Can you believe it? In 2015, we are still seeing racism on college campuses. One would assume that students who attend college come from the more educated middle or upper classes and; therefore, are more open to people of other races.
That certainly is not the case at the University of Oklahoma, where a racist video surfaced last week. Members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity can be seen singing a song to the tune of “If You’re Happy and You Know It”, vowing never to have black students in their fraternity, using racial slurs like the “N” word, and talk about lynching them from a tree (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 11, 2015). This is absolutely despicable.
University of Oklahoma David Boren responded quickly by suspending the fraternity and expelled two students who lead the song once they were identified in the video. He called the students “disgraceful” and said he hoped the students would leave town, offering to buy them a one way ticket out of town. It should be noted that the national office of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity also suspended the chapter at Oklahoma. I applaud President Boren for his fast and decisive action. In my opinion, he did the right thing.
However, President Boren’s decisions are now being called into question. Did he act too quickly without having all of the facts? Is the fraternity students’ song considered free speech? Did he deny the students who were expelled their due process rights? Legal experts are now suggesting that Boren went too far and will open the university to legal challenges.
What is typical in situations like this, once the attorneys have been consulted, is for the president to issue a very carefully worded and legalistic statement about the inappropriateness of the incident in question, state that an investigation will ensue, how students involved will be given their due process rights, and if the evidence suggests campus rules have been violated, the appropriate actions will be taken based on the student code of conduct and the student handbook, the rules and regulations for students.
Too often, our decisions as university presidents are greatly influenced by university attorneys because we don’t want to subject the university to more lawsuits. Case in point is the recent incident at the Pennsylvania State University where members of the Kappa Delta Rho fraternity posted pictures of nude and unconscious female students on a secret Facebook where only members of the fraternity had access. The Facebook page also included pictures of drug sales and hazing. In response, Penn State University President Eric Barron stated that “an investigation was underway, the university has its own judicial process for student conduct which will be followed, we want to make sure we do this right, we are committed to due process, that the right people are brought to justice, and anybody who is responsible for that type of truly offensive behavior is punished” (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/penn-state-vows-punish-those-behind-kappa-delta-rho-page-n326031). It’s clearly, a very measured response that was most likely influenced by legal counsel.
It should be noted that the female students in the pictures did not consent to having their pictures taken much less posted on a Facebook page. Officials at both Penn State and the fraternity headquarters have suspended the Kappa Delta Rho chapter.
Are Oklahoma and Penn State isolated incidences? Clearly not. The national office of Sigma Alpha Epsilon is investigating two of its other chapters for alleged displays of racism, at Louisiana Tech University and the University of Texas at Austin. The University of Washington is also investigating claims that members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity shouted racist comments at black students participating in a march protesting violence against blacks last month as they passed the fraternity’s house. The University of Maryland at College Park is investigating a racist and sexist email allegedly sent in January of 2014 by a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity. However, it recently came to light when it was published online (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 13, 2015).
Colleges and universities across the nation should use these situations as a way to discuss racism in our country. Faculty on campuses across America should use what happened at the University of Oklahoma or other universities to teach students to explore their beliefs and be more tolerant of other races different from their own. These are typically called “teach-ins” and can be very useful to examine subjects that can be very controversial. After all, isn’t that what universities are all about? Educating and providing young men and women with information that can help them be more enlightened and become more informed members of our society, should be the mission of all universities.
Racism on college campuses will not end after the University of Oklahoma or Pennsylvania State University incidents. However, we must send the clear message that racism will not be tolerated on our college campuses. We must continue to issue appropriate punishment for these despicable acts. This won’t eliminate racism in American, but it will certainly send the message that racism has no place in higher education.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Monday, March 9, 2015
Increasing Graduation Rates at Community Colleges
Last week, MDRC released a report on the evaluation of the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs or ASAP as it is known. The program nearly doubled the three-year graduation rates of community college students who started in remedial classes. This is impressive given that graduation rates of community college students are extremely low. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, only 20% of the students who enter public community colleges complete a certificate or associate degree in three years (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cva.asp).
ASAP is a comprehensive, long-term program designed to increase the success and ultimately the graduation rates of community college students. The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), was created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies. It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization dedicated to learning what works to improve programs and policies that affect the poor (http://www.mdrc.org/about/about-mdrc-history).
ASAP was created by the City University of New York (CUNY) system office and implemented in 2007 with funding from the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity at Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, and LaGuardia Community College. In 2009 CUNY system leaders approached MDRC about evaluating the program and they accepted.
The program has four major components that provide structure and support for up to three years and is designed to address multiple potential barriers to student success in community colleges. First, the program requires students to attend college full-time, are encouraged to take developmental courses early, and to graduate within three years. This is important because it sets high standards by issuing requirements, and it sends the right message about getting done on time if not earlier. Second, it has a student services component, which requires students to receive comprehensive advisement from an ASAP-dedicated adviser with a small caseload. Students also receive career information from an ASAP-dedicated career and employment services staff member, and extensive tutoring from ASAP-dedicated staff. The third component requires students to enroll in blocked or linked courses in their first year. The blocked courses consist of two or more courses grouped together with seats reserved for ASAP students. Students are also required to enroll in an ASAP seminar during their first few semesters covering topics such as setting goals and study skills. The fourth has a financial support component where students receive a tuition waiver that covers any gaps between financial aid and college tuition and fees. Students also receive free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent on participation in key program services, and free use of textbooks.
According to the report, the ASAP program costs $16,300 per student, which is 63% more than what CUNY spent per student on usual college services. The report goes on to assert that the cost was actually lower because ASAP generated so many more graduates over the three-year follow-up period than did the usual college services.
In the study, MDRC used a random assignment research design to evaluate the impact of ASAP intervention strategies on students’ academic outcomes over a three-year study period compared to students who received the usual services and courses at the colleges. The study targeted students who met the following eligibility criteria at the point of random assignment: had family income below 200% of the federal poverty level or were eligible for a Pell Grant (or both); needed one or two developmental courses to build math, reading, or writing skills; had previously earned 12 credits or fewer; were New York City residents; were willing to attend college full time; and were in an ASAP eligible major (http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_es.pdf). Eligible students who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to either the program group (typically called the experimental group), students who had the opportunity to receive the intervention strategies or services offered by ASAP, or to the control group, students who received the usual college services with no intervention strategies or special services.
The sample consisted of 896 students who completed a Baseline Information Form (BIF) to determine if they met the eligibility criteria listed above. Roughly two-thirds of the students in the research sample were women and most were relatively young. Seventy-seven percent (77%) were 22 years of age or younger when they entered the study. The study sample was racially diverse and reflected the collective student body at the three community colleges, which no racial majority. The majority of students sampled lived with their parents, were unmarried, and did not have children.
The results of the study suggest that 40% of students in the ASAP program graduated in three years compared to 22% in the control group or those students receiving no intervention strategies. Additionally, ASAP students completed an average of 48 credit hours compared to 39 credit hours by the control group. Finally, 25% of the ASAP students enrolled in a four-year university compared to 17% in the control group.
