So this NY Times article says that college education is so expensive because of increases in administrative costs, not because of decreasing state support.
Slate rebuts, saying it IS because of declining state support, but still talks about "administrative bloat."
However, neither take into account the realities of higher education today. Think pieces like these love to tout the anecdotes that our grandparents or even parents could go to college on their savings from their summer jobs, yada yada.
What is never really outlined is that anything other than instructional functions are labeled administrative. Anything. So when you're referring to administration, it's not just the Assistant to the Associate Vice Provost or whatever is the conventional wisdom, it's the oh, let's say, ENTIRE information technology unit that didn't exist when our grandparents went to college. It's the army of academic advisors that help students figure out what's a VPLA versus a W versus a linked versus a global studies requirement. It's the financial aid offices that help students figure out Pell grants and federal work study and state work study and everything else. Health Centers are non-instructional. Libraries have non-instructional budgets, and you know what, online databases and subscriptions cost money.
Higher education is orders of magnitude more complex than it was in 1960 (why is that the banner year for comparison?) and complaining about non-instructional budgets just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how college actually works. We could go back to using typewriters and course catalogs of 57 courses total, sure. That would get costs back down. But who would want to?
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Monday, April 6, 2015
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Anecdotal but Logical
I was talking to a university student yesterday about her graduation plan. Last Fall quarter, she had three more courses left until graduation. One of those courses was offered last Fall. She took and successfully completed the course. Another of those courses was offered in the Winter quarter, and she's taking that one now. She has one remaining course to take in order to earn a Bachelor's degree. It's not offered in Spring or Summer. So she has to wait until next Fall to take it.
So to recap, the student with three courses remaining last Fall will graduate next Fall.
Many commissions and studies are launched to work on the problem of Bachelor's degrees taking 5-6 years to complete. However, let's just look at this logically.
When you cut budgets from instructional departments, you lose courses and sections. Students can't get the courses that are listed as required for their degrees. Then they can't graduate. (Yes, administrative budgets were cut more sharply than instructional, but instructional budgets were cut significantly too.)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2009148975_uwcuts30m0.html
The Professional Actors Training Program said that they will not admit any new students. Heartbreaking, but oh, so fair. The program is flatly stating that they can't serve them, so they won't admit them.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010708258_dramacuts06m.html
That's one solution. Another solution is one that the community colleges use frequently--course substitution. Okay, you don't have Chinese History, but we'll accept the History of Asia course you took. (Again, not ideal, but big picture, people, look at the big picture.)
Working in student services, I just despair when the students don't get what they need from their educational institution. (And I've worked for several, so this is not a reflection on just one.)
If a course is going to be required, if it's that all-fired important, offer it. Period, end of sentence.
So to recap, the student with three courses remaining last Fall will graduate next Fall.
Many commissions and studies are launched to work on the problem of Bachelor's degrees taking 5-6 years to complete. However, let's just look at this logically.
When you cut budgets from instructional departments, you lose courses and sections. Students can't get the courses that are listed as required for their degrees. Then they can't graduate. (Yes, administrative budgets were cut more sharply than instructional, but instructional budgets were cut significantly too.)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2009148975_uwcuts30m0.html
The Professional Actors Training Program said that they will not admit any new students. Heartbreaking, but oh, so fair. The program is flatly stating that they can't serve them, so they won't admit them.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010708258_dramacuts06m.html
That's one solution. Another solution is one that the community colleges use frequently--course substitution. Okay, you don't have Chinese History, but we'll accept the History of Asia course you took. (Again, not ideal, but big picture, people, look at the big picture.)
Working in student services, I just despair when the students don't get what they need from their educational institution. (And I've worked for several, so this is not a reflection on just one.)
If a course is going to be required, if it's that all-fired important, offer it. Period, end of sentence.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A Bad Name
Experiences like this will give worker retraining and community colleges a bad name! So sad...and this was in Seattle! Yikes!
http://open.salon.com/blog/sky_bluesky_1/2009/03/25/the_worst_job_training_in_the_world
http://open.salon.com/blog/sky_bluesky_1/2009/03/25/the_worst_job_training_in_the_world
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Issues in the Economics of Immigration
Issues in the Economics of Immigration, Edited by George Borjas, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (2000). IX pp., 399 pp., Price: $75.
