Archives for category: Higher Education

The long-running battle over affirmative action in higher education is usually portrayed as white resentment against special preferences for blacks and Hispanics. The Trump administration appears to be appealing to that historic resentment. However, the actual battle against affirmative action today is led by some Asian American groups who think that a test-based admissions system would bolster their numbers at elite universities. Thus, if the Trump administration pursues its animus against affirmative action (after a leak about its intentions, the Department of Justice denied that it would take up this matter), the beneficiaries are likely to be Asian Americans, not whites.

The New York Times published an article describing the critique of diversity programs at universities as fundamentally unfair, as viewed by some Asian American groups. Harvard, like many other universities (but not all) seeks to maintain a diverse student body. The admissions office takes into account more than test scores. The groups that have attacked these policies believe that the proportion of Asians admitted to selective universities would be much higher if test scores were the most important or sole criterion.

It appears from the data that Harvard and other elite universities are trying to maintain a diverse student body. Asian Americans today are under 6% of the population, but consistently have about triple that proportion in the classes admitted to selective colleges.

Harvard’s class of 2021 is 14.6 percent African-American, 22.2 percent Asian-American, 11.6 percent Hispanic and 2.5 percent Native American or Pacific Islander, according to data on the university’s website.

For the Harvard case, initially filed in 2014, Mr. Blum said, the federal court in Boston has allowed the plaintiffs to demand records from four highly competitive high schools with large numbers of Asian-American students: Stuyvesant High School in New York; Monta Vista High School in the Silicon Valley city of Cupertino; Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va.; and the Boston Latin School.

The goal is to look at whether students with comparable qualifications have different odds of admission that could be correlated with race and how stereotypes influence the process. A Princeton study found that students who identify as Asian need to score 140 points higher on the SAT than whites to have the same chance of admission to private colleges, a difference some have called “the Asian tax.”

The lawsuit also cites Harvard’s Asian-American enrollment at 18 percent in 2013, and notes very similar numbers ranging from 14 to 18 percent at other Ivy League colleges, like Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton and Yale.

In contrast, it says, in the same year, Asian-Americans made up 34.8 percent of the student body at the University of California, Los Angeles, 32.4 percent at Berkeley and 42.5 percent at Caltech. It attributes the higher numbers in the state university system to the fact that California banned racial preferences by popular referendum in 1996, though California also has a large number of Asian-Americans.

The data, experts say, suggests that if Harvard were forbidden to use race as a factor in admissions, the Asian-American admissions rate would rise, and the percentage of white, black and Hispanic students would fall.

The issue is now before federal courts.

The Trump Justice Department plans to sue colleges and universities that engage in affirmative action to favor students of color for the sake of diversity.

Vox and several other websites said this is a good time to remember how Jared Kushner got admitted to Harvard.

Of course few will be surprised that Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, a wealthy and connected developer and political donor, helped him get in. But the details of just how that happened, described in Daniel Golden’s thoroughly reported 2007 book The Price of Admission, remain remarkable to this day.

What Golden found, essentially, was that Jared’s father handed Harvard (a school he did not attend) a big pile of money just as Jared was starting to apply to colleges. Around the same time, Jared’s dad got his US senator to contact another US senator to arrange a chat with Harvard’s dean of admissions.

Happily for the Kushner family, Jared was then admitted. But several officials at Jared’s high school outright told Golden that they found the choice puzzling, since his grades and academic record really didn’t seem to merit it.

Two senators contacted Harvard on behalf of young Kushner, Ted Kennedy and Frank Lautenberg, both Democrats.

The school that Jared attended was taken aback when he was admitted and far better qualified students were rejected.

If AG Jeff Sessiono wants to stop preferential treatment, then he will surely investigate universities that set aside seats for underqualified boys whose daddies offer large contributions.

We have had a vigorous discussion on the blog about Betsy DeVos’s decision to reorient the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights towards protecting the rights of those accused of rape rather than those who alleged that they were victims of rape.

