Archives for category: Higher Education

Joel Shatzky is Professor Emeritus at SUNY-Cortland, where he taught from 1968-2005. He presently teaches at Kingsborough Community College. He sent this post:

On a recent trip to visit family and friends in Turkey and Israel I asked, a propos of the Olympics, what importance is given to sports in their respective national universities. After all, many Olympic athletes train at universities in the United States where the excellent coaching and focus is to develop world-class athletes. For instance, Ashton Eaton, the gold medal winner in the decathlon, represented the University of Oregon in collegiate sports and was a world-class athlete when he became a member of the Oregon Athletic Club Elite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Eaton  Many other American athletes begin their careers in college varsity sports. To my question concerning university sports in their respective countries, however, my Turkish friends and Israeli relatives affirmed what I had long thought: varsity sports is not a significant part of the campus culture in these countries. In fact, the United States is almost unique in the world in the emphasis and attention placed upon our collegiate teams, especially in  football and basketball.

            The recent scandal at Penn State and its aftermath brought out some much-needed soul-searching concerning the significance of collegiate sports in identifying a university in the public realm. In an article I wrote in the Examiner several years ago, based on a critical report by the Knight Foundation, it was pointed out that:, “75% of these [Division 1] college athletic programs, instead of making money for their schools, are losing an average of $10,000,000 a year, forcing  cut backs on faculty positions and other expenses for what is supposed to be the primary mission of higher education: learning, not entertainment for alumni boosters.” http://www.examiner.com/article/inside-our-schools-collegiate-sports-wag-the-dog  There is no reason to suppose that the situation has improved markedly since then.

                  If the significance of colleges and universities in our cultural values is to provide entertainment for mass audience on Saturday afternoons or during “March Madness” then we are going to end up, to alter the title of a Neil Postman book, “Entertaining Ourselves into Insignificance.” I wonder when, given all of the problems this country is facing, we behave like mature adults rather than the perpetual adolescents in which big time collegiate sports would like to keep us indefinitely?

            Of course, athletics can be an important part of many students’ educational experience but they need to be balanced by the more daunting objective of properly educating the next generation that will require high-level thinking, establishing clear priorities that require hard work and persistence which govern the behavior of students from other countries. Of course, our educational system has been successful for our top students, but we need  to encourage a culture that nurtures those many students who are not at the top.

            We must face the fact that unless we alter the emphasis of our priorities from forms of escapism to solid learning, we will become in the future the thing we should fear: a country that longs for a return to its past. 

A group of 30 organizations associated with corporate reform wrote a letter to Secretary Arne Duncan to insist that he hold teacher education programs accountable for the test scores of the students taught by their graduates.

Groups like Teach for America, StudentsFirst, Democrats for Education Reform (the Wall Street hedge fund managers), The New Teacher Project, various charter chains, Jeb Bush’s rightwing Chiefs for Change and his Foundation for Educational Excellence, and various and sundry groups that love teaching to the test stand together as one.

Their views are in direct opposition to those of the leaders of higher education, who oppose this extension of federal control into their institutions.

Read Gary Rubinstein’s blog about it here, where you will see the full cast of corporate reform characters, many of them funded by the Gates Foundation.

They are certain that what minority students need most is more testing. They want the test scores of the students to determine the career and livelihood of their teachers. And they want the federal government to punish the schools of education that prepared the teachers of these children.

If Duncan takes their advice, he will assume the power to penalize schools of education if the students of their graduates can’t raise their test scores every year.

The vise of standardized testing will tighten around public education.

These people and these organizations are wrong. They are driving American education in a destructive direction. They will reduce children to data points, as the organizations thrive. Wasn’t a decade of NCLB enough for them?

They are on the wrong side of history. They may be flying high now, but their ideas hurt children and ruin the quality of education.

My friends at The Chalkface have thrown themselves into the fight to support public education, with a radio show, videos, and blogs.

Now they let you know–in language you won’ t hear from me–about the latest reformer attack on teacher education. The reformers want Arne Duncan to ignore the objections of major institutions of higher education. They want him to adopt regulations that would judge teacher education programs by the test scores of the students of their graduates.

