the clerical work as much as possible.
 
This is just being polite. Fill out your name and all of the information that you know. If you are applying to ten schools, with ten different forms, then it is imperative that you do this. If we are using an online form with a 120 character URL, I need the exact URL sent in an email.

If the recommendation is something I can type, I will. I will send a copy of everything to the office in case we are out of session and they need another copy and I will give you a copy of everything I write.

Envelopes should be stamped, addressed, return addressed, and so on. It sounds picky, but it makes a difference. Splurge on the self-adhesive mailing envelopes - I appreciate not having to lick ten of the cheaper ones.

Be neat. 

If you can type it, then type it.  If your handwriting sucks, then you need to improve it. If it's barely legible, that reflects badly on you. Everything you put on the application will be looked at. If you can manage it, run the envelopes through the printer as well.

Follow Instructions

If the form says "Student will fill out the top of this form," then you should do that before handing it to me. If you can't do that simple task properly, it tells me you aren't serious about your plans. If the header says "Evaluation" then don't ask for a recommendation (and vice versa). If the instructions say for me to mail the recommendation separately, then have all the envelopes and such ready for me.

Many of the admissions decisions are, unfortunately, handled long before the admissions people read and consider applications. Your folder at College begins with a checklist. If anything is incomplete or missing, the folder is put aside and ignored until everything is complete or the deadline has passed. If you can't read and follow simple instructions, then why would the college waste its time on you? They have plenty of applications to pick through; any easy rejections are dealt with first. Of course, the check will be cashed before the folder is thrown away. This happens distressingly often. Don't let it happen to you.

Give me the list of your experiences.

Guidance has that form for you to tell me about yourself. Mention things that will help me make your case for you and allow me to be specific. List the awards you've earned, the volunteer work you've done, NHS and other societies you're a member of, History Day, Governor's Institute, Odyssey of the Mind, and son on. If you were student council, mention that.  If you ran a significant portion of Winter Carnival, definitely mention that.

The reason is two-fold; you'll be reminding me of things you've done which will help me even if I don't write about them specifically and this will be the source for your applications.

With regards to math classes you taken with me, include things that you enjoyed or that were meaningful to you or that you found directly useful in tech, for instance. I might never mention it, but it will help me in writing about you.

That's it.

Now it's my turn. If I tell you to check back with me in 3 weeks, then I am giving you permission to "check back with me in 3 weeks." Don't nag. Don't remind me every day or even every other day. It'll be done.

That's my responsibility.

Further reading: 

Read the article I linked to for other insights that apply at bigger schools or for other teachers.  I know most of the students at my school and I've had almost all of you in class at some time or other so "Practice your pitch", for instance, isn't as big a deal for me as it might be for other teachers.

Let's stop calling it "College Prep"

Not for everyone.

All around this country, we call classes "Honors", "College Prep", regular, or whatever.  It seems to me that this is a bad way to divide the students. I've found (and you have, too) that most students fall into categories width-wise instead of vertically.

Maryanne was definitely going to college. She was great in English class, loved history, was an artist in the 1% bracket and hated math.  She never thought she was good at it. She made it through algebra II in junior year and considered herself finished and had no intentions of signing up for a math class senior year. .

Why was she in college-prep algebra II with the pre-engineer kids who ate up math, but hated English? Because they were all going to college and the course was college-prep. Why do we think that the mechanics-to-be and the farmers can't do high-level geometry and algebra II? What if they enjoy math but are most interested in building cars -- don't they need math, too? Can't the Future Farmers enjoy math even if they have no intention of going to college?

This is awesome. I want it.

Why can't we accept that kids aren't going to be superior in every subject?  Certainly none of the adults I know are that way. If a kid is going to beauty-school ( "college" ), is she really needing algebra II with the kids who love it and do really well in math every year?

Let's instead have "Hate math algebra II" and "Love math algebra II".

Separate the kids by interest and enjoyment of subject, not by future plans that may or may not have anything to do with ability in the subject.

It's not that colleges don't teach ...

It's that their students aren't 100% students. Far too many students are unprepared, unmotivated and unwilling to put much effort into their college courses. Fortunately for their delayed entry into the RealWorld, they can still pay their bills (albeit by taking out loans in many cases).