Candace Jackson, DeVos’s controversial choice to lead OCR, made these startling remarks to the New York Times, which caused such an uproar that she subsequently apologized:

“Investigative processes have not been “fairly balanced between the accusing victim and the accused student,” Ms. Jackson argued, and students have been branded rapists “when the facts just don’t back that up.” In most investigations, she said, there’s “not even an accusation that these accused students overrode the will of a young woman.”

“Rather, the accusations — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right,’” Ms. Jackson said.”

I urge DeVos and Jackso to read John Hechinger’s riveting new book, “True Gentlemen: The Broken Pledge of America’s Fraternities.”
The book won’t be released until September. I read it in galleys and provided a blurb.

It provides an insider’s view of fraternity life on campus today. Hechinger is a writer for Bloomberg who often covers education. What you will encounter in the book is a culture of binge drinking, hazing, misogyny, sexism, and rampant disregard for the rights of anyone. I have never cared about fraternity life, never attended a college where fraternities or sororities mattered. Now I know what I was missing, and I’m glad I did. The lives of pledges are treated with reckless disregard; the lives and reputations of women matter not at all. In this peculiar world, getting dead drunk is ritual behavior.

The two women now not-enforcing civil rights protections for victims of sexual violence on campus should read this book for context. You should too.

We have had an interesting conversation on the blog about the value of AP courses. It was tied to Jay Mathews’ use of AP courses to rank the quality of high schools: the more AP courses, the better the high school.

I have made clear two points: One, when I was in high school in the 1950s, there were no AP courses, so I have had no experience with them; and my children graduated high school without ever taking an AP course. This, I have no personal experience with AP. Two, I strongly object to the College Board marketing AP courses on the spurious grounds that they promote equity and civil rights. The College Board is making millions by doing so. It should be as honest as those selling cars, beer, and cigarettes.

Our friend and reader “Democracy” posted this comment:

“It sure is interesting that the pro-AP commenters on this thread do not – and cannot – cite any solid evidence that Advanced Placement is any more than hype. To be sure – there are good AP teachers. Also to be sure – as a program – AP just is NOT what the proponents claim. Far from it.

Much of the AP hype that exist in the U.S. can be traced to Jay Mathews, who slobbers unabashedly over the “merits” of AP. Mathews not only misrepresents the research on AP but also publishes the yearly Challenge Index, which purportedly lists the “best” high schools in America based solely on how many AP tests they give.

Jay Mathews writes that one of the reasons his high school ““rankings have drawn such attention is that “only half of students who go to college get to take college-level courses in high school.” What he does NOT say is that another main reason his rankings draw scrutiny is that they are phony; they are without merit. Sadly, far too many parents, educators and School Board members have bought into the “challenge” index that Mathews sells.

The Challenge Index is – and always has been – a phony list that doesn’t do much except to laud AP courses and tests. The Index is based on Jay Mathews’ equally dubious assumption that AP is inherently “better” than other high school classes in which students are encouraged and taught to think critically.

As more students take AP –– many more are doing so…they’ve been told that it is “rigor” and it’s college-level –– more are failing the tests. In 2010, for example, 43 percent of AP test scores were a 1 or 2. The Kool-Aid drinkers argue that “even students who score poorly in A.P. were better off.” Mathews says this too. But it’s flat-out wrong.

The basis for their claim is a College Board-funded study in Texas. But a more robust study (Dougherty & Mellor, 2010) of AP course and test-takers found that “students – particularly low-income students and students of color – who failed an AP exam were no more likely to graduate from college than were students who did not take an AP exam.” Other studies that have tried to tease out the effects of AP while controlling for demographic variables find that “the impact of the AP program on various measures of college success was found to be negligible.”

More colleges and universities are either refusing to accept AP test scores for credit, or they are limiting credit awarded only for a score of 5 on an AP test. The reason is that they find most students awarded credit for AP courses are just generally not well-prepared.