Got that. The test scores of the students taught by the graduates of these institutions.

This is guaranteed to make teaching to the test the official doctrine of American education, top to bottom. It means imposing NCLB on higher education.

It is absurd. It is reckless. It is ___________. (Fill in the blank.)

Diana Senechal says that Emory is not likely the only university that fudged the data to raise its rankings in U.S. News & World Report.

I imagine Emory isn’t the only one that fabricated its data. There’s a lot of subtle fudging going on all over the place–and with subtle fudging comes not-so-subtle fudging.

What about all the colleges that boost their application rates so that they can appear more selective? That, too, is a way of fudging the numbers–and it’s widespread. A New York Times article from 2010 describes this phenomenon in detail:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/education/edlife/07HOOVER-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I wrote a satirical piece this week on the subject of data-fudging in higher education. When I wrote it, I wasn’t aware of the Emory story, but I might as well have been.

http://www.cronknews.com/2012/08/29/universitys-fake-following-sets-world-record/

Most educators understand the negative effects of high-stakes testing.

They know that the dangers associated with putting pressure on teachers and principals to get ever higher scores year after year or face terrible sanctions, including loss of their job, their reputation, and their school.

They know that it leads to cheating, gaming the system, narrowing of the curriculum, and teaching to the test.

Now we see that something similar is happening to higher education. But it is happening because of the U.S. News & World Report‘s annual rankings.

Emory cheated. It submitted phony data.

Emory is a great university. Why would officials do that?

The stakes are so high that they have to get those ratings.

K-12 educators understand their pain.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution covered the scandal:

Critics say the lists can’t be trusted, especially because they rely on data supplied by the schools and go through little fact-checking. They challenge the notion that a mathematical formula can sum up a college — its campus culture, the accessibility of its teachers, its academic quality. Making a decision based on rankings also can lead a student to the wrong school, a potentially expensive lesson.

Can a mathematical formula sum up a school or a teacher? Can a letter grade give an accurate portrait of a school?

Wouldn’t it be great if all the institutions of higher education refused to submit data to the magazine? It’s all about boosting sales. Why do the universities cooperate with U.S. News?

This is a shocking article. It describes the new world of academia, where adjuncts may be paid $10,000 a year to teach five courses. They get no benefits.

It was written by a woman who just received her Ph.D. in anthropology and is wondering if she will get a job and wondering how an academic can survive. After all, $10,000 a year is well below the poverty line.

Most people who teach in higher education are adjuncts. They are sometimes called “contingent faculty.”

The AAUP say that contingent faculty are 68% of all faculty in higher education.

The AAUP say that the huge increase in contingent faculty did not occur because of budget cuts, but occurred during flush times, when universities decided to spend on facilities and technology instead of instruction and faculty development.

Think of it.

Students pay tuition that may be $30,000-$50,000 or more  a year, while their professors are earning a pittance.

How is this sustainable over time?

We need fresh thinking about making college affordable; otherwise how can we expect greater numbers of young people to enroll?

And we need fresh thinking about the use and abuse of adjunct faculty. Once upon a time, young men and women planned careers as college professors. That is increasingly rare, and will eventually erode the quality of higher education.

Before you read this comment by a reader, let me say what I believe: Everyone should pursue as much education as they want and as they need. I believe that education is a human right and should be free through higher education, an investment by society in its future. Not everyone wants to go to college or feels the need to go to college; they may change their mind at a later date, and if they do, that’s okay. There is no reason that everyone should be expected to follow the same path to a degree. The average age of college students is somewhere in the mid-20s, reflecting the fact that many people start or drop back in when they want to do so. And that is as it should be. Higher education should be a matter of personal choice and readiness, not an obligation that one fulfills grudgingly to get a piece of paper.

This reader sees many paths to a successful life through the experiences of her family members:

I teach in a low income (nearly 80% free/reduced lunch) public high school and we have been told to ensure every student is college ready and focused on attending post-secondary education.  While I don’t completely disagree with ensuring students have the skills and knowledge to make any post-secondary choice, I don’t think pushing all students to focus on college as the only real option is positive.

