Sink or Swim

I can't believe it's been over a month since my last post.  I'm going to stop saying I'm going to update regularly.  If it wasn't obvious, I've been neglecting this blog because I've spent the first half of this semester in that sink or swim phase of grad school. 

Near the beginning of the semester, I had a conversation with another first-year grad student about the workload of grad school.  He asked when we were going to get a break from the homework.  I told him that we probably won't get a break until after comps in two years.  When he asked how we are supposed to have any life outside of school, I jokingly replied that we won't, but that it's okay because we will get used to having no life.  Obviously even grad students have lives outside of school, but for a few weeks, I started to question if there was more truth to that joke than I had imagined.

Fortunately, I can report that I'm getting used to the grad student workload and can squeeze in time to have fun and relax.  The biggest difference between grad school and undergrad that I've noticed is that in grad school, nearly every activity needs to be scheduled in advance.  Even if I were to work nearly continuous on homework and research, it will never be caught up to the point that I can take a day off without having anything that I could be working on.  This was a major mental hurdle I had to overcome.  The never-ending work stressed me out more than I expected.  But I learned that by scheduling in time to walk away from work, I am able to handle stress much better.  My wife and I went hiking for the first time here last weekend and I would like to make that a regular Saturday activity.  The hike made me feel much better and, because I scheduled time for it, I didn't feel like I was falling behind schedule.  I can already tell that my time management skills have improved, which is great since I'll never be able to succeed as a professor unless I can manage my time very effectively.

I know it's still pretty early for me to claim that I've gotten used to grad school work, but I can gladly say that at least I'm keeping my head above water!

Science Outreach

I just received an email from another grad student about a science outreach program looking for volunteers.  The purpose of this organization is to have undergrad and grad students in the College meet with some teachers at a local elementary school and train them to teach science in a more engaging and deeper way than they might normally teach.  In addition, the volunteers get to meet with the students occasionally to hold events like science fairs.  I've been part of honor societies and student groups who do similar things, but this one in particular is unique as it is co-directed by two professors and the principal of the elementary school.  I'll be meeting with some of the volunteers shortly and will learn more about the success of the program so far.  But I believe this institutional support is vital to the success of these outreach programs.

We all know that teaching for standardized tests leads to rote memorization instead of true understanding.  This is a shame and needs to be addressed.  But even without NCLB causing these kinds of problems, another obstacle to great math and science education is that so few K-12 teachers have technical degrees.  This affects how well students can learn technical material.  Teaching science dryly and through memorization only holds the interest of a few students who have a strong desire to learn math and science.  For everyone else, a common question is "Why do I need to know this?"  This is the question that can be difficult to answer by a teacher without a technical background.  This problem is what outreach organizations like this one hope to solve. 

I am confident that most, if not all, K-12 teachers can teach the math and science they are required to teach.  But if they wish to grab the attention of more students and teach concepts that will be remembered beyond the test, they often need a deeper understanding of the material than what is presented in textbooks.  Outreach organizations bring demos to teachers and train them to recreate them in the classrooms.  They help the teachers see the uses of technical concepts and see the importance of learning these concepts.  The student volunteers get to practice teaching the concepts they learned in college while working towards the goal of improving science and math education.  Everyone wins in this situation, but a cost must be paid.  That cost is time and effort, usually unpaid.  This is the root of most of the problems I've seen in outreach work.  Volunteers have exams and homework and teachers don't want to spend their evenings and weekends at work.  This is where institutional support comes in.  Sometimes volunteers and teachers need a gentle nudge from their bosses: principals and professors.  I'm sure most teachers want to maintain the attention of all of their students and want them to learn.  Likewise, all the volunteers want to help out as well and the encouragement of their adviser can help them open up some free time to volunteer.

This organization is looking to expand to a new school in the city and that's why they need more volunteers.  I hope to join and will be learning more about the group soon.  The group's mission statement includes an excerpt from "A Mathematician's Lament", an essay by Paul Lockhart.  This really caught my attention because I've been trying to get as many people to read this essay as possible.  If any of you reading this blog have a technical background or are even remotely interested in math education, please read the essay.  It's the best argument I've read thus far about the need to teach math like art.

The First Ride

After years of waiting, I can finally say that I have ridden a motorcycle on the road.  I got a bit fed up with waiting for my jacket, which turned out to be on back-order, so I went back to the dealership and bought a different one.  Now all I'm waiting for are some riding boots, but my hiking boots will do until those come in next week.