Former Stanford School of Education Dean Deborah Stipek wrote in 2002 that AP courses were nothing more than “test preparation courses,” and they too often “contradict everything we know about engaging instruction.” The National Research Council, in a study of math and science AP courses and tests agreed, writing that “existing programs for advanced study [AP] are frequently inconsistent with the results of the research on cognition and learning.” And a four-year study at the University of California found that while AP is increasingly an “admissions criterion,” there is no evidence that the number of AP courses taken in high school has any relationship to performance in college.

In The ToolBox Revisited (2006) Clifford Adelman scolded those who had misrepresented his original ToolBox research by citing the importance of AP “in explaining bachelor’s degree completion. Adelman said, “To put it gently, this is a misreading.” Moreover, in statistically analyzing the factors contributing to the earning of a bachelor’s degree, Adelman found that Advanced Placement did not reach the “threshold level of significance.”

College Board executives often say that if high schools implement AP courses and encourage more students to take them, then (1) more students will be motivated to go to college and (2) high school graduation rates will increase. Researchers Kristin Klopfenstein and Kathleen Thomas “conclude that there is no evidence to back up these claims.”

In fact, the unintended consequences of pushing more AP may lead to just the reverse. As 2010 book on AP points out “research…suggests that many of the efforts to push the program into more schools — a push that has been financed with many millions in state and federal funds — may be paying for poorly-prepared students to fail courses they shouldn’t be taking in the first place…not only is money being misspent, but the push may be skewing the decisions of low-income high schools that make adjustments to bring the program in — while being unable to afford improvements in other programs.”

Do some students “benefit” from taking AP courses and tests? Sure. But, students who benefit the most are “students who are well-prepared to do college work and come from the socioeconomic groups that do the best in college are going to do well in college.”

So, why do students take AP? Because they’ve been told to. Because they’re “trying to look good” to colleges in the “increasingly high-stakes college admission process,” and because, increasingly, “high schools give extra weight to AP courses when calculating grade-point averages, so it can boost a student’s class rank.” It’s become a rather depraved stupid circle.

One student who got caught up in the AP hype cycle –– taking 3 AP courses as a junior and 5 as a senior –– and only got credit for one AP course in college, reflected on his AP experience. He said nothing about “rigor” or “trying to be educated” or the quality of instruction, but remarked “if i didn’t take AP classes, it’s likely I wouldn’t have gotten accepted into the college I’m attending next year…If your high school offers them, you pretty much need to take them if you want to get into a competitive school. Or else, the admissions board will be concerned that you didn’t take on a “rigorous course load.” AP is a scam to get money, but there’s no way around it. In my opinion, high schools should get rid of them…”

Jay Mathews calls AP tests “incorruptible.” But what do students actually learn from taking these “rigorous” AP tests?

For many, not much. One student remarked, after taking the World History AP test, “dear jesus… I had hoped to never see “DBQ” ever again, after AP world history… so much hate… so much hate.” And another added, “I was pretty fond of the DBQ’s, actually, because you didn’t really have to know anything about the subject, you could just make it all up after reading the documents.” Another AP student related how the “high achievers” in his school approached AP tests:

“The majority of high-achieving kids in my buddies’ and my AP classes couldn’t have given less of a crap. They showed up for most of the classes, sure, and they did their best to keep up with the grades because they didn’t want their GPAs to drop, but when it came time to take the tests, they drew pictures on the AP Calc, answered just ‘C’ on the AP World History, and would finish sections of the AP Chem in, like, 5 minutes. I had one buddy who took an hour-and-a-half bathroom break during World History. The cops were almost called. They thought he was missing.”

An AP reader (grader), one of those “experts” cited by Mathews notes this: “I read AP exams in the past. Most memorable was an exam book with $5 taped to the page inside and the essay just said ‘please, have mercy.’ But I also got an angry breakup letter, a drawing of some astronauts, all kinds of random stuff. I can’t really remember it all… I read so many essays in such compressed time periods that it all blurs together when I try to remember.”