George Borjas is the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at
Harvard University (George J. Borjas, n. d.). His analyses of labor market and immigration economics have been published since the early 1980’s (Borjas, 2009). In this 2000 volume, he has compiled nine essays presented in a 1998 conference, including one of his own. These essays reflect the general policy concerns in that decade that resulted in extensive research into the economics of immigration.
Thematically, the individual essays delve into fairly standard labor market analyses, uptake of social services, educational attainment, second generation trends, and incarceration (vii-viii). The essay most pertinent to the economics of education is “The Educational Attainment of Immigrants: Trends and Implications” by Julian Betts and Magnus Lofstrom. In this study, Betts and Lofstrom outline a number of conclusions that make intuitive sense, including their finding that returns to education acquired abroad are only greater for immigrants who come from countries with high quality education (102). They also find a widening gap in educational attainment between natives and immigrants (110). The methodology they use is of interest, because they define the heterogeneous characteristics of the immigrant population. They found differences in educational and wage attainment due to age at migration, years of education pre- and post- migration, and source country (81, 94, 102).
From a policy perspective, Edward P. Lazear’s work on “Diversity and Immigration” is interesting because it attempts to analyze the typically qualitative benefits of diversity. If diversity has an intrinsic value, due to creativity or increased output, how can it be measured? Does it counteract its own measureable costs due to difficulty in communication (118)? He finds six main points in his study:
1) The current US immigrant flow is inconsistent with diversity because it is family based.
2) A preference for diversity actually implies a preference for a homogenous population of the “opposite” type.
3) Groups differ greatly in the criteria by which a diverse population can be measured.
4) Education is important.
5) Immigration policy determines the quality of immigrants.
5) Balanced immigration raises gains from diversity (119-120).
Although an excellent primer for the economics of immigration’s historical context, the book is unhelpfully out of date. Published in 2000, one can only wonder if the findings still hold true today after 9/11 and the global economic shrinkage of 2008-09. Immigration policy has changed --to say the least--including more stringent visa requirements and the introduction of a number of tracking systems. Borjas himself has written recently that he expects an out-migration trend from the United States due to the rising unemployment rate (Borjas, 2009). This forecast is completely opposite to the context of the essays that comprise this book.
Another difficulty is that the volume is meant for a scholarly audience. Therefore, detailed descriptions of the statistical methodologies, data sets, problems with variables, and other technical considerations make it a challenging book to read. It would be best appreciated by those who already have a background in statistical methodologies. This is especially true because the methodologies themselves reflect the problem-solving skills of the authors.
Finally, the funding sources for the conference (the Olin Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation) as well as funding sources for the individual papers (Dept. of Labor, National Science Foundation and more), are disclosed. This is a basic step in ethical research. However, the editor has also made his policy preferences known. He wrote to newly elected President Obama's administration calling for a shift to skills-based immigration and wider implementation of the E-Verify employment tracking system (Borjas, 2009). In other words, the essays selected for this volume all tend to support selective immigration by skill set or education as opposed to selective immigration by family ties.
Issues in the Economics of Immigration is an important reference book that reflects the policy concerns of the 1990’s, but it does not represent the current policy framework. An interesting follow up essay collection would be for the authors of each essay to revisit their respective topics to see which trends have remained stable, which have accelerated, and which may have reversed in the intervening 10 years.
Works Cited:
George J. Borjas, (n. d.). Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/FullBio.html
Borjas, George. (January 17, 2009). Some Advice to President Obama. Posted to The Borjas Blog. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://borjas.typepad.com/
George Borjas is the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at
Harvard University (George J. Borjas, n. d.). His analyses of labor market and immigration economics have been published since the early 1980’s (Borjas, 2009). In this 2000 volume, he has compiled nine essays presented in a 1998 conference, including one of his own. These essays reflect the general policy concerns in that decade that resulted in extensive research into the economics of immigration.
Thematically, the individual essays delve into fairly standard labor market analyses, uptake of social services, educational attainment, second generation trends, and incarceration (vii-viii). The essay most pertinent to the economics of education is “The Educational Attainment of Immigrants: Trends and Implications” by Julian Betts and Magnus Lofstrom. In this study, Betts and Lofstrom outline a number of conclusions that make intuitive sense, including their finding that returns to education acquired abroad are only greater for immigrants who come from countries with high quality education (102). They also find a widening gap in educational attainment between natives and immigrants (110). The methodology they use is of interest, because they define the heterogeneous characteristics of the immigrant population. They found differences in educational and wage attainment due to age at migration, years of education pre- and post- migration, and source country (81, 94, 102).