Today's ride took place as the sun was setting and the temperature was dropping to a brisk 103 degrees.  But even in the leather jacket and full helmet, I wasn't hot at all thanks to their great ventilation.  It's so rare to see riders wearing any protective gear other than a helmet here, probably due to the temperature.  I'm glad that I'll be able to cope with the heat while still maximizing my own protection.

One thing that surprised me a bit was how little power the bike actually has.  Sure, it can out-accelerate cars and trucks, but not with ease.  I really have to open the throttle nearly fully in the lower gears to experience any notable acceleration.  Perhaps this is why riders tend to outgrow 250 cc bikes so quickly.  Still, I had no problem maintaining 45 mph and have no intention of really going that much faster as a part of my daily commute.  Tomorrow I plan on taking a trip from my home to the university and back so I can get a feel for the busier roads and to find the motorcycle parking spots on campus.

Oh, and here's a picture my wife took of me before the ride.  She helped make sure I was safe by following me in the car today.

And Now for Something Completely Different

The last few weeks have been pretty hectic, which has caused me to ignore my blog for longer than I had hoped.  But now I find myself a bit stranded for a few hours at school with little to do, so I figured that I'd make a post about what I've been up to.

Last week I moved to a different (and much hotter) state for graduate school.  The move went well as my wife and I had no troubles with the movers and our things arrived on time and in perfect condition.  We still have plenty of unpacking to do, though.  We both like our new place, but we've had a couple of problems during our first week here.  First, we learned just how annoying monopolies can be.  This city has only a single gas company and that company refused to turn on our gas unless we were present.  But of course they don't schedule any specific time slot to show up, just some time between 7am and 5pm.  We missed them the first time they came out and were without hot water for a few days.  Luckily, the weather is hot enough here that even a "cold" shower is warm enough to be tolerable.  Second, our air conditioner broke two nights ago.  But thanks to our good property management company, we were provided a temporary mobile A/C unit and my wife reports that the central air was repaired this morning.

My wife and I also managed to find jobs faster than expected.  She got a music teaching gig at a large music studio in town and I am in the middle of the process of getting a research assistantship.  I met with a potential adviser yesterday and was very pleased with her research and personality.  I still need to check out a couple more potential advisers and may enter a lab rotation for this semester to help ensure that I end up with a group that best fits me.

This is the first week of classes and I'm very pleased with the quality of the few lectures I've had so far.  It seems that this university places a higher emphasis on teaching than my undergrad.  My wife is starting classes tomorrow and will be taking a math placement exam today that has been stressing her out for quite some time.  I'm sure she'll do fine and besides, she can always tell the professor that she lives with an engineer who can provide plenty of tutoring.

Finally, the most important update of all is that I'm picking up my new motorcycle today: a Honda CBR250R.  After having a motorcycle license for over 4 years, I'm finally getting a bike.  I'm planning on using this for my daily commute, which is about 30 minutes to and from the university.  Since the weather is above 60 degrees year-round, I shouldn't have to resort to using my car very often.  Plus parking is about 1/6 the price for a motorcycle and this thing gets nearly 80 MPG!  If I'm not riding during most of my free time, I should be able to post regularly again. 

Short update

I'm still alive and well.  My long hiatus is due to my recent move and will unfortunately continue a little while longer as I will not have Internet at home until next week.  I hope to continue posting regularly at that time.

News Flash: Poor People Go to College Too!

I don't know why so many professors have a misconception that everyone in college is middle class or higher, but it needs to change.  I've encountered so many ignorant professors who looked down upon me for needing to work a job while in school.  They say that I don't take my studies seriously because I can't devote all my waking hours studying, as if any students do.  Some have told me that I don't deserve to go to grad school because I'm academically lazy.  The funny thing is that so many students who don't work spend much of their extra time partying, something I had little desire to do.  I've had professors refuse to schedule a meeting with me or help me via email when their office hours are scheduled during my other classes or work.  How is this fair at all?  Should I be punished because I don't have mommy and daddy to pay for my education?

I'm not sure if these professors legitimately believe that there are no poor people in college or if they are somehow jaded from other experiences.  A certain post I made on the Chronicle of Higher Education forum regarding financial aid was met with a response that there are no real lower-class students in college.  The students who claim to be poor are just poor because they waste their money on food and expensive cars, in that person's example.  I was shocked that an educated person would resort to generalizing a whole group of students like that.  Perhaps some professors don't realize that college is a high-risk investment by those of the lower class.  They should realize that many of these people are more dedicated than wealthier students as we have potentially little to gain and everything to lose.