A detailed, in depth analysis of the services offered by ASAP provides revealing information that could explain why students in the program were found to be more successful. ASAP students were required to enroll full-time, take remedial courses early, and strongly encouraged to graduate in three years. ASAP students were advised by an academic advisor with a student-advisor load of 60:1 or 80:1, 95% of these students met on average 38 times with their advisors in the first year. Compared to non-ASAP students who had advisors with a student-advisor load of 600:1 and 1500:1, 80% of those students met on average six times. With regard to tutoring, 74% of ASAP students received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of 24 times during first year. Compared to non-ASAP, 39% of those students who received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of seven times in the same period. Eighty percent (80%) of ASAP students met on average of nine times with career and employment services staff during the first year compared to 29% of non-ASAP students who met on average two times with career and employment services staff during first year
While blocked or linked courses were offered to ASAP students, few took a complete block of courses; however, most of these students took an ASAP seminar course for three semesters compared to non-ASAP students whose block course enrollment was not tracked and some of these students took a freshman seminar or student success course in their first year. Finally, 3% to 11% of the ASAP students received tuition waivers, all ASAP students received free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent upon participating in ASAP and all ASAP student received free use of textbooks. None of these services were provided to non-ASAP students.
Two-tailed t-tests were conducted on the percent of ASAP students enrolled each semester over the three-year period compared to non-ASAP student enrollments and the differences were statistically significant in the first two years, but not in the third year. This is essentially a statistical test to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group (ASAP students) versus the control group (non-ASAP students) T-tests were also conducted on the differences between the percent of students who graduated in the ASAP group versus the non-ASAP group, credit hours earned between the two groups, and the percent of student who went on to a four-year college after three years in the community college and each was highly statistically significant. However, recall that two-thirds of the students in the sample were women, which could account for a higher success rates. Numerous research studies, including my own research, have demonstrated that women tend to do better in college than men. Also, additional higher order statistical analyses such as predictive statistics, like regression analysis, were not employed. It would have been informative to understand, via regression analysis, if there is a casual relationship between the intervention strategies and student outcomes. In other words, did the ASAP services cause students to be more successful in the community colleges? However, it should be pointed out that social science research is not perfect.
It makes sense that with this much attention paid and the large number of support services offered to ASAP students, it is only logical that these students would do better and thus succeed at higher rates compared to typical community college students. My own experiences in developing student recruitment and retention programs, provides further evidence that programs which offer these many services and pay this much attention to students do, in fact, increase student success. Early in my career, I developed a student support program with many of the same intervention strategies offered in the ASAP program and other strategies such as shadow courses. I didn’t include blocked courses initially; although, in later programs I developed and did experiment with blocked courses. I offered scholarships from money I had raised and used it with other forms of financial aid to provide a free college education to the participants. However, participants had to participate in all of the services offered by the program in order to receive the scholarship. Students were monitored weekly and scholarship money was distributed monthly, based on participation in the program. Student success in the program increased dramatically.
These results are also consistent with the prevailing theory on college student retention. In 1975, Dr. Vincent Tinto posited the landmark theory of student integration, commonly known as the student integration model. Dr. Tinto’s theory of student integration was the basis for thousands of studies and became the most widely studied and empirically tested theory in higher education. While these studies attacked and supported the student integration model, over time Dr. Tinto revised his theory several times. Essentially, Dr. Tinto theorized that if college students integrate academically and socially they will tend to stay in college, be successful and graduate. Conversely, if students don’t “connect” academically and socially with the college or university they tend to drop out.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (February 26, 2015), ASAP has gained nationwide attention. Donna Linderman, who oversees the ASAP program at CUNY, said her office had been "bombarded with requests for information from all over the country." The good news is that CUNY and MDRC are working to replicate the program in other parts of the country, starting with three two-year colleges in Ohio. All states should take heed and provide the money to replicate this program in a small sample of community colleges. If the program works, then it should be implemented at all community colleges. Nearly half of all college students are enrolled in community colleges, 50% are Hispanic, 31% are African American and 44% are low-income, according to the Community College Research Center (http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html). Imagine the positive impact that doubling the graduation rates of community college students would have on our country and the impact it would have on the lives of minority, low-income community college students.
ASAP is a comprehensive, long-term program designed to increase the success and ultimately the graduation rates of community college students. The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), was created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies. It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization dedicated to learning what works to improve programs and policies that affect the poor (http://www.mdrc.org/about/about-mdrc-history).
ASAP was created by the City University of New York (CUNY) system office and implemented in 2007 with funding from the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity at Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, and LaGuardia Community College. In 2009 CUNY system leaders approached MDRC about evaluating the program and they accepted.
The program has four major components that provide structure and support for up to three years and is designed to address multiple potential barriers to student success in community colleges. First, the program requires students to attend college full-time, are encouraged to take developmental courses early, and to graduate within three years. This is important because it sets high standards by issuing requirements, and it sends the right message about getting done on time if not earlier. Second, it has a student services component, which requires students to receive comprehensive advisement from an ASAP-dedicated adviser with a small caseload. Students also receive career information from an ASAP-dedicated career and employment services staff member, and extensive tutoring from ASAP-dedicated staff. The third component requires students to enroll in blocked or linked courses in their first year. The blocked courses consist of two or more courses grouped together with seats reserved for ASAP students. Students are also required to enroll in an ASAP seminar during their first few semesters covering topics such as setting goals and study skills. The fourth has a financial support component where students receive a tuition waiver that covers any gaps between financial aid and college tuition and fees. Students also receive free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent on participation in key program services, and free use of textbooks.
According to the report, the ASAP program costs $16,300 per student, which is 63% more than what CUNY spent per student on usual college services. The report goes on to assert that the cost was actually lower because ASAP generated so many more graduates over the three-year follow-up period than did the usual college services.
In the study, MDRC used a random assignment research design to evaluate the impact of ASAP intervention strategies on students’ academic outcomes over a three-year study period compared to students who received the usual services and courses at the colleges. The study targeted students who met the following eligibility criteria at the point of random assignment: had family income below 200% of the federal poverty level or were eligible for a Pell Grant (or both); needed one or two developmental courses to build math, reading, or writing skills; had previously earned 12 credits or fewer; were New York City residents; were willing to attend college full time; and were in an ASAP eligible major (http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_es.pdf). Eligible students who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to either the program group (typically called the experimental group), students who had the opportunity to receive the intervention strategies or services offered by ASAP, or to the control group, students who received the usual college services with no intervention strategies or special services.
The sample consisted of 896 students who completed a Baseline Information Form (BIF) to determine if they met the eligibility criteria listed above. Roughly two-thirds of the students in the research sample were women and most were relatively young. Seventy-seven percent (77%) were 22 years of age or younger when they entered the study. The study sample was racially diverse and reflected the collective student body at the three community colleges, which no racial majority. The majority of students sampled lived with their parents, were unmarried, and did not have children.
The results of the study suggest that 40% of students in the ASAP program graduated in three years compared to 22% in the control group or those students receiving no intervention strategies. Additionally, ASAP students completed an average of 48 credit hours compared to 39 credit hours by the control group. Finally, 25% of the ASAP students enrolled in a four-year university compared to 17% in the control group.