Dartmouth no longer gives credit for AP test scores. It found that 90 percent of those who scored a 5 on the AP psychology test failed a Dartmouth Intro to Psych exam. A 2006 MIT faculty report noted “there is ‘a growing body of research’ that students who earn top AP scores and place out of institute introductory courses end up having ‘difficulty’ when taking the next course.” Mathews called this an isolated study. But two years prior, Harvard “conducted a study that found students who are allowed to skip introductory courses because they have passed a supposedly equivalent AP course do worse in subsequent courses than students who took the introductory courses at Harvard” (Seebach, 2004).

When Dartmouth announced its new AP policy, Mathews ranted and whined that “The Dartmouth College faculty, without considering any research, has voted to deny college credit for AP.” Yet it is Jay who continually ignores and diminishes research that shows that Advanced Placement is not what it is hyped up to be.

In his rant, Mathews again linked to a 2009 column of his extolling the virtues of the book “Do What Works” by Tom Luce and Lee Thompson. In “Do What Works,” Luce and Thompson accepted at face value the inaccuracies spewed in “A Nation At Risk” (the Sandia Report undermined virtually everything in it). They wrote that “accountability” systems should be based on rewards and punishments, and that such systems provide a “promising framework, and federal legislation [NCLB] promotes this approach.” Luce and Thompson called NCLB’s 100 percent proficiency requirement “bold and valuable” and “laudable” and “significant” and “clearly in sight.” Most knowledgeable people called it stupid and impossible.

Luce and Thompson wrote that “data clearly points to an effective means” to increase AP participation: “provide monetary rewards for students, teachers, and principals.”
This flies in the face of almost all contemporary research on motivation and learning.

As I’ve noted before, College Board funded research is more than simply suspect . The College Board continues to perpetrate the fraud that the SAT actually measures something important other than family income. It doesn’t. Shoe size would work just as well.

[For an enlightening read on the SAT, see: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/the-best-class-money-can-buy/4307/%5D

The College Board produced a “study” purporting to show that PSAT score predicted AP test scores. A seemingly innocuous statement, however, undermined its validity. The authors noted that “the students included in this study are of somewhat higher ability than…test-takers” in the population to which they generalized. That “somewhat higher ability” actually meant students in the sample were a full standard deviation above those 9th and 10th graders who took the PSAT. Even then, the basic conclusion of the “study” was that students who scored well on the PSAT had about a 50-50 chance of getting a “3”, the equivalent of a C- , on an AP test.

A new (2013) study from Stanford notes that “increasingly, universities seem
to be moving away from awarding credit for AP courses.” The study pointed out that “the impact of the AP program on various measures of college success was found to be negligible.” And it adds this: “definitive claims about the AP program and its impact on students and schools are difficult to substantiate.” But you wouldn’t know that by reading Jay Mathews or listening to the College Board, which derives more than half of its income from AP.

What the College Board doesn’t like to admit is that it sells “hundreds of thousands of student profiles to schools; they also offer software and consulting services that can be used to set crude wealth and test-score cutoffs, to target or eliminate students before they apply…That students are rejected on the basis of income is one of the most closely held secrets in admissions.” Clearly, College Board-produced AP courses and tests are not an “incorruptible standard.” Far from it.

The College Board routinely coughs up “research studies” to show that their test products are valid and reliable. The problem is that independent, peer-reviewed research doesn’t back them up. The SAT and PSAT are shams. Colleges often use PSAT scores as a basis for sending solicitation letters to prospective students. However, as a former admissions officer noted, “The overwhelming majority of students receiving these mailings will not be admitted in the end.” But the College Board rakes in cash from the tests, and colleges keep all that application money.

Some say – and sure does look that way – that the College Board, in essence, has turned the admissions process “into a profit-making opportunity.”

Mathews complains about colleges who no longer award AP credit. He says (wink) “Why drop credit for all AP subjects without any research?” Yet again and again he discounts all the research.

Let’s do a quick research review.