Wander a college campus at night, follow the students around, listen in at campus bistros, check in on the residents, take a class, and you'll quickly see two types of students: the ones who do care, are motivated and who are getting their money's worth and those who feel that work is an imposition on their sex and drinking lives.

"I can't write an essay, that's the weekend."
"My computer stopped working so I didn't do that assignment."
Facebooking during class.
Watching video on the laptop.

Why would anyone be surprised "that 45 percent of undergraduates gain little in thinking and writing skills in the first two years of college, and 36 percent show little gains in four years of college"?

Jay Matthews:
The previous post on this blog is my Monday column, complaining about the lack of much reaction to last year's study, which showed that 45 percent of undergraduates gain little in thinking and writing skills in the first two years of college, and 36 percent show little gains in four years of college. This is based on results at 24 colleges on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a lengthy essay exam.
I failed to address this question. Do we care about such results, or is the reputation of the colleges of more use, as we choose colleges? Some colleges do release their National Survey of Student Engagement results, which indicate if they are teaching the right way. Have any of us ever sought that data while making a college admission decision? Are colleges right to keep such information confidential if it makes them look bad? Or would anyone care?

My answer to Jay: "No, we expected that 9% are losers until they get the junior-class wake-up call and that 36% never hear that call." 

1. College is not for everyone. Plumbers are people, too. (And they work harder to get as good as they are - that's why they get paid more than a newly minted graduate.)
2. Education gets more complicated and demands more from you as get older. That's why it costs more and takes more time while taking less class time.
3. You get what you pay for.
4. You get what you work for.

Colleges' Math - Science Death March

The group that made a YouTube
video denigrating the education
they were ignoring while they made it
-- and then wondering
why they couldn't understand
the material they were ignoring.

But maybe there's a reason that so many drop out?

But, it turns out, middle and high school students are having most of the fun, building their erector sets and dropping eggs into water to test the first law of motion. The excitement quickly fades as students brush up against the reality of what David E. Goldberg, an emeritus engineering professor, calls “the math-science death march.” Freshmen in college wade through a blizzard of calculus, physics and chemistry in lecture halls with hundreds of other students. And then many wash out.

So what? There's a reason why they made those courses so hard -- so 75% of the freshmen WOULD drop into something else. They need the worthless chaff to switch and leave the wheat behind.

The STEM courses have always been difficult if your preparation

• consisted of "fun" and "dropping eggs" and stupid computer games pretending to teach.
• involved "student-directed learning", standards-based grading based on vague rubrics instead of knowledge and ability, and open-ended questions with no middle, beginning or point.
• didn't include calculus, chemistry, and physics.
• focused on inquiry-style explorations that managed to avoid inquiring or knowledge.
• didn't involve 40-page research papers and English teachers who dropped the grade by a LETTER for each grammatical mistake on an in-class, timed essay.
• focused on computer usage and gaming rather than programming. (Hello World!)

I love the appeal to pity "a blizzard of calculus, physics and chemistry in lecture halls with hundreds of other students. And then many wash out."

If you can't learn from her,
you need to change your major.

It's hard. It's supposed to be hard. None of these careers has all that much room for error and few have much room for whiny crybabies. There's a LOT to learn. Relying solely on a Google search and a Wikipedia article while building a 2000' skyscraper is dubious at best. If you can't hack it, get out of the way of those who can.

Face facts. Stop lying to yourself.  Tell your momma to go home; this is your time to make a decision. Work for a degree or don't. There are lots of people who destroy their health and hole up like an anchoress to get a degree in this stuff. Slide your lazy, drunken, over-sexed butt into something more your speed.

If you can't put some effort into the $35,000 /year you're spending (or borrowing), why should anyone care about you and your obvious lack of critical thinking and adult decision-making skills?

California - Tech vs Fine Arts

Broke in a broken system.

Joanne shares about California's new law.

"Music and art teachers are complaining about a new California law that expands graduation requirements: Students can take one career or technical education course in place of art, music or a foreign language, reports the San Jose Mercury News. Arts and foreign-language courses are twice as likely as vocational classes to be certified as college-prep courses, so students who choose career tech could be ineligible to go from high school directly to the University of California and California State University systems."