I don't mean to generalize; I've had some sympathetic professors.  But they were the minority for sure.  I found my humanities professors to generally be more understanding than their science equivalents.  I'm sure working students would like to keep their non-academic work a secret to be revealed only when necessary.  I hope that I won't have any of these unpleasant situations in graduate school where I am employed by the university.  All I ask is that professors ask themselves, "What if this student really does need to work to put food on his or her table?"

The Case for Cursive

Cursive is a dying art in most elementary school classrooms around the nation.  The Common Core curriculum used by 46 states no longer requires schools to teach cursive.  Instead, typing has taken up the time previously allotted for cursive practice, which generally occurred in the third, fourth, and fifth grades.  The idea behind the change is that typing has become the primary medium for writing and class time could be better spent teaching how to type properly.  The issue seems to have as many supporters as opponents.  I consider myself to be a strong opponent of the decision.

Where should I begin?  How about I start with the fact that it is a major disservice to students to not provide them with the ability to read the handwriting of so many adults in the world today?  I don't think I've ever had a high school teacher or professor who didn't write in cursive, unless writing on the board.  And even then, many wrote in cursive.  How can students expect to read signatures and generate their own?  A simple Google search for "SAT cursive" brings up dozens of message board posts from students stressed out about the simple SAT pledge which is meant to be reproduced in cursive by the student.  The gradual shortening of time spent on cursive education has a noticeable impact.  Specifically, only 15 percent of students wrote the paragraph in cursive.  I was taught cursive for three years in elementary school and, even though I didn't write in cursive again until college, I easily remembered how because I had so much practice with it from long ago. 

There are also benefits to using cursive.  Knowing cursive helps to generate a signature that is less prone to forgery, yet less enigmatic than a signature might be from someone who doesn't know cursive but doesn't want to sign his or her name in print.  Being cursive-literate means that one can read all (legible) forms of handwriting.  Just imagine how embarrassing it would be to be to come in to the office after lunch to find a cursive handwritten note on your keyboard from your boss.  You look at the note from no less than six different angles, including upside down, and yet you cannot make any sense of the mysterious message.  You then turn to your coworker or, even worse, your boss, and ask for a translation.  I'm sure most of you can visualize the inevitable facepalm from him or her.  Oh, and knowing cursive also means that you can read the occasional birthday card from your grandmother or the Constitution of the United States.

I won't argue that cursive is the faster form of writing.  According to the first article above, no studies have shown conclusively that cursive is faster than print.  So far, it seems that people tend to write fastest in whichever style they use most often.  But I believe cursive should still be taught as an alternative to print.  For some people like myself, cursive is much faster than print, and I actually print more than I write in cursive.  For sure, typing is the fastest form of writing.  But are typing classes really necessary in elementary school?  I took a typing class in sixth grade and none of us really practiced typing correctly.  We just enjoyed a chance to be on a computer.  I didn't really learn to type properly until eighth grade.  But is typing so complicated that it deserves to take up all the time previously spent on cursive?  I know plenty of people my age who don't type from the home row position, yet type faster than me with the same or fewer number of errors.  People will get faster and more accurate at typing just based on all the time they spend at the keyboard.  Very few people, however, will teach themselves cursive.  At the very least, allow students to learn cursive in an art class or elective.  Just provide them with some option to learn cursive in school!

I'd like to hear your comments on the importance of cursive education.  Whether you support or oppose the teaching of cursive in the classroom, or don't care either way, I'm interesting in hearing why you feel the way you do.

Be Cooperative, Not Competitive

Academics is too competitive.  In high school, we compete for the highest GPA and PSAT/SAT/SATII/ACT/AP/IB scores so we can get into a good college and enter with enough credit that we "can totally graduate in, like, one year!"  I'll just ignore the athletic types who go to college on sports scholarships.  Once we get into college (and realize we're going to be there for at least 4 years no matter how much credit we had coming in), we compete for a high GPA and GRE/MCAT/PCAT/LSAT/OAT/DAT so we can get into a good graduate/professional school.  Once we get into graduate/professional school, we compete for a high GPA so that we can get a great residency or professional job.  At this point, most medical professionals can finally enjoy the fruits of their labor free from excessive competition.  But not so for most of the rest.  They compete for the most efficiency/research so they can make partner, get an executive promotion, or receive tenure.  By then, these people are often at least in their mid-30s.  It can't be healthy to be under so much competitive stress for that long!  If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, then I guess all of the most learned members of our society are quite insane.

Does any of this excessive academic competitiveness actually help us learn better?  Of course not!  Does it make us bitter and prone to backstabbing?  Take a look into the inner politics of any professional firm or university.  Does this competition make us happy?  Probably not.  I'm quite guilty of comparing myself to students with better academic records and I certainly don't feel better afterwards.  One graduate student recently explained how she didn't feel "cut out for high quality research" after having a paper rejected from a conference with just an 18% acceptance rate.  Students even resort to prescription drugs like Adderall to improve productivity.