From a policy perspective, Edward P. Lazear’s work on “Diversity and Immigration” is interesting because it attempts to analyze the typically qualitative benefits of diversity. If diversity has an intrinsic value, due to creativity or increased output, how can it be measured? Does it counteract its own measureable costs due to difficulty in communication (118)? He finds six main points in his study:
1) The current US immigrant flow is inconsistent with diversity because it is family based.
2) A preference for diversity actually implies a preference for a homogenous population of the “opposite” type.
3) Groups differ greatly in the criteria by which a diverse population can be measured.
4) Education is important.
5) Immigration policy determines the quality of immigrants.
5) Balanced immigration raises gains from diversity (119-120).
Although an excellent primer for the economics of immigration’s historical context, the book is unhelpfully out of date. Published in 2000, one can only wonder if the findings still hold true today after 9/11 and the global economic shrinkage of 2008-09. Immigration policy has changed --to say the least--including more stringent visa requirements and the introduction of a number of tracking systems. Borjas himself has written recently that he expects an out-migration trend from the United States due to the rising unemployment rate (Borjas, 2009). This forecast is completely opposite to the context of the essays that comprise this book.
Another difficulty is that the volume is meant for a scholarly audience. Therefore, detailed descriptions of the statistical methodologies, data sets, problems with variables, and other technical considerations make it a challenging book to read. It would be best appreciated by those who already have a background in statistical methodologies. This is especially true because the methodologies themselves reflect the problem-solving skills of the authors.
Finally, the funding sources for the conference (the Olin Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation) as well as funding sources for the individual papers (Dept. of Labor, National Science Foundation and more), are disclosed. This is a basic step in ethical research. However, the editor has also made his policy preferences known. He wrote to newly elected President Obama's administration calling for a shift to skills-based immigration and wider implementation of the E-Verify employment tracking system (Borjas, 2009). In other words, the essays selected for this volume all tend to support selective immigration by skill set or education as opposed to selective immigration by family ties.
Issues in the Economics of Immigration is an important reference book that reflects the policy concerns of the 1990’s, but it does not represent the current policy framework. An interesting follow up essay collection would be for the authors of each essay to revisit their respective topics to see which trends have remained stable, which have accelerated, and which may have reversed in the intervening 10 years.
Works Cited:
George J. Borjas, (n. d.). Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/FullBio.html
Borjas, George. (January 17, 2009). Some Advice to President Obama. Posted to The Borjas Blog. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://borjas.typepad.com/
Friday, March 13, 2009
Monday, October 6, 2008
Global education reform
Education reform is actually a fairly vague phrase that encompasses a wide variety of activities. Education reform can be defined generally to mean an attempt to systematically change education across a society. More complex are the motivations for change, which span economic, social, and less commonly, pedagogical reasons: managing China’s huge human resource pool, providing more gender equity in India, “learning less to learn more” in Singapore. Many educational reforms are actually attempting to address issues within all of these types of motivations, to greater and lesser degrees, such as NCLB in the US.
Matthew Beatty has posted that he feels that economic competition is a salient factor influencing education reform in the US, and it is not much of a stretch to identify it as an important variable in all of the cultures we have investigated. It seems that there is a fear (to use a classmate's word) of further solidification of the “winners” and “losers” across the globe, or from slipping from being a winner to being a loser. Otherwise, why even attempt reform? It’s expensive, politically dangerous, and no reform system we have studied has performed to the desired level. There are always blind spots, weaknesses, and reversals. India’s educational institutions, Jayaram argued, actively resisted education reform efforts.
Somehow, polities decide that the system that brought them to where they are (and for individuals in decision-making positions, brought them far) is not good enough for their children. The world looks like a significantly different place than even 20 years ago. Individuals, work groups, companies, and industries must be ready just to keep up. What is unclear is how to be ready. India has made great gains, but in a specific skill set in a specific industry, which makes it vulnerable to change. China still has a vast underserved hinterland and very serious resource degradation problems. Qatar and Kuwait rest on their petroleum-based economies and may take themselves out of the “race” entirely. The US cannot work out issues of equitable distribution or the balance between strong central leadership, states’ rights and individualism.