So here's my question ... if VoTech is what the kid wants to study, why are we so hell-bent on getting him into a college degree he'll waste his time on?

Take that woman in the picture.  She went $100,000 in debt to finance a women's studies and religious studies major at NYU and now is working as a photographer's assistant for $20 per hour. (It's obviously CitiBank's fault for giving her the loan. That's why they posed her there.)

Why?  Why should she incur that debt for such a meaningless degree?  Because she's stupid, self-centered and gullible -- she willingly took out loans without considering how she'd pay them back.

California provides a free college education to its residents (well, except for fees, but I digress.)  Why should California provide a free college education for someone like her who serves no practical benefit to the society which pays that bill?

There is nothing wrong with a life and a career without a degree. Millions of people accomplish it all the time.  They become fine upstanding members of the community and college grads look down their noses at them at their peril.

We must stop this "college for all" one-track mindset.

Some urban districts, such as Oakland Unified, San Jose Unified and East Side Union in San Jose, use UC’s college-prep curriculum as their graduation requirement.

Which is ridiculous.

Public schools should not be pretending that all kids belong in college nor should it require that all kids be ready to make that step before we're willing to let them go out and be successful.

College is an indicator of success, not a cause.

Talented, motivated, creative people tend to earn more than their peers throughout life. In today’s world, they’re also more likely to complete college. Colleges, for obvious reasons, claim that they make all the difference.

There’s a similar difference in earnings between Brooklynites who work in Manhattan and Brooklynites who work in Brooklyn.

For some people in some careers, some colleges may be worth the price they charge. But millions of other people are paying more than quadruple what their parents paid 25 years ago (plus inflation) for a vague credential, not much knowledge or skills, and a crippling amount of debt.

Listen well, my seniors.

College Remediation Study

Oh yeah, I'm going there.

"Over one third of college students need to take remedial courses — and sometimes courses so basic that they can’t begin their intended majors without them."

The article could also have been headlined "New Report Shows that Colleges are accepting under-qualified students for monetary reasons despite overwhelming evidence that they aren't ready" or possibly "College Admissions Departments admit to a total lack of Ability to Read an SAT score report."

My weakest students score 60% in all of their math classes, score below 400 on each of the sections of the SAT and do not get a recommendation from me. Somehow, amazingly, they're all accepted to some college. "Glory, sing the Angels!"

"High school teachers and administrators are either unaware of what is expected in college, or unable to align their curricula with college prep because the material on standardized tests does not match material colleges are looking for students to know. Colleges also use a variety of placement tests, which adds to the confusion over what students need to know."

On the contrary, we know exactly what it will take and we'll tell them until they're sick of hearing it. Most of us grade appropriately and will give a failing student the failing grade he is demanding -- which is more than I can say for colleges. Every course I've taken recently has been graded on attendance or other wishy-washy bullshit.

If the colleges would simply refuse to enroll unready students, it might actually give us a little bit more help in motivating the rest of the kids to learn more. As it is, college is a guarantee and in some states, a free one.

Bottom line: I will care about college remedials when these weakest students get REJECTED by colleges. If the Admissions department had done the smallest due diligence, none of this would be a surprise.

Until then, shove your hypocrisy where it belongs.

Have a Nice Day.

Once more into the Ed Reform Breach, Dear Friends

Joanne Jacobs notes that Rhode Island considers tiered diplomas: The best students in Rhode Island’s most rigorous schools may get a Regents diploma showing they’ve met state standards, while most graduates would earn a local diploma, reports the Providence Journal. Tougher graduation requirements linked to the Regents diploma are supposed to go into effect in 2012. But many districts — including the three largest, Cranston, Providence and Warwick — aren’t ready to teach to that level. Students aren’t ready either.

I've thought for years that a single diploma was too broad a brush to paint the picture of all of the graduates. I approved of the NYRegents diploma when it was actually a challenge to get one, when you had to work hard at a more difficult course and pass a more difficult curriculum to get it.