A detailed, in depth analysis of the services offered by ASAP provides revealing information that could explain why students in the program were found to be more successful. ASAP students were required to enroll full-time, take remedial courses early, and strongly encouraged to graduate in three years. ASAP students were advised by an academic advisor with a student-advisor load of 60:1 or 80:1, 95% of these students met on average 38 times with their advisors in the first year. Compared to non-ASAP students who had advisors with a student-advisor load of 600:1 and 1500:1, 80% of those students met on average six times. With regard to tutoring, 74% of ASAP students received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of 24 times during first year. Compared to non-ASAP, 39% of those students who received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of seven times in the same period. Eighty percent (80%) of ASAP students met on average of nine times with career and employment services staff during the first year compared to 29% of non-ASAP students who met on average two times with career and employment services staff during first year
While blocked or linked courses were offered to ASAP students, few took a complete block of courses; however, most of these students took an ASAP seminar course for three semesters compared to non-ASAP students whose block course enrollment was not tracked and some of these students took a freshman seminar or student success course in their first year. Finally, 3% to 11% of the ASAP students received tuition waivers, all ASAP students received free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent upon participating in ASAP and all ASAP student received free use of textbooks. None of these services were provided to non-ASAP students.
Two-tailed t-tests were conducted on the percent of ASAP students enrolled each semester over the three-year period compared to non-ASAP student enrollments and the differences were statistically significant in the first two years, but not in the third year. This is essentially a statistical test to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group (ASAP students) versus the control group (non-ASAP students) T-tests were also conducted on the differences between the percent of students who graduated in the ASAP group versus the non-ASAP group, credit hours earned between the two groups, and the percent of student who went on to a four-year college after three years in the community college and each was highly statistically significant. However, recall that two-thirds of the students in the sample were women, which could account for a higher success rates. Numerous research studies, including my own research, have demonstrated that women tend to do better in college than men. Also, additional higher order statistical analyses such as predictive statistics, like regression analysis, were not employed. It would have been informative to understand, via regression analysis, if there is a casual relationship between the intervention strategies and student outcomes. In other words, did the ASAP services cause students to be more successful in the community colleges? However, it should be pointed out that social science research is not perfect.
It makes sense that with this much attention paid and the large number of support services offered to ASAP students, it is only logical that these students would do better and thus succeed at higher rates compared to typical community college students. My own experiences in developing student recruitment and retention programs, provides further evidence that programs which offer these many services and pay this much attention to students do, in fact, increase student success. Early in my career, I developed a student support program with many of the same intervention strategies offered in the ASAP program and other strategies such as shadow courses. I didn’t include blocked courses initially; although, in later programs I developed and did experiment with blocked courses. I offered scholarships from money I had raised and used it with other forms of financial aid to provide a free college education to the participants. However, participants had to participate in all of the services offered by the program in order to receive the scholarship. Students were monitored weekly and scholarship money was distributed monthly, based on participation in the program. Student success in the program increased dramatically.
These results are also consistent with the prevailing theory on college student retention. In 1975, Dr. Vincent Tinto posited the landmark theory of student integration, commonly known as the student integration model. Dr. Tinto’s theory of student integration was the basis for thousands of studies and became the most widely studied and empirically tested theory in higher education. While these studies attacked and supported the student integration model, over time Dr. Tinto revised his theory several times. Essentially, Dr. Tinto theorized that if college students integrate academically and socially they will tend to stay in college, be successful and graduate. Conversely, if students don’t “connect” academically and socially with the college or university they tend to drop out.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (February 26, 2015), ASAP has gained nationwide attention. Donna Linderman, who oversees the ASAP program at CUNY, said her office had been "bombarded with requests for information from all over the country." The good news is that CUNY and MDRC are working to replicate the program in other parts of the country, starting with three two-year colleges in Ohio. All states should take heed and provide the money to replicate this program in a small sample of community colleges. If the program works, then it should be implemented at all community colleges. Nearly half of all college students are enrolled in community colleges, 50% are Hispanic, 31% are African American and 44% are low-income, according to the Community College Research Center (http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html). Imagine the positive impact that doubling the graduation rates of community college students would have on our country and the impact it would have on the lives of minority, low-income community college students.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Sexual Assaults and Concealed Handguns on College Campuses
Last year, I wrote several times about sexual assaults on college campuses. It is a hideous crime that should not be tolerated in our society. It is surprising and shocking that more colleges and universities are not doing enough to minimize or hopefully stop sexual assaults on campuses across the country.
Gun rights advocates such as Women for Concealed Carry or Students for Concealed Carry are capitalizing on this fear and are pushing legislators in many states to pass laws that would allow students to carry concealed handguns on campuses. Their premise is that if a college student was allowed to carry a concealed handgun on campus, fewer sexual assaults would occur as the student carrying a handgun would be readily able to defend herself.
But first, let’s look at some facts. Currently three states; Colorado, Idaho, and Utah; have enacted laws which allow anyone to carry concealed handguns on campus. Five other states; Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, and Wisconsin; have laws allowing concealed handguns on campuses, but the laws in those states permit the colleges or universities to restrict where the weapons may be carried (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2015). And as you can imagine, none of the college or university administrators in these five states have allowed concealed handguns to be carried on their campuses. Additionally, nine other states allow guns on campuses, but only in locked cars in parking lots.
Gun rights advocates are using sexual assaults on campuses to push for concealed handgun carry laws to be passed by legislatures in many states. They claim that if women on college campuses were armed fewer rapes would occur. In fact, legislators in ten states; Florida, Indiana, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming, are hoping that this argument will help them get concealed carry laws passed in their states (New York Times, February 18, 2015).
One such bill is being considered by Nevada legislators. Nevada Assemblywoman, Michele Fiore, Republican and sponsor of the bill said in a telephone interview: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.” (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2015) Assemblywoman Fiore is garnering lots of attention, both for and against, for her comments. Ms. Fiore points to the rape of Amanda Collins by a stranger on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno in 2007. Ms. Collins has testified before state legislatures in Nevada and other states advocating the right to carry a concealed handgun on campus. She has claimed that had she been carrying a handgun that night, there is no doubt in her mind that she could have stopped the attacker.
Let’s consider some additional facts. Most sexual assaults on college campuses are not done by strangers. In fact:
• Ninety (90) percent of the sexual assault victims knew the perpetrator,
• Eighty-four (84) percent of the perpetrators were students,
• Seventy-eight (78) percent of the assaults involved alcohol, and one in three victims were drunk, passed out, or asleep.
• Nearly three-fourths of the victims in the campus sexual assaults were attacked in their freshman or sophomore year.
The data were gathered by United Educators, an insurance and risk-management firm, which examined 305 claims from 104 colleges it insures involving alleged sexual assaults of students from 2011 through 2013 (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2015).
In another study conducted by Christopher P. Krebs, senior researcher at RTI International, a nonprofit research group, 5,446 undergraduate women were surveyed at two large public universities. He found that women on a campus were typically assaulted by a trusted male friend while both were under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both and not by a stranger while walking across the campus. Mr. Krebs states that this is not a situation in which a woman would likely have easy access to a pistol or to summon much will or capacity to use one.
Another interesting fact to consider is that federal law prohibits the ownership of handguns by anyone under the age of 21. This means that a very large percentage of undergraduate students on college campuses would not be allowed to own a handgun. Given this and the fact that nearly three-fourths of the sexual assault victims on campus are freshmen or sophomores, passing a concealed handgun carry law would not help the vast majority of these sexual assault victims.
One interesting note to point out is that a spokesman for the advocacy group Students for Concealed Carry, Michael Newbern, said he was not aware of any case of a student who had used a concealed handgun to prevent a campus sexual assault. However, it should be noted that assessing the impact of concealed handgun carry laws on college campuses is difficult as these regulations are relatively new.