A 2002 National Research Council study of AP courses and tests was an intense two-year, 563-page detailed content analysis. The main study committee was comprised of 20 members who are not only experts in their fields but also top-notch researchers. Most also write on effective teaching and learning. Even more experts were involved on content panels for each discipline (biology, chemistry, physics, math), plus NRC staff. Mathews didn’t like the fact that the researchers concluded that AP courses and tests were a “mile wide and an inch deep” and they did not comport with well-established, research-based principles of learning. He dismissed that study as the cranky “opinion of a few college professors.”

The main finding of a 2004 Geiser and Santelices study was that “the best predictor of both first- and second-year college grades” is unweighted high school grade point average, and a high school grade point average “weighted with a full bonus point for AP…is invariably the worst predictor of college performance.” And yet – as commenters noted here – high schools add on the bonus. The state of Virginia requires it.

Klopfenstein and Thomas (2005) found that AP students “…generally no more likely than non-AP students to return to school for a second year or to have higher first semester grades.” Moreover, they write that “close inspection of the [College Board] studies cited reveals that the existing evidence regarding the benefits of AP experience is questionable,” and “AP courses are not a necessary component of a rigorous curriculum.”
In other words, there’s no need for the AP imprimatur to have thoughtful, inquiry-oriented learning.

Phillip Sadler said in 2009 that his research found “students who took and passed an A.P. science exam did about one-third of a letter grade better than their classmates with similar backgrounds who did not take an A.P. course.” Sadler also wrote in the 2010 book “AP: A Critical Examination” that “Students see AP courses on their transcripts as the ticket ensuring entry into the college of their choice,” yet, “there is a shortage of evidence about the efficacy, cost, and value of these programs.” Sadly, AP was written into No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top and it is very much a mainstay of corporate-style education “reform,” touted by the likes of ExxonMobil and the US Chamber of Commerce.

For years, Mathews misrepresented Clifford Adelman’s 1999 ToolBox. As Klopfenstein and Thomas wrote in 2005, “it is inappropriate to extrapolate about he effectiveness of the AP Program based on Adelman’s work alone.” In the 2006 ToolBox Revisited Adelman issued his own rebuke:

“With the exception of Klopfenstein and Thomas (2005), a spate of recent reports and commentaries on the Advanced Placement program claim that the original ToolBox demonstrated the unique power of AP course work in explaining bachelor’s degree completion. To put it gently, this is a misreading.”

The book, ‘AP A Critical Examination’ (2010) lays out the research that makes clear AP has become “the juggernaut of American high school education,” but “ the research evidence on its value is minimal.” It is the academic equivalent of DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). DARE cranks out “research” that shows its “effectiveness,” yet those studies fail to withstand independent scrutiny. DARE operates in more than 80 percent of U.S. school districts, and it has received hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies. However, the General Accounting Office found in 2003 that “the six long-term evaluations of the DARE elementary school curriculum that we reviewed found no significant differences in illicit drug use between students who received DARE in the fifth or sixth grade (the intervention group) and students who did not (the control group).”

AP may work well for some students, especially those who are already “college-bound to begin with” (Klopfenstein and Thomas, 2010). As Geiser (2007) notes, “systematic differences in student motivation, academic preparation, family background and high-school quality account for much of the observed difference in college outcomes between AP and non-AP students.” College Board-funded studies do not control well for these student characteristics (even the College Board concedes that “interest and motivation” are keys to “success in any course”). Klopfenstein and Thomas (2010) find that when these demographic characteristics are controlled for, the claims made for AP disappear.

I’m left wondering about this wonder school where “several hundred freshmen” take “both AP World and AP Psychology” and where by graduation, students routinely “knock out the first 30 ore more college credits.”

Where is this school, and what is its name? Jay Mathews will surely be interested.”

I often hear AP lauded because it enables students to get through college in only three years, thus saving a year of tuition. What if college were free? Would there be such a rush to get it over with? What’s the purpose of college? Why four years? Why not three or two or one or none? A few years ago, a very rich guy offered 10 students $100,000 not to go to college. I haven’t heard how that turned out. Did they create businesses? Did they drop out of his program and go to college? Are they homeless?