What I foresee happening in the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is a quick fade on the strict adherence to the standards they set up. Just as NY has fiddled with its tests until the NYRegents has little meaning, so will the RIRegents.

Maybe there will be some students who stand out while it lasts. It would certainly alleviate the problems of remedial word requirements in college and would allow employers and college admissions people to have a better feel for the true ability of the applicant.

How do Corporations Choose?

From a A WALL STREET JOURNAL Letter to the Editor
Reader Harvey Karten concludes that the recent Journal article about employers favoring graduates of big state universities over graduates of the Ivies is an indication that there are still things that government can do better than private industry.

I think it just as likely that the corporations are tired of the self-absorbed and self-indulgent TFA wanna-bes, primarily scions of the upper-class, graduates of the Ivies and are instead looking for candidates who had to work for a degree and who might be more likely to succeed at working for a living.

Not Everyone should go to College

And we probably don't need more money dumped into the laps of the drunks and fools. "The best way to assure quality in education is to make them pay for it."

I'm ambivalent. If only there were a way to ensure that the money wasn't being wasted. I know many of my students who skip college should reconsider but have money issues. What I can't predict is whether they'd fall into the immaturity trap.

Technology and the Digital Natives

We hear all the time about our digital natives, their need for 21st century skills and their total immersion in 21st century technology. This morning, the following thought occurred to me:

Our kids don't need any training / help / instruction / encouragement with social networks and tech. They've got that in spades already. What they need is to control their social life and learn the unsocial 21st century skills.

My son was sitting on the coach with his wireless laptop, playing World of Warcraft with Facebook open in another window, his band's Myspace open in another and an IM session running ... then his phone rang. The TV was showing iCarly or Spongebob.

If anything, kids need to be pulled back and calmed down when it comes to social media and web 2.0. They've stayed at the banquet table too long and gorged themselves on every privacy exposure they could find. There are ways to reduce your public exposure, but many settings were deliberately left obfuscated so kids wouldn't understand what they were throwing away. Marketing, of course.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt in Wall Street Journal: "In the future, the passage from teenage life to adulthood will include an automatic name change 'in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends' social media sites.' "

I don't think it needs to be that way and it's not too late. Everyone should simply change their names now on all social media accounts. As I said last month, put up a fake persona. We all need to do that: our social life gets a fake persona ("Harold the Magnificent"), work and serious life gets the true stuff, and never the twain shall meet.

Back in the classroom, what our kids really need for the "real world" and for "work in the 21st century" is to learn and make better use of the non-social tools. You know: spreadsheets, word documents, email, writing, publishing, graphic arts, WolframAlpha and calculators, online references and other tools ... whether Excel, Google Docs, blogs, OpenOffice, forums, wikis, etc.  They need to consider their words, slow down their minds and stop blaring out any random fluttering thought.

We need a catchier word for it. though. What's the opposite of "social media?"

Anti-social ... no.
Non-social ... that doesn't seem right either. It's serious but needs to be shared.
Web 2.x ... not descriptive enough.
unsocial ... oh sure, make a geek joke, why don't you?

Accountability

From the Washington Post,

Teacher accountability schemes let teens off the hook
By Daniel Willingham
Not long ago a student told me a story about taking the SAT. Students were to bring a photo I.D., and the girl in front of her in line had not brought one. When she was told that she couldn’t take the test without the i.d., she was incredulous. She literally did not believe that there would be a consequence for her forgetfulness. She assumed that there would be a Plan B for people like her. When it became clear that plan B was “go home and next time, bring your I.D.,” she was angry and scornful.

I see this attitude not infrequently in freshmen I teach. They are unaccustomed to the idea that they are fully responsible for their actions, at least in the academic arena. In contrast, professors at most colleges very much think of students as 100% responsible for their own learning. Professors may not notice or care whether students come to class, study, or learn. Most professors figure that their job is to teach well. Whether the student learns or not is up to him or her.

This attitude may seem uncaring, but I believe it’s no different than the attitude 18-year olds would find in the military or in the workplace.

Setting aside the issue of whether college freshmen should carry 100% responsibility for their learning, consider this question. Given that that is the state of the world, what happens during K-12 education to prepare students for this responsibility? It seems to me that almost nothing is done. But shouldn’t students become increasingly aware of this responsibility as they get older?