As a former president of a university, I have spoken to many university presidents, other administrators, faculty, and police officers about this issue. And not a single one has been in favor of allowing students, faculty, staff or the general public to carry concealed handguns on their campus. Handguns do NOT belong on a college campus. I have discussed this matter many times with campus, city, and state police officers and sheriff’s deputies and again not a single one have been in favor of allowing people to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. Police officers have told me that when confronted with two or more people with firearms they are trained to immediately take control of the situation by disarming by any means. Police officers when faced with two people pointing pistols at each other or, more importantly, shooting at each other will not stop to ask who the person is with the concealed handgun carry permit and who is the bad guy. They will control the situation by neutralizing the people carrying the handguns and if that involves having to shoot, they will do so to protect their own lives and those of their fellow police officers.
Finally, one good bit of news is that the military academies; the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy; recently reported a drop in sexual assaults. In 2013-2014, 61 sexual assaults were reported compared to 70 the previous year. However, in the report released by the Pentagon, 40 percent of those students who reported sexual assaults also complained that they had faced retaliation for reporting the incidents (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 11, 2015).
Students on college campuses are going to experiment with alcohol and drugs. However, a college campus is certainly not a place where students should mix alcohol, drugs, and handguns. And state legislators should not give licenses to students to indulge in such a mix.
Gun rights advocates such as Women for Concealed Carry or Students for Concealed Carry are capitalizing on this fear and are pushing legislators in many states to pass laws that would allow students to carry concealed handguns on campuses. Their premise is that if a college student was allowed to carry a concealed handgun on campus, fewer sexual assaults would occur as the student carrying a handgun would be readily able to defend herself.
But first, let’s look at some facts. Currently three states; Colorado, Idaho, and Utah; have enacted laws which allow anyone to carry concealed handguns on campus. Five other states; Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, and Wisconsin; have laws allowing concealed handguns on campuses, but the laws in those states permit the colleges or universities to restrict where the weapons may be carried (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2015). And as you can imagine, none of the college or university administrators in these five states have allowed concealed handguns to be carried on their campuses. Additionally, nine other states allow guns on campuses, but only in locked cars in parking lots.
Gun rights advocates are using sexual assaults on campuses to push for concealed handgun carry laws to be passed by legislatures in many states. They claim that if women on college campuses were armed fewer rapes would occur. In fact, legislators in ten states; Florida, Indiana, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming, are hoping that this argument will help them get concealed carry laws passed in their states (New York Times, February 18, 2015).
One such bill is being considered by Nevada legislators. Nevada Assemblywoman, Michele Fiore, Republican and sponsor of the bill said in a telephone interview: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.” (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2015) Assemblywoman Fiore is garnering lots of attention, both for and against, for her comments. Ms. Fiore points to the rape of Amanda Collins by a stranger on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno in 2007. Ms. Collins has testified before state legislatures in Nevada and other states advocating the right to carry a concealed handgun on campus. She has claimed that had she been carrying a handgun that night, there is no doubt in her mind that she could have stopped the attacker.
Let’s consider some additional facts. Most sexual assaults on college campuses are not done by strangers. In fact:
• Ninety (90) percent of the sexual assault victims knew the perpetrator,
• Eighty-four (84) percent of the perpetrators were students,
• Seventy-eight (78) percent of the assaults involved alcohol, and one in three victims were drunk, passed out, or asleep.
• Nearly three-fourths of the victims in the campus sexual assaults were attacked in their freshman or sophomore year.
The data were gathered by United Educators, an insurance and risk-management firm, which examined 305 claims from 104 colleges it insures involving alleged sexual assaults of students from 2011 through 2013 (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2015).
In another study conducted by Christopher P. Krebs, senior researcher at RTI International, a nonprofit research group, 5,446 undergraduate women were surveyed at two large public universities. He found that women on a campus were typically assaulted by a trusted male friend while both were under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both and not by a stranger while walking across the campus. Mr. Krebs states that this is not a situation in which a woman would likely have easy access to a pistol or to summon much will or capacity to use one.
Another interesting fact to consider is that federal law prohibits the ownership of handguns by anyone under the age of 21. This means that a very large percentage of undergraduate students on college campuses would not be allowed to own a handgun. Given this and the fact that nearly three-fourths of the sexual assault victims on campus are freshmen or sophomores, passing a concealed handgun carry law would not help the vast majority of these sexual assault victims.
One interesting note to point out is that a spokesman for the advocacy group Students for Concealed Carry, Michael Newbern, said he was not aware of any case of a student who had used a concealed handgun to prevent a campus sexual assault. However, it should be noted that assessing the impact of concealed handgun carry laws on college campuses is difficult as these regulations are relatively new.
As a former president of a university, I have spoken to many university presidents, other administrators, faculty, and police officers about this issue. And not a single one has been in favor of allowing students, faculty, staff or the general public to carry concealed handguns on their campus. Handguns do NOT belong on a college campus. I have discussed this matter many times with campus, city, and state police officers and sheriff’s deputies and again not a single one have been in favor of allowing people to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. Police officers have told me that when confronted with two or more people with firearms they are trained to immediately take control of the situation by disarming by any means. Police officers when faced with two people pointing pistols at each other or, more importantly, shooting at each other will not stop to ask who the person is with the concealed handgun carry permit and who is the bad guy. They will control the situation by neutralizing the people carrying the handguns and if that involves having to shoot, they will do so to protect their own lives and those of their fellow police officers.
Finally, one good bit of news is that the military academies; the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy; recently reported a drop in sexual assaults. In 2013-2014, 61 sexual assaults were reported compared to 70 the previous year. However, in the report released by the Pentagon, 40 percent of those students who reported sexual assaults also complained that they had faced retaliation for reporting the incidents (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 11, 2015).
Students on college campuses are going to experiment with alcohol and drugs. However, a college campus is certainly not a place where students should mix alcohol, drugs, and handguns. And state legislators should not give licenses to students to indulge in such a mix.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Public Library and the Homeless
I love to read. But until recently, most of what I read was work related materials; letters, reports; memoranda, research papers, dissertations, etc. and not pleasure reading. I especially like to read murder mystery novels. I like to pick one author and read all of his or her books. I have read all of David Baldacci’s novels. If you haven’t read Baldacci, it’s a must read. His novels are hard to put down. I have also read all of Dan Brown’s and Tony Hillerman’s novels.
Now that I have more time, I am pouring over James Patterson’s novels. I have read all of this Detective Alex Cross books, except his latest book just published Hope to Die. I have read nearly all of his books about Private, novels about a private investigative firm and NYPD Red, novels about an elite New York Police unit. I have also read nearly all of the I, Michael Bennett books. I am now reading through his novels about the Women’s Murder Club, there are thirteen in total and I am on number 9, 9th Judgement. Patterson Women’s Murder Club series starts with 1st to Die and, at last count, Unlucky 13. However, number 14, 14th Deadly Sin, is scheduled to be released in May of this year.
You are probably wondering why I am writing about my interest in reading murder mystery novels. Recently, I decided to acquire a public library card at my local municipal library instead of continuing to pay $7.99 per novel, if you can find them on sale, to as much as $29.99 for hardbacks, which I never buy. It is free and it allows me access to all of the Patterson murder mystery novels and other books that I want to read.