It seems like interdisciplinary research in universities is growing in popularity.  I'm glad to see this happen and I hope that it becomes standard.  Not only does this type of work teach all parties new things and exposes them to new perspectives, but it also can answer questions that could not be answered by experts in a single field.  My graduate studies are in a subfield that is interdisciplinary by definition and that was one of the major reasons why I chose it.  I get to really delve into the material I want to learn the most, but will also get plenty of exposure to some other fields that also interest me.  My senior year, I wrote a thesis for my humanities degree on a technical subject.  This combination of majors was new for the department, which brought plenty of challenges and rewards.  I don't know how good my thesis was compared to those who write solely within the discipline, but it was a great feeling to hear my thesis advisor say that he was unsure how to fully evaluate the quality of the thesis, but that he was happy to be a part of this unique project and learn some new things about the topic.

I would like to be a part of an academic community that discouraged competition and promoted cooperation.  If I could go back to my freshman self, I would tell myself to work hard and do the best job I could and to enjoy the process without worrying if I was near the top of my class.  All too often, I've seen ugly arguments come out of conversations after the return of graded exams.  The fact of the matter is that a student will often feel worse and perform worse if he or she feels inferior to another student.  That helps no one.  If cooperation was encouraged more, everyone (who puts in an honest effort) would learn and perform better.  After all, we tend to learn best by explaining what we learned to someone else and being corrected if necessary.  Plus, despite the cutthroat nature of some professions, we would all be happier at work if we had a genuine desire to work with each other, not against each other.  From what I understand, MIT doesn't have class rank or honors.  I, for one, would have been very happy to be without all that stress. 

The Perplexing Professoriate

Continuing from my last post, I want to explain why I don't think Americans need to be as critical of college faculty as some politicians think they should be.  The biggest misconception I've seen in the news and from politicians about professors is that they have cushy jobs that require little amount of time actually working.  All too often, only time spent teaching appears in these articles.  Of course, for major research universities, most professors spend less time in the classroom than most Americans would probably like.  However, the amount of time spent on research and service is largely unknown to those outside of academia.  Hell, many undergrads don't even know what professors do with themselves outside of teaching.

Service can be difficult to report in any way that doesn't come off as trying to sound more important than it is.  After all, meetings don't really sound like hard work and surely you can just zone out and occasionally vote on a committee, right?  But that's the problem.  People generally don't understand the workings of a university and underestimate the amount of work faculty members put into it.  And even in the case of the professors who don't take committee work seriously, they still probably advise master's and doctoral students.  In the case of adviser work, their reputation is partially on the line with each publication and advanced degree their advisees receive.  Much of this work can be seen as similar to one-on-one teaching or tutoring.  But all too often, they are just called on to be in the classroom more.

But of all three of a professor's main duties, none is misunderstood as much as research.  We've all seen the descriptions of professorial research as arcane, hyper-specialized, and unimportant work that results in publications that will only ever be read by less than ten people.  In the cases of the arts and humanities, the work often comes off as shockingly irrelevant to society.  In the sciences, the work sounds so complicated that people also cannot fathom any potential benefit from it.  Yet universities often pursue the "publish or perish" mentality if a professor ever wants a chance at tenure.  How are professors supposed to (unofficially) devote most of their attention to research while also spending most of their time on teaching?  Clearly it's an impossible situation.

I know most people don't realize the pressures faced by professors and don't understand their work.  But the tenure system is very selective and it definitely does not reward laziness.  In most cases, these people have dedicated their lives to obtaining a doctorate and facing the uphill battle that is securing a tenure-track faculty position.  Sure, some may grow complacent after receiving tenure.  But for most professors I've seen, they love their work and continue working diligently for its entire duration.  People rarely demand such accountability from other professionals.  The fact of the matter is that most people will not take the time necessary to fully understand the role of the professor.  But they just need to trust that professors are working hard for the benefit of the students, the university, the state, the nation, and the world.

The Pressure of Accountability

As you may have heard, a government investigation discovered massive cheating on standardized tests in Atlanta Public Schools.  But it wasn't the students who were cheating, it was the entire institution of public schools, from teachers up to principles and even the superintendent's office.  In this particular case, many of the guilty educators, who changed standardized test answers before submitting them for grading, attributed the cheating to a hostile work environment.  They claim that Superintendent Beverly Hall refused to accept responsibility for anything negative, but was quick to be noticed for successes.