I use my own family as an example.  My dad finished an AA and then completed his plumbing apprenticeship.  He has been a successful plumber for over 40 years.  My mom completed her BA in Accounting when I was a child and worked when we needed the extra money.  She recently completed her MS in Accounting (at age 61) and has worked in accounting and payroll positions for the last 20 years.

There are 4 kids in our family – 2 girls and 2 boys.  I went from high school to university completing my BA in English and later my teaching certification, M.Ed in International Education, and am currently working on my Ph.D.  My younger sister got her AS moved on to university and got her BS and her teaching certification, taught for a while and went back and earned her M.Ed.  My brothers, raised in the same household, took different paths.  One went from high school to the Marines, served 3 tours in Iraq, and after 4 years in the military got out and has earned his AS and is now slowly working on his BS.  The other tried community college and hated it.  He then got into the pipe fitters union and began his apprenticeship.  He’s currently working and considering a degree in construction management so that if he gets injured or simply too old to do the heavy pipe fitting work he has another option.

Now for the best part of the tale.  We’re all four happily married.  We all own homes.  We all have enough money to have the things we need and some of the things we want.  None of us is rich.  We all took different roads to success and did need post-secondary training to be successful, but we didn’t all need college.

This story shows my students they have options and that whichever option they take they will be supported and can be successful.  The total focus on college bound and college ready makes those who don’t have access to federal loans feel defeated.  It makes those who just can’t imagine a few more years behind a school desk feel unsuccessful.  Let’s show our students that they have options and how to access those options rather that focus on only one option.

Many young college graduates in the U.S. are either unemployed or underemployed, working at jobs that don’t call upon the skills or knowledge they acquired while getting a bachelor’s degree. And many are burdened with student loans they can’t repay.

President Obama has set a goal to raise our college graduation rates to become first in the world by 2020, but there are some hard economic realities. Technological change and outsourcing are shipping many jobs overseas to low-wage countries or eliminating them altogether.

Higher education once was seen as a way to polish a person’s social and cultural skills and capital, a necessity for the leisured class. But now it is pitched as a necessity to get a high-paying job and enter a professional or technical career.

What happens when those promises are unfulfilled? Will young people still be willing to pile on the student debt?

 

A reader sent this article from the Wall Street Journal. It made me wonder how many college graduates in the U.S. are unemployed or underemployed. I have met recent college graduates who work in fast-food restaurants or who are waiting on tables or in other jobs that don’t require a college degree. How unusual is that? Anyone have anything other than anecdotes about friends and family?

  • Updated August 22, 2012, 10:59 a.m. ET

China’s Graduates Face Glut

Mismatch Between Their Skills, Job Market’s Needs Results in Underemploymen 

Xinhua/Zuma Press
More than 10,000 college graduates attended an Aug. 2 job fair in Haikou in south China’s Hainan province, where 8,000 vacancies were listed.

BEIJING—China’s labor market has so far proved resilient despite a slowing economy, but that means little to recent college graduate Wu Xiuyan.

“My classmates and I want to find jobs in banks or foreign-trade companies, but the reality is that we can’t find positions that match our education,” said Ms. Wu, 24 years old, who graduated in June from Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics. She has spent the time since then living at home and trawling recruitment websites.

“I just want a stable, maybe administrative, job,” she said, “but why is it so hard?”

Entry-level salaries for the majority of China’s college graduates are lower than those of migrant workers in factories. The WSJ’s Carlos Tejada says there is a gap between available jobs and the skills of new graduates.

China has shown little evidence of rising unemployment despite the slowest growth rate since the global financial crisis—and is nowhere near the jobless rates seen in some of the countries hardest hit by the euro-zone debt crisis. But slowing growth underscores a fundamental challenge to China’s economic development: the underemployment of huge numbers of graduates that Chinese colleges are churning out.

Experts say that many of the graduates lack skills such as critical thinking, foreign languages and basic office communications that businesses are looking for. Even small private enterprises that offer humble salaries find many graduates unsatisfactory. “Those small sales companies that desperately need people also reject us graduates,” said Ms. Wu. “They say we don’t have social resources or work experience that they need.”