When I entered the main entrance of the library, the first thing I noticed was a security guard right at the door. I thought nothing of it since I presume that libraries, like any other businesses have their share of theft and other problems that would require security. After completing a simple application for a library card and providing proof, a driver’s license, of who I am and that I actually reside in the municipality where the library was located, I was given a library card.
It is my first library card since who knows when, probably my college days in the 1990’s when I studied for my doctorate. I immediately went to the electronic card catalog to search for James Patterson novels. As I walked across the library, I was surprised to see the large number of what seemed to be homeless people in the library. I guess I expected to see your average Americans; students, mothers with their children, and people like me checking out books and using the other free library services. As I think about it now, I should not be surprised about the homeless people in the library as I presume they like to read too.
And having spent almost my entire career in public higher education, I also should not be surprised about the homeless being in the library. I am used to seeing lots of homelessness in universities, especially in urban areas where there are plenty of homeless people and a number of public universities. It is not unusual to see a homeless person in the bathroom of the student union getting cleaned up. It’s not unusual to see homeless people in the university library especially in the winter. Libraries, after all, are nice, warm places where you don’t get asked to leave unless you are causing trouble. It’s not unusual to see the homeless people panhandling on a campus as students tend to be idealistic and generous, and thus tend to give money more readily to a homeless person.
I have always been surprised by college students’ generosity toward the homeless since many college students are typically on a pretty tight budget and can ill afford to give away money to a homeless. But, I assume since college students tend to be young, idealistic, and altruistic, they tend to be generous.
Homelessness is a major problem in our country. What really makes me sad to see is homeless children and their parents. It is too bad I can’t wave a magic wand and solve the problem. Or better yet, why can’t some billionaire, perhaps Bill Gates, give a billion dollars to solve our homeless problem.
So again, I should not be surprised to see homeless people in the public municipal library, but to be honest, I was very surprised. So much so that my initial instinct was to not return to that library. I have to adjust my view of what is the typical clientele of a public municipal library. By the way, I have returned to that public municipal library again, in fact many times. Today, I will actually go to one of the branches of this public municipal library as the Patterson book I am looking for is not at the library I frequent, which by the way, is the main library. Consequently, this time I will not be surprised if I see homeless people at the branch of municipal library.
Now that I have more time, I am pouring over James Patterson’s novels. I have read all of this Detective Alex Cross books, except his latest book just published Hope to Die. I have read nearly all of his books about Private, novels about a private investigative firm and NYPD Red, novels about an elite New York Police unit. I have also read nearly all of the I, Michael Bennett books. I am now reading through his novels about the Women’s Murder Club, there are thirteen in total and I am on number 9, 9th Judgement. Patterson Women’s Murder Club series starts with 1st to Die and, at last count, Unlucky 13. However, number 14, 14th Deadly Sin, is scheduled to be released in May of this year.
You are probably wondering why I am writing about my interest in reading murder mystery novels. Recently, I decided to acquire a public library card at my local municipal library instead of continuing to pay $7.99 per novel, if you can find them on sale, to as much as $29.99 for hardbacks, which I never buy. It is free and it allows me access to all of the Patterson murder mystery novels and other books that I want to read.
When I entered the main entrance of the library, the first thing I noticed was a security guard right at the door. I thought nothing of it since I presume that libraries, like any other businesses have their share of theft and other problems that would require security. After completing a simple application for a library card and providing proof, a driver’s license, of who I am and that I actually reside in the municipality where the library was located, I was given a library card.
It is my first library card since who knows when, probably my college days in the 1990’s when I studied for my doctorate. I immediately went to the electronic card catalog to search for James Patterson novels. As I walked across the library, I was surprised to see the large number of what seemed to be homeless people in the library. I guess I expected to see your average Americans; students, mothers with their children, and people like me checking out books and using the other free library services. As I think about it now, I should not be surprised about the homeless people in the library as I presume they like to read too.
And having spent almost my entire career in public higher education, I also should not be surprised about the homeless being in the library. I am used to seeing lots of homelessness in universities, especially in urban areas where there are plenty of homeless people and a number of public universities. It is not unusual to see a homeless person in the bathroom of the student union getting cleaned up. It’s not unusual to see homeless people in the university library especially in the winter. Libraries, after all, are nice, warm places where you don’t get asked to leave unless you are causing trouble. It’s not unusual to see the homeless people panhandling on a campus as students tend to be idealistic and generous, and thus tend to give money more readily to a homeless person.
I have always been surprised by college students’ generosity toward the homeless since many college students are typically on a pretty tight budget and can ill afford to give away money to a homeless. But, I assume since college students tend to be young, idealistic, and altruistic, they tend to be generous.
Homelessness is a major problem in our country. What really makes me sad to see is homeless children and their parents. It is too bad I can’t wave a magic wand and solve the problem. Or better yet, why can’t some billionaire, perhaps Bill Gates, give a billion dollars to solve our homeless problem.
So again, I should not be surprised to see homeless people in the public municipal library, but to be honest, I was very surprised. So much so that my initial instinct was to not return to that library. I have to adjust my view of what is the typical clientele of a public municipal library. By the way, I have returned to that public municipal library again, in fact many times. Today, I will actually go to one of the branches of this public municipal library as the Patterson book I am looking for is not at the library I frequent, which by the way, is the main library. Consequently, this time I will not be surprised if I see homeless people at the branch of municipal library.
Friday, February 6, 2015
A Free College Education
At the State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama announced a proposal to provide free college to everyone. Free education at a community college that is, not at a four-year college or university. His proposal is being called the free college plan and his idea is to make two years of college "as free and universal in America as high school is today", (Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 21, 2015).
Since the beginning of his administration, President Obama has been a big proponent of community colleges. In 2009, he proposed in his budget $12 Billion for community colleges, but Congress approved only $2 Billion. The following year, he proposed the infusion of $5 Billion to modernize community colleges through his American Jobs Act, which did not pass. In his fiscal year 2013 budget, he proposed $8 Billion for a proposal entitled “Community College to Career Fund," which would provide money to community colleges and states to form partnerships with businesses to train an estimated two million workers in high-growth and in-demand areas. Congress did not approve it and the President again included it again in his 2014 budget, but yet again it didn’t get congressional approval.
President Obama believes that community colleges have done a great job of educating American Citizens. He points to significant enrollment growth in community colleges in spite of the recent recession and massive cuts to community college budgets.
Moreover, it’s important to note that community colleges educate 44 percent of all the undergraduates enrolled in higher education, including 52 percent of all Hispanic students and 44 percent of all African-Americans. The community colleges also enroll the highest percentages of low-income students with far fewer resources than other types of institutions. For example, on a per-student basis, community colleges' educational and general expenditures are less than half those at public research institutions, (Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 14, 2011)
The President’s free college plan calls for the federal government to pay for about three-quarters of students’ tuition costs and for the states to pick up the rest. In order to receive free tuition, a student would have to be enrolled at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 grade-point-average or better, and make satisfactory progress toward a degree. However, the plan isn’t cheap, its estimated price tag is approximately $60 Billion over a ten-year period. Additionally, if enacted, it would save full-time students an average of $3,800 in tuition per year and impact over nine million students. Republicans in Congress have already dismissed the idea.
One interesting issue to point out is that missing from the President’s speech this year was his previous tough talk on the high costs of college, which he has included in his past addresses to Congress. The President also didn’t mention his college-ratings plan. In both 2012 and in 2013, President Obama took colleges to task over rising costs, putting them "on notice" that the government would not continue to subsidize the persistent increases in tuition.