This case may have been about pressure form the top so Hall could maintain a great image, but the first place my mind jumped when guessing the primary reason for the cheating was funding.  Schools receive funding based on student performance as determined by standardized tests.  The pressure to improve test scores increases each year it seems.  This is not unlike increasing pressure for professors to provide quantitative results of their productivity.

It seems like more and more state governments are demanding accountability from professors (probably so governors can justify spending cuts for higher ed).  But the million dollar question is: How exactly can a professor's productivity translate to numerical statistics?  At large, public research universities, which make up most, if not all, state flagship universities, professors are expected to spend their time about equally on teaching, research, and service.  Service is somewhat easy to judge because it is clear to the department of which committees a professor is a member.  Research can also be easily quantified through a combination of publications and grant money, as compared to other faculty in the same field.  Teaching is where the whole system falls apart and, of course, this is the category politicians want to scrutinize the most.

So how exactly can quality of teaching be quantified?  Most universities make use of teaching evaluation forms filled out by students near the end of the term.  These can be a useful method to determine trends in teaching style and quality, but they are hardly perfect.  While difficult professors who just so happen to be awesome at engaging the students can receive top scores, it is much simpler for a professor to make the course an easy A if he or she wants a good evaluation.  This is assuming, of course, that the majority of the students even fill out the evaluation with any amount of thought.  In my experience, most students would just mark all 5s or 3s or whatever, just so they could finish in 30 seconds and get to leave class 14 minutes and 30 seconds early.  Also, the questions asked on the evaluation forms at my undergrad made it unusually difficult to point out serious teaching flaws because the questions focused on things like my interest in the material, instructor's excitement, and instructor's respect of the students' race, religion, and gender.  These major errors must be addressed if student evaluations are to be the quantitative representation of the teaching portion of a professor's work.

I think it would be most effective to have faculty evaluate other faculty by watching the lectures.  This has its own problems, though.  The instructor under evaluation may prepare more than usual and deliver an unusually good lecture.  Perhaps this could be mixed with student evaluations.  In the end, however, there is no clear-cut method of quantitatively evaluating faculty productivity.  I do believe that most professors work hard and do not need extra pressure to keep up the good work.  In my next post, I'll explain why I do not believe the public needs to be so critical of faculty.  

College and Debt

When writing my previous post, I got to thinking about some things I've read in This Fine Place So Far from Home about how people from different socioeconomic classes viewed student loans differently.  This book is a collection of essays from working-class graduate students, professors, and other PhDs about their experiences in higher ed.  A common theme that struck me was the opposition on the part of the authors' families to student loans.  The reasoning was sound.  The belief was that once one borrows money from the wealthy, it becomes nearly impossible to break free from debt.  It's easy to see why a family barely scraping by would discourage the children from taking out tens of thousands of dollars for college, even though the loan would be an investment.  The problem, however, is that it is impossible for many students to receive a college education without the help of loans.

With all the recent news about student loans exceeding credit card debt in America, coupled with high unemployment, many students today may opt to forgo a college education to save money.  Now I don't want to advocate the idea that all students should go to a traditional college, but surely there are many young people out there who want to attend a university and have the dedication to succeed, but are held back by financial worries.

What we as a society need to do is educate these people on the risks and rewards of a (hopefully only partially) loan-funded college education.  Colleges should send loan literature to high school students that is heavy on the information and light on the legalese.  College orientations should have mandatory sessions on managing student loan debt.  Additionally, students should be presented with data regarding job placement for their major so they know the risks of taking out large loans for majors that generally result in low paying careers.  I place the burden on the university because I don't trust that Sallie Mae or the federal government would always have the students' best interest in mind.  We already know that many for-profit colleges aren't looking out for students, but I'm going to give the rest of higher ed the benefit of the doubt.  With the proper education, students should know that they shouldn't take out excessive loans to attend an expensive private school if they can receive an great education somewhere cheaper.  This type of academic frugality will ultimately help both the students and the economy.

I also favor legislation to make student loans dischargeable.  I'm not sure how to accomplish this and I won't pretend to be an arm-chair economist.  But it seems to make the most sense to not punish people for trying to better their lives by attending college.  College is an investment which may or may not pay off financially in the long run.  But a college education is something that should be an option for all who wish to obtain it.