I am biased or uninformed or both. When I went to high school, there were no AP classes. My children never took an AP class. I have no experience with them.

Roy Turrentine asks some questions here about the purpose of AP courses.

“I have the same problem with AP that I have with Dual Credit classes. It is not a question of whether the class is exciting or rigorous. It is not a question of whether the students are ready or not. It is a question of what society wants out of education. So I will pose it.

“Why do we want to take our smartest kids and teach them half as much? True, it will be cheaper for kids to go to college. Why not just fund college? We need our smartest kids to get Western Civilization twice. They need to study American History under a good committed instructor in high school, then under an erudite, professorial relationship in college. We need all students to know the things we need to make them citizens. The smartest ones will hopefully be our community leaders and realize the importance of their education.”

In my own experience, AP helped me out. While my friends were sitting through a college English class that mostly dealt with grammatical errors and writing basic essays, I was reading some good books in sophomore English. But my best experience was when I studied American History and Western Civilization again, it introduced me to the two professors who would be like fathers to me. We cannot predict where our experience will lead.

James Wilson believes that it is harmful to youth to expect all to meet the same rigorous academic standards. Some will excel in career and technical education or other fields.

He writes:

“The imposition of the University of California A-G entrance requirements on all high school students is inappropriate and extremely harmful. The UC system was constructed to be a system of elite universities for the top ten percent highest achieving California high school students. When you add out of state and international students, the proportion of California youth in UC schools is even smaller. The idea of the UC A-G entrance requirements is to prepare elite high school students for the rigorous coursework in the UC schools. These very difficult courses were never meant for all high school students. The requiring of these courses for all high school students is a perversion of the intention of the UC universities.

“Someone got the idea that if you require all high school students to take these extremely difficult courses, all students will raise their intelligence, effort, and overcome all backgrounds to be able to master these courses and enter a UC university. This is so patently absurd that it is hard to believe anyone would take the idea seriously…

“Requiring A-G high school courses flies in the face of science and logic. However, this is much worse than an unjustified policy. This policy puts the seventy percent of students who will never graduate from any college in a terrible situation. They are forced into taking difficult courses in Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Chemistry, and Biology. These courses have little use in society beyond college preparation. The seventy percent who will never go on to graduate from any college are forced to attempt to master these classes, but they cannot. The high schools do everything they can to make this impossible situation work. They water down the curriculum in these courses with no discernable standards and count a “D” grade as passing, but this is just window dressing.”

I have written a lot lately about the bad judgment of PBS in running a one-sided, partisan three-hour series attacking public education and advocating for running schools like businesses.

I am happy to share with you a wonderful documentary about a higher education program that awards degrees to prisoners at the notorious Sing Sing prison in Ossining, New York.

The title is FIRST DEGREE. it enables hardened criminals to study in a genuine college program and earn a bachelor’s degree from Mercy College in New York. The prisoners describe how education has changed their lives. I was especially moved listening to a former drug dealer who was amazed to reflect on how he had wasted his life and only in prison did he learn to read Shakespeare and listen to classical music.

The graduation ceremony was beautiful. The graduates wore caps and gowns. They marched him to the sounds of Elgart’s “Pomp and Circumstance.” Their Commencement speaker was Harry Belafonte. Their families were there, thrilled to watch them receive their diplomas. When the graduates leave prison, they are given a clean shirt and suit, and directed to nonprofit organizations willing to hire ex-convicts.

The documentary says that there used to be 350 such programs in prison until 1994, when Congress defunded them. Now there are only 12 in the entire country.

It is programs like FIRST DEGREE that remind us why public television matters, and why we are justly outraged when management sells three hours of airtime to rightwing propagandists who want to destroy public education.

Here is a description of the documentary:

“The expression, “sent up the river,” was coined by convicts who were sent up the Hudson River to do their time at the infamous Sing Sing Prison in Ossining, NY. FIRST DEGREE finds hope in this seemingly hopeless place by investigating an unusual college behind bars that is successfully preventing Sing Sing inmates from being sent back up the river after their release. Nationwide, over half of released inmates return to prison within 5 years, but for the past 14 years, less than 1% of the inmates that received a college degree at Sing Sing returned to prison.