At the same time, China has made only limited gains in remaking its economy so it relies more on services and innovation and less on construction and assembly-line manufacturing. That limits the markets for the lawyers, engineers and accountants that Chinese universities are producing.

As a result, many graduates find they can get only low-skill jobs that pay far less than they imagined they would make and see a future of limited prospects. A survey of more than 6,000 new graduates conducted last year by Tsinghua University in Beijing said that entry-level salaries of 69% of college graduates are lower than those of the migrant workers who come from the countryside to man Chinese factories, a figure that government statistics currently put at about 2,200 yuan ($345) a month. Graduates from lower-level universities make an average of only 1,903 yuan a month, it said.

Li Junjie graduated in June from Communication University of China, majoring in broadcast journalism. “It is getting even harder for us to get a job than the previous graduates of my major because fewer positions are left for me and my classmates,” said the 23-year-old native of southern Guangdong province, who is staying with friends in Beijing as he looks for work.

“Media outlets here look for professionals or native English speakers, not fresh Chinese graduates with only a diploma.”

While worker dissatisfaction hasn’t manifested itself politically, such as in public protests, it is bound to be a worry for China’s top leaders who regularly stress the need to avoid social instability, particularly ahead of this fall’s leadership change. Economically, China’s productivity gains could slow if it can’t better match the demand of its current job market and the skills of its graduates.

China’s universities have churned out more than 39 million graduates with undergraduate or specialized degrees over the past decade, according to the Ministry of Education. People with some college education now account for about 8.9% of China’s population, according to 2010 government data. While that’s a much smaller proportion than the 36.7% of the adult population in the U.S, it’s a sharp rise from China’s 3.6% in 2000.

[image]

The employment rate of China’s college graduates last year was 90%, according to a survey by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and MyCOS Research Institute, a Beijing-based education consulting firm. But only 47% of the 256,000 Chinese graduates surveyed said they feel satisfied in their current job.

“To solve the underemployment problem, you need to adjust the economy for the workforce that China has now,” said Chetan Ahya, an economist and managing director at Morgan Stanley. “A comprehensive approach is needed to create jobs with high value.”

“High-end jobs that should have been produced by industrialization, including research, marketing and accounting etc., have been left in the West,” said Chen Yuyu, associate professor at Peking University’s Guanghua School of Management. Referencing the trade name of Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., 2317.TW +0.23% the Taiwan-based company that makes gadgets for Apple Inc. AAPL +0.85% and others in Chinese factories, he said, “We only have assembly lines in Foxconns.”

Solving the problem is complex, involving a gradual overhaul of China’s education system as well as efforts to add more service-sector jobs. China’s Ministry of Education in 2010 unveiled new guidelines pressing universities to shift away from their traditional focus on increasing enrollment. It is also experimenting with giving faculty greater say over curriculum and school operations, though universities remain tightly controlled by the Communist Party.

A large population of college-educated workers with ambitions for better jobs could have long-term advantages, economists say. Educated labor could make China more appealing to both foreign and domestic companies hoping to add service-oriented jobs in China. The group so far also seems less likely to stir unrest than migrant workers, who in recent years have staged protests in some areas over low pay and other issues.

“The underemployment is more a short-term problem,” says Albert Park, professor of Economics at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. “The demand will be there for China’s graduates.”

—Lilian LinA version of this article appeared August 22, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: China’s Graduates Face Glut.

Last year, for reasons not altogether clear to me, the British government issued a white paper saying that non-teaching institutions would soon have the power to award degrees. Now, as was anticipated, the Pearson corporation says that it plans to award degrees to complete its role as the ultimate education organization of our era. Of course, Pearson could just buy a struggling college or university and change its name, but it doesn’t plan to do that. It has already opened “Pearson College.”

This is all very puzzling. Businesses awarding degrees in business, technology, or maybe even in liberal arts, perhaps online. 

I am not enough of a visionary to understand why it is a good idea for a university education to be redefined to mean that you can pick up a degree over the counter or online without ever meeting a scholar. And I am no fan of for-profit universities in principle.

Is it about handing out degrees? Is it about dumbing down higher education? Is it a business plan to make money?

Or is it something else?