On For-Profit Colleges

After reading this article, I figured I'd give my opinions on the matter.  Keep in mind that the extent of my "research" on the topic of for-profit colleges is limited to what I hear and read in the news.  That disclaimer aside, I do believe that many of the largest for-profit colleges like Kaplan and DeVry do participate in misleading advertising and prey upon consumers, generally of the poor and minority variety.  Whistleblowers in admissions for these large corporations have already gone public with stories of bonuses based on numbers of admitted students.  Considering that fact - and the article mentioned earlier, which states how for-profits educate only 12% of the population, yet account for almost half of all defaulted student loans - it is clear that something is rotten in the state of for-profit higher ed.

I worked at a major national bank for a few years and am quite aware at the extent to which employees, whose bonuses depend on quantity of sales, will lie and cheat customers.  Hell, some would open loans or credit accounts without the customer ever being notified.  Obviously the goal of these colleges is to maximize their profits, not to carry out some noble goal of educating those rejected by traditional, non-profit universities.  And for this very reason it should be apparent that for-profit schools have a conflict of interest unless regulation is changed that encourages them to see their students through to jobs.  Until the government places some regulation to shift the interests of for-profit schools, higher education should remain a non-profit industry.  It seems that the most common defense provided by the worst offenders in the for-profit sector is that they are taking in the students that non-profits deem "unworthy."  But don't community colleges exist for this reason (in addition to others)?

The way I see it, some of these for-profit admissions strategies have much in common with the predatory lending that damaged this nation's economy.  The government added regulations on lenders to make the fine print a little bigger and more understandable.  If they get their act together quick enough, maybe they can enact similar legislation on for-profit colleges' admissions information.  If they refuse to acknowledge this problem and continue to let the student loan default rate climb, I somehow doubt they will bail out the students of America.

Are we setting the bar too low?

It's no secret that when ranking the difficulty of majors, engineering and the physical sciences tend to be considered the most difficult and many of the humanities trail near the bottom.  Why is this?  I've often heard people say that they just aren't good at math (and sometimes science).  We know that the quality of STEM education at the K-12 level is poor in America.  Also, it is known that low performance tends to result in low confidence, which tends to lower interest in a particular subject.  I refuse to believe, however, that engineering and science are considered "hard" because the math is too hard.  I had poor preparation for an undergrad education in engineering, having attended a high school that didn't even offer calculus.  I struggled, but ultimately triumphed as a result of hard work.  With the many resources for assistance, most students can handle a technical major if they work hard enough.

Why are the humanities considered easy?  Why are they, along with business, stereotyped as having a student body more interested in partying than studying?  I believe that this stems from a lax curriculum in general.  In Academically Adrift, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa state the importance of rigorous reading and writing standards in classes.  They discovered that students who took classes with 40 pages of reading per week and 20 pages of writing per semester tended to perform better on the Collegiate Learning Assessment than students with lighter work loads.  I, for one, rarely had this much work assigned in my humanities major.   Generally we were assigned around 20 pages of reading a week and two or three 4-6 page essays a semester.  Luckily I was given the option to write an honors thesis, which ended up a couple pages shy of three digits. 

The generally lax humanities curricula are unacceptable.  If universities want students to learn how to think critically and become better readers and writers, they need to follow the model already in place in STEM majors: practice, practice, practice.  One of the best classes I took required ten summaries of the daily readings over the course of the semester.  They were only one page single spaced and did not require us to give our opinions or thoughts, but it made us engage the reading more closely.  The rest of the work load was the standard three essays 5-7 pages in length.

Students will take the humanities more seriously if they require more work.  Grading of essays should also be stricter.  Students with fifteen grammatical errors on their first page should not receive a passing grade for the assignment.  There shouldn't be any majors at a university that allow lazy students to skate by with little effort while they enjoy the collegiate social life.  Not only will they feel more invested in their academic careers, but they also just might learn a thing or two.

The Value of the Humanities

Another popular discussion is the future of the humanities.  Thanks to the American economic downturn, the humanities find themselves in need of defense.  After all, they rarely create new jobs or generate significant revenue.  They are about personal cultivation, which is fine and all so long as you don't need to be supported by welfare as a result (or so the pundits say).  Perhaps the most common adjective you'll hear to describe the humanities is impractical.  After all, how can you make money with a philosophy degree?  The intimate study of philosophy may bring great joy, but practicality in American capitalism so often means to make money, good money.  Not only do the humanities not guarantee a good income like the sciences and engineering, but they don't even add anything of quantifiable measure to society!  Or so this is the common argument I hear by some engineers and scientists.

It is not a lie that the humanities rarely result in immediate work specific to the degree.  But does this stop graduates of these fields from dedicating some of their time to the arts?  Not always.  And if it does, perhaps that is an indication that the student was not particularly passionate about the field in the first place and, perhaps, went to college because it was expected of him or her.  Sure, the study of history or philosophy may not have a measurable impact on the world, but these people do have an impact on others.  They get people thinking.  They get people talking, debating, and sometimes help others grow intellectually.  There is something intrinsic about matters of the human condition that make for better conversation than the potential uses for a new, faster femtosecond laser. 