“FIRST DEGREE takes viewers inside this notorious maximum security prison and introduces them to some unforgettable inmates. We first meet Sean Pica, who was 16 years old when he went to prison in 1986. Sean’s high school friend, Cheryl Pierson, told Sean that her father was sexually molesting her, so Sean helped plan and carry out his murder. After receiving a 24-year sentence, Sean thought his life was over until a prison education program called Hudson Link gave Sean an opportunity to earn a Bachelor’s Degree. After serving 16 years, Sean was released, but he couldn’t stay away from Sing Sing. Unlike most of the paroled prisoners that Sean met at Sing Sing who reoffended and quickly returned to prison, Sean came back to Sing Sing to run their college program. He takes us through his early days in prison as a hopeless 120-pound, 16-year-old inmate to his discovery that college could open up an entirely new world of opportunity and possibility.

“Next, we meet Jermaine Archer, a former drug dealer who was sentenced to 22 years to life for murder. Jermaine talks about how his prison reputation changed from being a feared gang leader from the streets of Flatbush, Brooklyn to being a role model for students attending college at Sing Sing. We attend Jermaine’s college graduation ceremony and watch as he, for the first time in his life, brings tears of joy to his mother’s eyes.

“Lastly, we meet Clarence Maclin, who received his college degree along with Jermaine. Shortly after graduation, we catch up with Clarence, who is on parole and participating in Hudson Link’s re-entry program. We watch as the staff and volunteers at Hudson Link help Clarence acquire work-appropriate clothing, write a resume, search for jobs, and train for interviews. Ultimately, Clarence is hired by a nearby residential treatment program to work as a counselor with juvenile offenders. He relishes the opportunity help the young people he mentors avoid some of the costly mistakes he made as a teenager.

“Although FIRST DEGREE is primarily an intimate portrait of three Sing Sing inmates who discover the transformative power of higher education, their stories are emblematic of larger challenges facing our society. Since launching the war on drugs in the 1970s there has been a 700% increase in the prison population. The land of the free is now the world’s biggest jailer with almost 7 million Americans in prison, in jail, on probation, or on parole. Although America has 5% of the world’s population, it has 25% of the world’s prisoners. We are shelling out 75 billion dollars a year for mass incarceration and devastating entire communities and families in the process. The three men we profile in FIRST DEGREE make if perfectly clear that higher education in prison can save lives as well as money. Nationwide, every dollar we spend on prison education programs saves five dollars on re-incarceration costs. But, Congress withdrew prison education funding in 1994, and the number of prison college programs dropped from 350 to about a dozen.

“FIRST DEGREE is produced and directed by Roger Weisberg, whose 31 previous documentaries have won over a hundred and fifty awards including Emmy, duPont-Columbia, and Peabody awards, as well as two Academy Award nominations. FIRST DEGREE builds on Weisberg’s extensive body of work and represents the culmination of almost four decades of documenting the struggles, aspirations, and achievements of disadvantaged Americans.”

Betsy DeVos plans to withdraw federal regulations adopted during the Obama administration to protect college students from predatory for-profit colleges.

“The Trump administration moved today to roll back two regulations designed to protect students against predatory for-profit colleges.

“In federal filings, the Education Department said it would renegotiate the federal “gainful employment” rule, which stops government money from flowing to for-profit colleges whose students take on too much debt, but earn little after they graduate. Years in the making — it went into effect in 2015 after surviving two lengthy court battles with the for-profit college industry — the regulation is arguably the most significant piece of President Obama’s higher education legacy.

“The department also said it would also delay the implementation of a second rule, widely known as “borrower defense to repayment,” which would allow students who said they had been defrauded by their schools to more easily have their federal loans forgiven. Those regulations — which were set to go into effect on July 1 — also included provisions to prevent colleges from forcing their students to sign away their right to sue.