I can see telling a first grade teacher: “You can’t expect the kids to come to you. You’ve got to reach them.” But if we say the same thing to a high school teacher, we’re failing to teach students something important.

Yet all of the formulations of teacher accountability that use student performance data fail to take this factor into account. Student learning is used to evaluate high school teachers and lower elementary teachers in the same way. But if you believe that students should become more responsible for their learning as they age, shouldn’t teachers become less responsible?

I’m not discussing parental responsibilities here, but that doesn’t mean I think that they should be off the hook.

A quality we prize in adults is the ability to learn something from everyone. Being able to learn from different teachers is an important life skill, one that we should build into our students’ education. To my knowledge, it’s not done.

Naturally, the danger is that teachers will be only too glad for students to assume responsibility for their learning. My suggestion is predicated on a different model of teacher accountability, one in which teachers are accountable for teaching well. Students are responsible to do their part

Damn, I love the way this man thinks.

College ROI from InSty

Glenn Reynolds says the Higher Ed Bubble is about to Burst. Nah. It already burst. Some stupid people didn't get the message yet, but that's just the left end of the curve.

Not everyone should go to college. Some people aren't ready, others aren't appropriately placed there. Partying for four years is cheaper if you leave out the tuition, room and board and simply get an apartment and leave the door unlocked. Better to join the military and get the stupid out. You'll be prepared after your six.

Half of the college degrees are crap. If your degree is in Religious and Women's Studies, I don't know why you're going to college instead of starting a church in Provincetown.

If you need to borrow $100,000 to get it, then you'd better get a degree that will help you pay that off, eh? $40,000 per year or more should get you into an MBA or engineering or something lucrative. Unless you're rich to start with?

Bubble bursting? Only for those who dreamed of pink ponies, rainbow unicorns and cotton candy worlds.

Incentives ... part two - Free applications

For some reason, the Geniuses of Indiana thought free college applications was going to work.

A laudable goal: get more kids to apply for college. Misguided idea: make it free for one week only. So what happened? TONS of applications. Some were legitimate, many were incomplete (it's free so who cares?), many were done as a class project with no intention of actually applying (it's free so let's get some practice at the expense of the college office).

"but some colleges say last year's initiative was misguided and caused problems." Only some?

"Any time you start up a new program, you are going to have unintended consequences," said Elizabeth Crouch, spokeswoman for Learn More Indiana, an Indiana Higher Education Commission partner. "We have had many, many conversations with the schools, and we've gotten good input about how to move forward."

By not ever doing this again? Don't you love how the little weasel pushed the idea that this was growing pains, not merely stupid? Purdue gets 10,000 admissions @$50 from Indiana kids alone. That $50 pays for the attention, visits, tours, replies, brochures, advertising, etc. Why on earth would the college voluntarily give that up and increase their workload by four or fives times with a bunch of crap applications? This is a lot like the problem with teacher applications through SchoolSpring.com -- you get hundreds of chaff for a few kernels of wheat -- it's free and easy so why not click the button?

But the high school liked it so it was good, right? It "opened doors for students." "I saw students who would have never dreamed of applying to college fill out applications, and follow up," he said.

"Total self-serving, misguided BS," I said.

Re-posted here in case the link is archived.

Cheating starts with The Administration

From the NYTimes

One day next month every student at Loyola Law School Los Angeles will awake to a higher grade point average. But it’s not because they are all working harder.
The school is retroactively inflating its grades, tacking on 0.333 to every grade recorded in the last few years. The goal is to make its students look more attractive in a competitive job market.

No. The goal is to make the school look more attractive. The student benefit is secondary.

Colleges have been playing this game for years: paying students to retake the SAT to raise the USNews rankings, gaming the enrollments to increase "diversity", fiddling with grading to improve student "satisfaction", and now they're out and out lying about GPA calculated from the inflated grades of watered down courses presented by professors who have lessened their requirements and overlooked more.

Changed to pass/fail so the pressure is reduced but "This new grading system also makes it harder for employers to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, which means more students can get a shot at a competitive interview." Total bullshit.

and we wonder why the students feel entitled?