Happiness is not easy to quantify and measure.  Yet many students enter the humanities and liberal arts (hopefully) not expecting a $60,000 salary upon graduation.  No, they choose their major because they have an interest in the field.  The study of the humanities makes them happy.  This is a valid reason, perhaps the most valid reason, to choose a major.  Intellectual cultivation should not be limited only to the rich.  But we also cannot deny that most people go to college in America to make more money than they would without a college education.  For this reason, humanities and liberal arts programs ought to work with students to create realistic personal and career goals.  With enough work and preparation, any college degree can be useful.  Some will rarely lead to a lucrative career, but money is not a requirement of happiness.

Oh, and let us not forget the importance of reading- and writing-intensive courses on learning.  Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa write in Academically Adrift that students who take courses that require at least 40 pages of reading a week and 20 pages of writing over the course of the semester perform better on the Collegiate Learning Assessment than students with less rigorous reading and writing.  In my entire science degree, I never had to read or write that much, even in my required humanities courses.  Thankfully I had my humanities degree to fill that void.  There was a noticeably difference in writing quality and overall communication skill between senior students in my two majors.  Now think back to the various qualifications you've read for different jobs.  How many of them did not require excellent written and verbal communication skills?

FAFSA - Faulty Application for Federal Student Aid

The cost of a college education is one of the most hotly debated topics in higher education today.  It is a complicated issue with no clear-cut solution to provide high quality, affordable college to everyone in America.  Recently, Texas Governor Rick Perry called for Texas universities to come up with a plan to offer a  $10,000 bachelor's degree.  As you can see by reading the comments below that article, faculty have mixed opinions about the feasibility of offering a high quality education at a budget price.

College tuition in America has increased faster than inflation and shows no signs of slowing down any time soon.  This means that more and more students will require more and more financial aid to attend college.  Last year, student loan debt surpassed credit card debt in America.  Think about that for a minute.  The average American has 3.5 credit cards, but only 29.5% of Americans over the age of 25 have a bachelor's degree or higher.  Based on census data, the number of Americans with some college education but no degree and the number whose highest education is an associate's degree is just a little less than the number of Americans with a bachelor's degree or higher.  Undoubtedly, the cost of college must have had an impact on those who attended college, but never completed a bachelor's program.

For myself and several friends of mine, the cost of college threatened our ability to afford to complete our undergraduate degrees.  For many of us, the problem stems from the faults of the FAFSA.  In my case, the biggest flaw of the FAFSA is its lack of attention to whether or not family will help with the cost of attendance.  The application assumes that parents will provide a certain amount of financial assistance to their child based on their current financial state as determined by their tax information.  But what about the parents who do not support their child going to college or, even worse, do not want anything to do with the child at all?  It is far too difficult to gain independent status for the purpose of the FAFSA.  Basically, the student must be 24 years of age, married, a ward of the state, or have no living parents in order to be considered independent.

My parents, while financially capable, decided not to help me with college because "it's my degree and I should pay for it myself."  I understand where this mentality comes from and do not hold any grudges against them.  But even the maximum amount of undergraduate Stafford loans per year ($7500) doesn't come close to the cost of tuition alone at most public universities.  I was willing to take out private student loans, but when my parents refused to cosign, my options to pay for college dwindled.  Luckily I qualified for a high-interest loan with my wife (fiancee at the time) as a cosigner.  I didn't qualify for a loan myself, despite having a high enough income, because the unstable nature of internships make banks a bit uncomfortable about my ability to repay.  What scares me the most about the whole situation, however, is that if I had to stay just one more semester and my university continued to increase tuition by ~10%, I would've had to drop out.

My suggestion to fix the financial aid problem that causes so many of us to fall in the cracks is to offer some special assistance to students who have uncooperative parents.  Even if this just means more loans, something needs to be made available.  The FAFSA assumes every family is fully supportive of the child's college education.  I would like to know where this utopia exists.

Insolitæ Curriculum Vitæ - The Unusual Course of my (Academic) Life

Whenever anyone asks me about my majors, they tend to respond with "That . . . is an unusual combination."  Most of them seem genuinely interested in hearing why I chose to major in such different fields, which usually leads to me explaining the somewhat complicated path that led me to my choice.  In order for me to not have to always explain why I take certain stances on certain issues, this entry will be the story of my early undergraduate life.