“In a statement, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos called the borrower defense rules “a muddled process that’s unfair to students and schools.”

“It’s time for a regulatory reset. It is the Department’s aim, and this Administration’s commitment, to protect students from predatory practices while also providing clear, fair and balanced rules for colleges and universities to follow,” she said.

“The move was quickly decried by Democrats and student advocates who fought for the regulations’ passage — frequently sparring with the Obama administration over whether they went far enough in penalizing for-profits.

“Today, Secretary DeVos chose for-profit colleges over students and taxpayers,” Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said in a statement. “Her actions to eliminate important protections in higher education will harm students and waste millions in taxpayer dollars.”

Is it time to restart Trump University?

In 2006, reporter Daniel Golden wrote a book called “The Price of Admission” about how uber-rich families buy places for their children at elite colleges.

In this article published in ProPublica, Goldren says that the Kushner story was included in his book. He never dreamed that the Jared Kushner story would one day be a big deal.

He writes:

“My book exposed a grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their under-achieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5 million to Harvard University in 1998, not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school. At the time, Harvard accepted about one of every nine applicants. (Nowadays, it only takes one out of twenty.)

“I also quoted administrators at Jared’s high school, who described him as a less than stellar student and expressed dismay at Harvard’s decision.

“There was no way anybody in the administrative office of the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard,” a former official at The Frisch School in Paramus, New Jersey, told me. “His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it. We thought for sure, there was no way this was going to happen. Then, lo and behold, Jared was accepted. It was a little bit disappointing because there were at the time other kids we thought should really get in on the merits, and they did not.”

Senator Elizabeth Warrren has created an online program called “DeVos Watch” to hold Betsy DeVos accountable for her oversight of student debt. The online platform will be hosted on Senator Warren’s website.

She wrote this opinion article for CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/opinions/devos-watch-opinion-warren

The Trump administration is pondering whether to turn over responsibility for student debt collection to the Treasury Department. This has been debated for years. During the Clinton administration, Secretary Richard Riley turned the idea down,saying that “the move would be prohibitively expensive and that “since most borrowers default on their student loans because they are unable to make the payments, the IRS would be no more able to collect these payments than the Department of Education.” Mr. Riley added that perhaps large employers could make wage-withholding arrangements to streamline the process.”

Chester Finn, however, saw a benefit to making the Treasury the collection agency. He said,

Chester Finn, an assistant secretary of education during the Reagan administration, told a congressional committee that was considering the proposal that allowing the IRS to collect loans might encourage borrowers to repay them. “Perhaps the prospect of a stay in Leavenworth would finally reduce the multibillion-dollar loan-default problem,” he said.”

http://www.chronicle.com/article/What-if-the-Treasury-Dept/240218

Warren’s decision to create “DeVos Watch” was applauded by Ashley Harrington of the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL). She said,

“We applaud Senator Warren’s leadership for holding Secretary DeVos and the Department of Education accountable to students and parents. This new resource will be valued not only by education leaders and advocates, but additionally by the 44 million student loan borrowers who collectively share $1.4 trillion in debt.

“It is a matter of public record that higher education accountability at the federal level has suffered a series of setbacks since Secretary DeVos was confirmed earlier this year.

“From her senior-level appointees with close ties to the for-profit college industry, to the departmental regulatory reversals that favor for-profit colleges and loan servicers to the detriment of student borrowers, a growing concern has developed among consumer and civil rights advocates. We continue to call into question the quality, accessibility, and affordability of for-profit college institutions.

“Further, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the recently-released 2018 White House budget proposal would result in $26.8 billion in cuts that students and families will have to pay for over the next decade. Additionally, nine programs now operating within the Department would be eliminated at a cost of nearly $5 billion to students.

“No elected or appointed official should ever depart from or diminish the primary role of government: service to the American people. Instead, Secretary DeVos’ actions create a pattern of preference to private interests. Shedding further light on these practices is essential to protecting students and taxpayers.”