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.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, June 27, 2011
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?
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?
Sunday, June 26, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)