When I was in high school, I was fairly certain that I would go to college for computer science.  After all, one of my favorite hobbies is playing video games.  I thought that since I wasn't artistic, the only way I could end up working for a video game developer would be as a programmer.  I was also naive about the whole college application process back in high school, so I thought I had a decent shot at being admitted to a couple elite universities.  As a result, my applications went out to nine or so elite schools and one local safety school.  I bet you can guess which of those two categories I ended up at.  The university did not have a normal computer science major, despite being an engineering university.  Instead, I had to major in Math and Computer Science - Computer Science Focus.   As I mentioned in my first post, I struggled with time management and didn't do so hot my second semester.   As a result, I lost my recurring scholarship.  Due to the fact that I couldn't afford to stay, and because I was not looking forward to retaking physics and calculus, I dropped out and worked.

I never doubted that I would go back to college soon.  During the one and a half years that I spent out of college, I applied for admission to the state flagship university's College of Engineering three times.  I was admitted the first two times, but I declined for personal and financial reasons.  Perhaps thinking that I just enjoyed throwing my money away on application fees and wasting their time, the admissions people rejected my application the third time.  (The truth, which I later found out from a professor, was that the college temporarily increased the list of completed courses required of transfer applicants and physics and calculus II were on it.)   Luckily I was admitted to the College of Arts & Sciences.

I enrolled and was supposed to take physics and calculus during my first semester and apply for an intra-university transfer to the College of Engineering.  Since this was only a temporary setback, I didn't have to declare a major.  But I did anyway.  I chose my particular humanities major because I hated the subject in high school and I was curious to see how it was taught in college.  Or maybe I was an academic masochist; you decide.   I successfully transferred to engineering, but kept my humanities major after having such a great time in those classes.  I chose a new technical major, opting for something with "engineering" in the title since engineers are supposed to make lots of money.  Luckily I grew to enjoy my new field and would happily stay in it even if it wasn't lucrative.  But I can understand why many freshmen declare engineering majors.

When I put more thought into it, I realized how important it was for me to take courses with a lot of reading and writing.   I planned on going on for a PhD in engineering early in my undergraduate career so I knew sooner or later that I would need excellent written communication skills.  What I didn't expect was how much I would grow intellectually as a result of my liberal education.  Now I like to think that I learned how (some of) the world works as an engineer, but also how to experience and enjoy it as a humanist.

Hello World - A Prologue

Because the Internet needs yet another person's opinions made available to all, I have decided to create this blog.  It's healthy to have a forum (read: outlet) to express one's opinions (read: rants) about matters of public interest.  Besides, my wife does not deserve to be the only one subject to my discourse on the matter of higher education in America and around the world.  Also, thanks to the development of IPv6 by the Internet Engineering Task Force, there is plenty of space on the Internet for new blogs; I need not feel guilty for taking up some space.

I created this blog so that I may have a medium through which to share my opinions, observations, and reflections on higher education.  The reason that I think my thoughts might be interesting to others is because I have a relatively uncommon educational background.  I am a first-generation college student from a working-class family.  For this reason, I came to college not knowing what to expect.  I had only known a few people who attended any college, let alone graduated, before I began my undergraduate studies.  I didn't really know exactly what I was doing when I started college and, as a result, my performance my first year was rather lackluster.  This is not to say that I had a problem with partying or procrastination.  I simply didn't know how to manage being a full-time student and a nearly full-time employee at the same time.  After my first year performance, I lost my four-year scholarship and had to drop out to work and save up money to go back.  I spent about a year and a half working full time before I transferred to a (better) university.  During this break, I tried to learn as much as I could about how to handle the college workload.  I completed my undergraduate studies without any more major interruptions.  These experiences, however, are not what shape most of my opinions about higher education.

Perhaps the most unique characteristic of my educational background is that I earned a BA in the humanities and a BS in engineering (cum laude if I may be so ostentatious).  I believe this experience has given me a unique perspective on the debate about the value and future of the humanities in higher education.  I have found myself both defending "vocational" studies like engineering to my fellow humanities students and promoting the values of the liberal arts to my engineering colleagues.  I also learned that not all professors are above such beliefs regarding art versus science.  This all-too-often hostile relationship between the arts and sciences is what I call the Academic Divide.

My hope is that my background will bring a fresh (and hopefully sometimes funny) perspective to some of the major issues facing higher education today.  I'll try to make a new entry every few days or so, but I may be a bit slow as I get used to this whole blogging thing.  I love active discussions and will try to post often in response to comments.

And yes, I did choose a blog title that shortens to "BAD-ASS."