Free higher education is not a new concept. According to Wikipedia, forty-four countries provide a free college or university education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_education). So why should the richest country in the world not provide a free system of higher education? A good place to start would be at the community colleges and provide a free education for the first two years. President Obama should be praised for his proposal for a free college plan.
However, I expect that his proposal will face stiff opposition by the Republic controlled Congress. Nevertheless, let’s hope and pray that Republicans will see the light and approve this important initiative. Or maybe the American people can place enough pressure on the Republicans to support and pass the legislation behind the plan. After all, don’t you think our citizens deserve a free education? We provide a free education from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Why not a free college education?
Since the beginning of his administration, President Obama has been a big proponent of community colleges. In 2009, he proposed in his budget $12 Billion for community colleges, but Congress approved only $2 Billion. The following year, he proposed the infusion of $5 Billion to modernize community colleges through his American Jobs Act, which did not pass. In his fiscal year 2013 budget, he proposed $8 Billion for a proposal entitled “Community College to Career Fund," which would provide money to community colleges and states to form partnerships with businesses to train an estimated two million workers in high-growth and in-demand areas. Congress did not approve it and the President again included it again in his 2014 budget, but yet again it didn’t get congressional approval.
President Obama believes that community colleges have done a great job of educating American Citizens. He points to significant enrollment growth in community colleges in spite of the recent recession and massive cuts to community college budgets.
Moreover, it’s important to note that community colleges educate 44 percent of all the undergraduates enrolled in higher education, including 52 percent of all Hispanic students and 44 percent of all African-Americans. The community colleges also enroll the highest percentages of low-income students with far fewer resources than other types of institutions. For example, on a per-student basis, community colleges' educational and general expenditures are less than half those at public research institutions, (Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 14, 2011)
The President’s free college plan calls for the federal government to pay for about three-quarters of students’ tuition costs and for the states to pick up the rest. In order to receive free tuition, a student would have to be enrolled at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 grade-point-average or better, and make satisfactory progress toward a degree. However, the plan isn’t cheap, its estimated price tag is approximately $60 Billion over a ten-year period. Additionally, if enacted, it would save full-time students an average of $3,800 in tuition per year and impact over nine million students. Republicans in Congress have already dismissed the idea.
One interesting issue to point out is that missing from the President’s speech this year was his previous tough talk on the high costs of college, which he has included in his past addresses to Congress. The President also didn’t mention his college-ratings plan. In both 2012 and in 2013, President Obama took colleges to task over rising costs, putting them "on notice" that the government would not continue to subsidize the persistent increases in tuition.
Free higher education is not a new concept. According to Wikipedia, forty-four countries provide a free college or university education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_education). So why should the richest country in the world not provide a free system of higher education? A good place to start would be at the community colleges and provide a free education for the first two years. President Obama should be praised for his proposal for a free college plan.
However, I expect that his proposal will face stiff opposition by the Republic controlled Congress. Nevertheless, let’s hope and pray that Republicans will see the light and approve this important initiative. Or maybe the American people can place enough pressure on the Republicans to support and pass the legislation behind the plan. After all, don’t you think our citizens deserve a free education? We provide a free education from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Why not a free college education?
Friday, January 23, 2015
A New Way to Rate Colleges and Universities President Obama’s College-Ratings Plan
Last month the Obama Administration unveiled its long-awaited and much-criticized plan to rate colleges and universities. While the overall intent is admirable, the details are causing much consternation among college and university administrators and trade union representatives. However, students, consumer groups and critics of higher education have applauded the Obama Administration for proposing the new college-ratings system.
The idea for the plan was first announced by President Obama in his State of the Union address three years ago. He put colleges and universities on notice stating that his administration would not continue to subsidize rising tuition costs. A year later, in an August of 2013 speech at the University of Buffalo, as part of a three-campus tour, he denounced the high cost of a college education and promoted his plans to make colleges more affordable. The initial plan, or proposal as it was called, was to rate colleges based on measures of access, affordability and student outcomes, and to allocate federal aid based on those ratings. Thus for example, students attending higher-rated institutions could obtain larger Pell Grants and more affordable loans.
As part of the plan, the U.S. Department of Education announced a series of forums that were be held to discuss the plan and gather feedback on the new ratings system. At each of the forums, criticism was abound about the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all system of rating colleges. Concerns were raised about a large number of issues: the diverse nature of colleges and universities; how to account for the differences in institutions’ missions and profiles; how retention and graduation rates, employment and continuing-education rates, and loan-repayment and default rates will be used. Other concerns included the data collected by the U.S. Department of Education is deeply flawed; would the new ratings system discourage colleges and universities from enrolling minority and low-income students since they tend to have low success rates; and finally, it will be impossible to please everyone. One national organization of university administrators proposed a simple system of rating colleges based on "social responsibility" by assigning a silver, gold or platinum rating.
The Obama Administration’s new plan has proposed looking at measures such as a college’s average net price, its students’ completion rates, the percentage of its students receiving Pell Grants, labor-market outcomes, and loan-repayment (or rather loan-default) rates. The last two metrics were very controversial during the lengthy fight over the "gainful employment" rule, which was released at the end of last year.
However, the new plan has been condemned more for what it didn’t include than for what measure were included. For example, critics denounce the plan because it doesn’t assign weights to each metric nor does it offer a plan for how similar institutions will be grouped. It also doesn’t provide a specific format for the ratings and it doesn’t clarify whether the department will publish a single, composite rating, or a series of ratings.
University administrators have expressed concern that the plan will punish colleges and universities that serve low-income students and those that prepare graduates for much-needed but low-paying professions. The worry is that a rating system that doesn’t adjust for student demographics and institutional mission, could force colleges to turn away at-risk students, perhaps relax their graduation standards, or even drop degrees in low-paying fields in order to receive higher ratings in the new system.
Additional criticism has focused on how federal data is collected and reported. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Education considers only first-time, full-time students in calculating graduation rates. It does not take into account part-time students or students who stop-out for one reason or another, but return at a later date to complete their degrees. It seems unfair to rate colleges and universities on partial or flawed data. This could certainly mislead prospective students and their parents into making decisions about institutions without knowing the all of the facts.
The overall goals of the new plan are to help colleges improve, to help students make better informed decisions about which college or university to attend, and to allow policy makers and the public to hold institutions accountable for their outcomes. And the carrot on the stick is to tie the awarding of federal aid to how institutions are rated.
Administration officials, however, are quick to point out that they have listened to the input and the new ratings system will be divided into separate categories for two- and four-year institutions. The new system may also include the differences in institutional characteristics such as degree offerings, program mix, and selectivity. Officials in the department are also considering whether to adjust the metrics to account for student demographics, students’ parental income, first-generation status and college standardized test scores.
One measure administration officials will not include in the new plan is the debt-to-earnings ratio. This caused much criticism in the debate over the controversial gainful employment rule. Another major concern has been over labor-market outcomes of college graduates. Officials have stated that the new plan will not compare colleges on which of their graduates earn more money. Instead it will set a threshold that salaries of graduates much meet. For example, it could be multiplier of the minimum wage or possibly earnings over the poverty line. The goal is to have colleges prepare graduates for employment at a level that will enable them to pay their bills.