The very technology that is driving economic competition and therefore much of education reform across the world also provides access to best practices, methodologies, research, examples of failure, and a common community for the concomitant conversations. Ultimately, education is a fundamental human right, according to signatories of the United Nations' International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 13). That is a good enough reason by itself to continue to struggle through the process.
http://www1.worldbank.org/education/globaleducationreform/
Matthew Beatty has posted that he feels that economic competition is a salient factor influencing education reform in the US, and it is not much of a stretch to identify it as an important variable in all of the cultures we have investigated. It seems that there is a fear (to use a classmate's word) of further solidification of the “winners” and “losers” across the globe, or from slipping from being a winner to being a loser. Otherwise, why even attempt reform? It’s expensive, politically dangerous, and no reform system we have studied has performed to the desired level. There are always blind spots, weaknesses, and reversals. India’s educational institutions, Jayaram argued, actively resisted education reform efforts.
Somehow, polities decide that the system that brought them to where they are (and for individuals in decision-making positions, brought them far) is not good enough for their children. The world looks like a significantly different place than even 20 years ago. Individuals, work groups, companies, and industries must be ready just to keep up. What is unclear is how to be ready. India has made great gains, but in a specific skill set in a specific industry, which makes it vulnerable to change. China still has a vast underserved hinterland and very serious resource degradation problems. Qatar and Kuwait rest on their petroleum-based economies and may take themselves out of the “race” entirely. The US cannot work out issues of equitable distribution or the balance between strong central leadership, states’ rights and individualism.
The very technology that is driving economic competition and therefore much of education reform across the world also provides access to best practices, methodologies, research, examples of failure, and a common community for the concomitant conversations. Ultimately, education is a fundamental human right, according to signatories of the United Nations' International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 13). That is a good enough reason by itself to continue to struggle through the process.
http://www1.worldbank.org/education/globaleducationreform/
Sunday, October 5, 2008
No Child Left Behind
There is a problem in population ethics called the repugnant conclusion. In brief, it describes a situation in which a large population whose lives are barely worth living could be measured nonetheless as having more total happiness than a smaller population with a higher standard of living (Ryberg, 2006). NCLB is producing two types of repugnant conclusions in P-16 education in the United States. Intended to address equity issues in education, NCLB rather encourages the overemphasis on passing minimum standards for both students and schools, rather than encouraging the kind of innovative thinking and skill sets that are required in the global economy. In addition, it provides for the success of students who manage to get on the “conveyor belt” early, and has not been effective in producing meaningful gains over time for students and schools currently underserved and failing (Tough, 2008).
To address the second point first, Seattle’s school superintendent has made very strong statements about reforming NCLB in order to better serve the immigrant population. She makes an argument beyond the English Language Learner discussion. She also states that for students not only learning English, but who did not have literacy skills in their home language, NCLB is a barrier, not a system for equity. Under NCLB, these students are expected to be up to speed in a year, but they’re on the conveyor belt too late. Paul Tough describes on his blog how students who underperform in primary school, even if they make gains in middle school under intensive NCLB programs, still slide into underperforming in high school, under the same concept. The reasons for this are reflected in the “What No School Can Do” reading. He asserts that the programs like “Baby College” in Harlem that begin with prenatal care and education for the parents, lead the child into preschool and then a NCLB type primary school are the most successful. The flip side is the historical aversion in the US to such a paternalistic attitude. Opponents describe it as evangelism for Anglo middle class values.
NCLB has generated a burst of creativity…in figuring out ways to beat the assessments. The lock-step system is a disincentive for the very risk-taking that has generated some of the successful programs like Baby College. Students internalize the attitude of “just get through the test” rather than the true goal setting, innovation and dreaming big that has characterized the past success of the American system. The mythology is still there, and is codified in NCLB’s equity ideals, that is, anyone has a right to an opportunity to succeed. But until that mythology is supported at a number of policy levels, it will remain just that, in addition to being a global model of how not to implement widespread educational change.
NCLB has shined a spotlight on US equity issues, and has provided an influx of federal funding. It has newly engaged communities, schools, parents and the students themselves in very important dialogues. On the other hand, the findings and goals of NCLB are some of the same scripts that the US has been dealing with for a long time. Proper teacher compensation, training, and respect are nothing new. This reform has yet to prove itself as a methodology for meeting its own goals, and the odds for it ever doing so without significant modification are low and sliding downward as time goes on. At stake is nothing less than the under serving of an entire generation of students who were not lucky enough to get on the conveyor belt early enough—another repugnant conclusion.