Placing the Blame - Student Debt.

The NYTimes has a long article detailing the money troubles of a recent grad with thousands in debt. Showing pictures of her in her fashionable clothes and a ten-speed bike, the reporter bemoans the seemingly vast numbers of students who, through no fault of their own, racked up enormous debt. The colleges and universities should do something, he rants. Deputize MBA students (?). The parents - are they at fault? Sallie Mae? CitiBank?  Yeah, CitiBank.

Puhlease. Just because she's pretty doesn't mean she's right. Just because CitiBank sucks doesn't mean they're wrong. Let's examine a few things.

"The balance on Cortney Munna’s loans is about $97,000, including all of her federal loans and her private debt from Sallie Mae and Citibank. What are her options for digging out?"

Holy crap. She must have really needed that degree if she was willing to incur that much debt. The prospects must have been good before the recession hit, wouldn't you think? I'll bet this was an MBA or engineering degree? She's got savant talent and is about to blow your doors off? Well, no.

"... since graduating with an interdisciplinary degree in religious and women’s studies."

Right there, you can tell this isn't going to end well. This is obviously not a financial wizard. She majored in touchy-feely on someone else's nickel. She went to NYU instead of CC or any of the SUNY campuses. It isn't all bad, though. She just got a raise. Now she makes almost as much as I do.

"She recently received a raise and now makes $22 an hour working for a photographer. After taxes, she takes home about $2,300 a month. Rent runs $750, and the full monthly payments on her student loans would be about $700 if they weren’t being deferred, which would not leave a lot left over."

Not a lot left? That would be $850 per month left over, maybe $30 per day. She is just out of college. She can brown-bag lunches like the rest of us. Share expenses. Skip the "going out" stuff. Bike to work instead of bus or car. Share the apartment. Get a second job, if she needs the money so badly. Get another, more useful college degree but not if it is solely to avoid paying your debt. When you are desperate, try 80-hour work weeks - it beats eight hours of tv and partying every night.

Another womyn's studies disaster. Cry me a river.

The article is copied below.

College Degree isn't working out for everyone.

via Joanne Jacobs: The Class of 2010 borrowed lots of money to attend expensive universities and graduate with skills the labor market doesn’t want, writes Joe Queenan in the Wall Street Journal.

SO?

The whole "college degree gets you a million more over your lifetime" thing was bull all along. It was based on a selected sample comparing apples and oranges.


Here's a bit o' truth for all you students out there.

• All college degrees are NOT created equal. Sorry.
• "Womyn's Studies" and "Black Studies" and "I don't do math so I'm going to be an elementary ed teacher." Don't expect to paid like a rockstar if you can't play a lick.
• This is what happens when you slack your way through classes and start your drinking on Thursday (We don't want Friday classes).  Too much selfish and childish behavior - fewer hours spent doing homework and more spent on your little iPhone and on those video games and TV. Most college students are lazy slackers more interested in beer than work.
• This is the result of searching for the professor who gives out easy As or who rewards the girls with the biggest chest, instead of those who learned something. Choosing a school based on the nearby beach or the quality of the babes doesn't translate to learning anything, you know.

Maybe you SHOULD have been a plumber. Tech school WAS an option, you know. So is the military, though their standards may be a little too high for someone of your obvious talent and sensibilities.

If you're stupid enough to take lame and useless courses and expect a rapid payoff once out of college, I frankly don't care if you have that millstone around your neck. (I'd have said 'albatross' but too few students would get the reference - lack of employment is a punishment for hubris- driven college course selection).

I'm not sorry for having this opinion, kids. You set up your education - this was not a snap judgment. You were not forced into doing this. You demanded your parents hard-earned money for some of this education cost and you took out the loans for the rest. You slept through class or skipped it to go to Spring Break. What did you expect?

You get what you pay for, or in this case what you worked for (or didn't).

If you did take rigorous courses and worked hard, got a good degree and still got laid off, then I do sympathize and wish you better luck. My guess is that you'll be able to get a good job much faster than that other idiot. You'll also be able to work up the ladder faster, too.

The slacker in college is still a slacker in life. He's screwed either way. Don't be that guy.