One important key factor will be whether Congress will support the administration’s new college-ratings plan. Republicans, who now have control over the Senate and the House, have previously stated their opposition to the new plan. They feel that the federal government has no business rating colleges and universities and they have threatened to cut off funding for this effort.
Despite the threat by Republicans, Administration officials have said that the department will still be on track to release the first ratings by the start of the 2015-16 academic year. The department will continue to take public comments on the new plan through mid-February. This means that the new college-rating system will be in place in eight months.
A system to rate colleges and universities is an excellent idea, in theory. A new college-ratings system would benefit everyone, but most importantly it would benefit the consumer, our students. However, the devil is in the details. If the new system could take into account all of the various aspects of the diversity that exits in higher education institutions across the county, then I am all for it. If it were that simple, it would have already been created. But it is not a simple matter. That’s why the Obama Administration and the U.S. Department of Education are struggling to come up with a new college-ratings system. Will the new college-ratings system please everyone, I don’t think that going to be possible, but I hope I am proven wrong.
The idea for the plan was first announced by President Obama in his State of the Union address three years ago. He put colleges and universities on notice stating that his administration would not continue to subsidize rising tuition costs. A year later, in an August of 2013 speech at the University of Buffalo, as part of a three-campus tour, he denounced the high cost of a college education and promoted his plans to make colleges more affordable. The initial plan, or proposal as it was called, was to rate colleges based on measures of access, affordability and student outcomes, and to allocate federal aid based on those ratings. Thus for example, students attending higher-rated institutions could obtain larger Pell Grants and more affordable loans.
As part of the plan, the U.S. Department of Education announced a series of forums that were be held to discuss the plan and gather feedback on the new ratings system. At each of the forums, criticism was abound about the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all system of rating colleges. Concerns were raised about a large number of issues: the diverse nature of colleges and universities; how to account for the differences in institutions’ missions and profiles; how retention and graduation rates, employment and continuing-education rates, and loan-repayment and default rates will be used. Other concerns included the data collected by the U.S. Department of Education is deeply flawed; would the new ratings system discourage colleges and universities from enrolling minority and low-income students since they tend to have low success rates; and finally, it will be impossible to please everyone. One national organization of university administrators proposed a simple system of rating colleges based on "social responsibility" by assigning a silver, gold or platinum rating.
The Obama Administration’s new plan has proposed looking at measures such as a college’s average net price, its students’ completion rates, the percentage of its students receiving Pell Grants, labor-market outcomes, and loan-repayment (or rather loan-default) rates. The last two metrics were very controversial during the lengthy fight over the "gainful employment" rule, which was released at the end of last year.
However, the new plan has been condemned more for what it didn’t include than for what measure were included. For example, critics denounce the plan because it doesn’t assign weights to each metric nor does it offer a plan for how similar institutions will be grouped. It also doesn’t provide a specific format for the ratings and it doesn’t clarify whether the department will publish a single, composite rating, or a series of ratings.
University administrators have expressed concern that the plan will punish colleges and universities that serve low-income students and those that prepare graduates for much-needed but low-paying professions. The worry is that a rating system that doesn’t adjust for student demographics and institutional mission, could force colleges to turn away at-risk students, perhaps relax their graduation standards, or even drop degrees in low-paying fields in order to receive higher ratings in the new system.
Additional criticism has focused on how federal data is collected and reported. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Education considers only first-time, full-time students in calculating graduation rates. It does not take into account part-time students or students who stop-out for one reason or another, but return at a later date to complete their degrees. It seems unfair to rate colleges and universities on partial or flawed data. This could certainly mislead prospective students and their parents into making decisions about institutions without knowing the all of the facts.
The overall goals of the new plan are to help colleges improve, to help students make better informed decisions about which college or university to attend, and to allow policy makers and the public to hold institutions accountable for their outcomes. And the carrot on the stick is to tie the awarding of federal aid to how institutions are rated.
Administration officials, however, are quick to point out that they have listened to the input and the new ratings system will be divided into separate categories for two- and four-year institutions. The new system may also include the differences in institutional characteristics such as degree offerings, program mix, and selectivity. Officials in the department are also considering whether to adjust the metrics to account for student demographics, students’ parental income, first-generation status and college standardized test scores.
One measure administration officials will not include in the new plan is the debt-to-earnings ratio. This caused much criticism in the debate over the controversial gainful employment rule. Another major concern has been over labor-market outcomes of college graduates. Officials have stated that the new plan will not compare colleges on which of their graduates earn more money. Instead it will set a threshold that salaries of graduates much meet. For example, it could be multiplier of the minimum wage or possibly earnings over the poverty line. The goal is to have colleges prepare graduates for employment at a level that will enable them to pay their bills.
One important key factor will be whether Congress will support the administration’s new college-ratings plan. Republicans, who now have control over the Senate and the House, have previously stated their opposition to the new plan. They feel that the federal government has no business rating colleges and universities and they have threatened to cut off funding for this effort.
Despite the threat by Republicans, Administration officials have said that the department will still be on track to release the first ratings by the start of the 2015-16 academic year. The department will continue to take public comments on the new plan through mid-February. This means that the new college-rating system will be in place in eight months.
A system to rate colleges and universities is an excellent idea, in theory. A new college-ratings system would benefit everyone, but most importantly it would benefit the consumer, our students. However, the devil is in the details. If the new system could take into account all of the various aspects of the diversity that exits in higher education institutions across the county, then I am all for it. If it were that simple, it would have already been created. But it is not a simple matter. That’s why the Obama Administration and the U.S. Department of Education are struggling to come up with a new college-ratings system. Will the new college-ratings system please everyone, I don’t think that going to be possible, but I hope I am proven wrong.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
New Sports-Leadership Center: The Answer to the Problems in College Athletics?
What a great idea! A new center focused on examining the problems in college athletics and hopefully identifying and testing some viable solutions. I say hopefully, because I am a bit skeptical.
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014, William Powers, Jr., President of the University of Texas at Austin, announced the opening of the Center for Sports Leadership and Innovation to “help coaches instill strong character in high school players and teach college athletes how to manage their money better” (Chronicle of Higher Education on-line, 12/17/14). More universities should follow the example. President Powers should be commended for his leadership. However, instead he will step down as president in June of 2015 after much publicized clashes with Governor Perry and some of the members of the Board of Regents appointed by Perry.
President Powers goes on to say that "As a society, we should be doing everything we can to leverage the enormous popularity of athletics to develop leaders and cultivate integrity". In addition to teaching teamwork and discipline, he said, sports can be "a force for good." There is no debate about the inherent good that comes from college sports and the impact it has on student athletes, students in general, and the broader community.
The center will receive $300,000.00 in start-up funds from President Powers’ office via the Longhorn Network. The director of the new center will be Daron K. Roberts, a former student-government president at Texas, guest analyst for the Longhorn Network, and a guest lecturer in humanities at the university where he teaches a course in Leadership Strategy in Sports. He has served as an assistant coach with three NFL teams; the Kansas City Chiefs, Detroit Lions, and the Cleveland Browns; as well as an assistant coach with West Virginia University. He received a B.A. in Government from UT-Austin (2001), a Master’s of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government (2004) and a law degree (2007), both from Harvard University. He certainly has the academic qualifications and work experience to lead the center.