Ryberg, Jesper. (2006). The Repugnant Conclusion. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on October 4, 2008 from http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/repugnant-conclusion/
Tough, Paul. (2008). Schoolhouse Rock. Slate. Retrieved on October 4, 2008 from http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/schoolhouse/default.aspx
To address the second point first, Seattle’s school superintendent has made very strong statements about reforming NCLB in order to better serve the immigrant population. She makes an argument beyond the English Language Learner discussion. She also states that for students not only learning English, but who did not have literacy skills in their home language, NCLB is a barrier, not a system for equity. Under NCLB, these students are expected to be up to speed in a year, but they’re on the conveyor belt too late. Paul Tough describes on his blog how students who underperform in primary school, even if they make gains in middle school under intensive NCLB programs, still slide into underperforming in high school, under the same concept. The reasons for this are reflected in the “What No School Can Do” reading. He asserts that the programs like “Baby College” in Harlem that begin with prenatal care and education for the parents, lead the child into preschool and then a NCLB type primary school are the most successful. The flip side is the historical aversion in the US to such a paternalistic attitude. Opponents describe it as evangelism for Anglo middle class values.
NCLB has generated a burst of creativity…in figuring out ways to beat the assessments. The lock-step system is a disincentive for the very risk-taking that has generated some of the successful programs like Baby College. Students internalize the attitude of “just get through the test” rather than the true goal setting, innovation and dreaming big that has characterized the past success of the American system. The mythology is still there, and is codified in NCLB’s equity ideals, that is, anyone has a right to an opportunity to succeed. But until that mythology is supported at a number of policy levels, it will remain just that, in addition to being a global model of how not to implement widespread educational change.
NCLB has shined a spotlight on US equity issues, and has provided an influx of federal funding. It has newly engaged communities, schools, parents and the students themselves in very important dialogues. On the other hand, the findings and goals of NCLB are some of the same scripts that the US has been dealing with for a long time. Proper teacher compensation, training, and respect are nothing new. This reform has yet to prove itself as a methodology for meeting its own goals, and the odds for it ever doing so without significant modification are low and sliding downward as time goes on. At stake is nothing less than the under serving of an entire generation of students who were not lucky enough to get on the conveyor belt early enough—another repugnant conclusion.
Ryberg, Jesper. (2006). The Repugnant Conclusion. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on October 4, 2008 from http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/repugnant-conclusion/
Tough, Paul. (2008). Schoolhouse Rock. Slate. Retrieved on October 4, 2008 from http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/schoolhouse/default.aspx
Saturday, December 8, 2007
The beginning of the end
I've found an Ed.D. program that is very exciting--Educational Policy and Administration for International Educators! It's mostly online with 3 summers of 3 week in residence sessions at the University of Minnesota. (Close to mom and dad!)
I'm in the process of applying (and I have to take the GRE again) and if I get in I'll decide later if I'm going to go for it.
ahhh....and the $$$
I'm in the process of applying (and I have to take the GRE again) and if I get in I'll decide later if I'm going to go for it.
ahhh....and the $$$
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Internally Consistent
I realized in my back and forth with Colin that if one were to follow the question to the logical conclusion, it wouldn't necessarily be consistent with what I've typically thought.
That is, I'm generally not in favor of supporting failing industries with subsidies or artificial wage points. For example, I've felt that the steel belt should go the way of the dinosaur and let China take it over since it's cheaper and works in an environmental NIMBY kind of way.
So are there "industries" that should not be included in that model? Why should education be any different and not subject to outsourcing? If schools are failing, why not put the kids on Skype with India and do it that way?
My gut reaction was, no, it's different. But how? School has been a method to inculcate social (and patriotic, to be honest) mores, but that's certainly not the dealbreaker for me, as an international educator anyway.
Maybe it's not all that different. The only other thing I can think of is logistical. There is a benefit of having everybody under 16 all rounded up in the same place at the same time!
That is, I'm generally not in favor of supporting failing industries with subsidies or artificial wage points. For example, I've felt that the steel belt should go the way of the dinosaur and let China take it over since it's cheaper and works in an environmental NIMBY kind of way.
So are there "industries" that should not be included in that model? Why should education be any different and not subject to outsourcing? If schools are failing, why not put the kids on Skype with India and do it that way?
My gut reaction was, no, it's different. But how? School has been a method to inculcate social (and patriotic, to be honest) mores, but that's certainly not the dealbreaker for me, as an international educator anyway.
Maybe it's not all that different. The only other thing I can think of is logistical. There is a benefit of having everybody under 16 all rounded up in the same place at the same time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)