The creation of the center is a good start toward addressing the problems that exist in colleges sports. The public is tired of hearing about how college athletes are accused of sexual assaults and university administrations sweeping it under the rug. We are tired of reading about cheating scandal after scandal to help make blue chip athletes eligible to play college sports. We are tired of college athletes not attending classes, having term papers written for them and passing classes without lifting a finger. Hopefully the new center will address these and many of the other problems intrinsic to college sports.
I find it interesting that President Powers announced the creation of the new center on the same day the local news reported that a grand jury in Travis County (Austin), Texas had indicted two former Texas football players on sexual assault charges in connection with an on-campus incident with a female student in June. It should be noted that Texas Head Football Coach Charlie Strong suspended both players one month after the sexual assault allegations and in August dismissed them from the team. This is the appropriate and correct action college coaches should take once there is sufficient evidence to determine that the student-athletes were involved in the sexual assault or any other serious violation of the student code of conduct.
It was reported that the center will work with high school coaches to develop a training and certification program which will help them detect and intervene when players exhibit troubling or violent behavior. A pilot program will focus on high school football and girls’ basketball.
According to the announcement, the center will also develop a financial literacy program for the university’s athletes. A one-hour pilot course will start in the fall and will be taught by financial professionals and former athletes will help teach the students how to manage loans, credit-card debt, and other financial matters. These skills will be useful for anyone, including the vast majority of college athletes who don’t go on to play sports professionally. However, the course would obviously benefit the smaller subset of high-profile players who might cash in on their athletic skills. In my opinion this should be a standard course for all college students, not just athletes.
Interestingly enough, the one-hour financial literacy comes on the heels of recent legal rulings about compensating college student athletes. In August, a federal judge ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had violated federal antitrust laws by unreasonably barring high-profile athletes from earning money off of the use of their names, images, and likenesses. The NCAA has appealed the decision and if upheld, it could allow some football and basketball players to earn thousands of dollars a year in deferred compensation for the commercial use of their images.
I believe that the problems in college athletics are rooted in money. For example, how can a head coach of a major college football program earn $5,000,000 a year and the president earn only $500,000 a year. Or take the recent example of the University of Michigan, my alma mater, which has offered Jim Harbaugh, head coach of the NFL San Francisco 49ers, $8,000,000.00 to be the head football coach. Apparently, $8M is higher than any head football coach makes in the NFL. My point exactly! A salary of $8M is a drop in the bucket compared to the $137M operating budget for the football program at Michigan and football is projected to make a surplus of $9M. Until we remove money from the equation, the problems will continue to exist. A $5M or now $8M, if Harbaugh accepts, a year salary is a great incentive to cheat, keep your job, and your enormous salary.
The creation of the new Center for Sports Leadership and Innovation is a great start in an attempt to address the problems facing college sports. However, I feel a more comprehensive approach needs to be taken. Other university presidents with major NCAA Division I sports programs need to step forward and create other “think tanks” that can study the problems, find solutions, implement them, and create best practices that can be disseminated to all college sports programs. After all this is what our students and the public deserve.
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014, William Powers, Jr., President of the University of Texas at Austin, announced the opening of the Center for Sports Leadership and Innovation to “help coaches instill strong character in high school players and teach college athletes how to manage their money better” (Chronicle of Higher Education on-line, 12/17/14). More universities should follow the example. President Powers should be commended for his leadership. However, instead he will step down as president in June of 2015 after much publicized clashes with Governor Perry and some of the members of the Board of Regents appointed by Perry.
President Powers goes on to say that "As a society, we should be doing everything we can to leverage the enormous popularity of athletics to develop leaders and cultivate integrity". In addition to teaching teamwork and discipline, he said, sports can be "a force for good." There is no debate about the inherent good that comes from college sports and the impact it has on student athletes, students in general, and the broader community.
The center will receive $300,000.00 in start-up funds from President Powers’ office via the Longhorn Network. The director of the new center will be Daron K. Roberts, a former student-government president at Texas, guest analyst for the Longhorn Network, and a guest lecturer in humanities at the university where he teaches a course in Leadership Strategy in Sports. He has served as an assistant coach with three NFL teams; the Kansas City Chiefs, Detroit Lions, and the Cleveland Browns; as well as an assistant coach with West Virginia University. He received a B.A. in Government from UT-Austin (2001), a Master’s of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government (2004) and a law degree (2007), both from Harvard University. He certainly has the academic qualifications and work experience to lead the center.
The creation of the center is a good start toward addressing the problems that exist in colleges sports. The public is tired of hearing about how college athletes are accused of sexual assaults and university administrations sweeping it under the rug. We are tired of reading about cheating scandal after scandal to help make blue chip athletes eligible to play college sports. We are tired of college athletes not attending classes, having term papers written for them and passing classes without lifting a finger. Hopefully the new center will address these and many of the other problems intrinsic to college sports.
I find it interesting that President Powers announced the creation of the new center on the same day the local news reported that a grand jury in Travis County (Austin), Texas had indicted two former Texas football players on sexual assault charges in connection with an on-campus incident with a female student in June. It should be noted that Texas Head Football Coach Charlie Strong suspended both players one month after the sexual assault allegations and in August dismissed them from the team. This is the appropriate and correct action college coaches should take once there is sufficient evidence to determine that the student-athletes were involved in the sexual assault or any other serious violation of the student code of conduct.
It was reported that the center will work with high school coaches to develop a training and certification program which will help them detect and intervene when players exhibit troubling or violent behavior. A pilot program will focus on high school football and girls’ basketball.
According to the announcement, the center will also develop a financial literacy program for the university’s athletes. A one-hour pilot course will start in the fall and will be taught by financial professionals and former athletes will help teach the students how to manage loans, credit-card debt, and other financial matters. These skills will be useful for anyone, including the vast majority of college athletes who don’t go on to play sports professionally. However, the course would obviously benefit the smaller subset of high-profile players who might cash in on their athletic skills. In my opinion this should be a standard course for all college students, not just athletes.
Interestingly enough, the one-hour financial literacy comes on the heels of recent legal rulings about compensating college student athletes. In August, a federal judge ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had violated federal antitrust laws by unreasonably barring high-profile athletes from earning money off of the use of their names, images, and likenesses. The NCAA has appealed the decision and if upheld, it could allow some football and basketball players to earn thousands of dollars a year in deferred compensation for the commercial use of their images.
I believe that the problems in college athletics are rooted in money. For example, how can a head coach of a major college football program earn $5,000,000 a year and the president earn only $500,000 a year. Or take the recent example of the University of Michigan, my alma mater, which has offered Jim Harbaugh, head coach of the NFL San Francisco 49ers, $8,000,000.00 to be the head football coach. Apparently, $8M is higher than any head football coach makes in the NFL. My point exactly! A salary of $8M is a drop in the bucket compared to the $137M operating budget for the football program at Michigan and football is projected to make a surplus of $9M. Until we remove money from the equation, the problems will continue to exist. A $5M or now $8M, if Harbaugh accepts, a year salary is a great incentive to cheat, keep your job, and your enormous salary.
The creation of the new Center for Sports Leadership and Innovation is a great start in an attempt to address the problems facing college sports. However, I feel a more comprehensive approach needs to be taken. Other university presidents with major NCAA Division I sports programs need to step forward and create other “think tanks” that can study the problems, find solutions, implement them, and create best practices that can be disseminated to all college sports programs. After all this is what our students and the public deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)