Thursday, September 28, 2017
... and "Riding the Fifth Wave in Higher Education" is due out in December.
Yes, this Blog's namesake will be published by Peter Lang at or near the end of this calendar year.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Friday, September 22, 2017
US Department of Education has withdrawn its 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter and 2014 guidance on campus sexual assault
Herewith the press release announcing the decision and providing new guidelines:
Department of Education Issues New Interim Guidance on Campus Sexual Misconduct
New Q&A will serve as interim guide until the conclusion of notice and comment rulemaking
Widely criticized 2011, 2014 guidance also withdrawn
Widely criticized 2011, 2014 guidance also withdrawn
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017
Contact: Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov
Washington — Building on her remarks from September 7, 2017, regarding the Department's commitment to protecting all students from discrimination, today U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced the release of a new interim Q&A for schools on how to investigate and adjudicate allegations of campus sexual misconduct under federal law.
"This interim guidance will help schools as they work to combat sexual misconduct and will treat all students fairly," said DeVos. "Schools must continue to confront these horrific crimes and behaviors head-on. There will be no more sweeping them under the rug. But the process also must be fair and impartial, giving everyone more confidence in its outcomes."
In the coming months, the Department intends to engage in rulemaking on Title IX responsibilities arising from complaints of sexual misconduct. The Department will solicit comments from stakeholders and the public during the rulemaking process, a legal procedure the prior administration ignored.
In the interim, the newly-released Q&A on Campus Sexual Misconduct explains the Department's current expectations of schools, and the Department will continue to rely on its Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance, which was informed by a public comment process and issued in 2001, as well as the Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Harassment issued on January 25, 2006.
"In the coming months, hearing from survivors, campus administrators, parents, students and experts on sexual misconduct will be vital as we work to create a thoughtful rule that will benefit students for years to come. We also will continue to work with schools and community leaders to better address preventing sexual misconduct through education and early intervention," DeVos added.
The Department of Education is also withdrawing the Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Violence dated April 4, 2011, and the Questions and Answers on Title IX Sexual Violence dated April 29, 2014. The withdrawn documents ignored notice and comment requirements, created a system that lacked basic elements of due process and failed to ensure fundamental fairness.
DeVos concluded, "As I said earlier this month, the era of rule by letter is over. The Department of Education will follow the proper legal procedures to craft a new Title IX regulation that better serves students and schools."
Press Call Information:
The Department will hold a background press call at 10:45 a.m. open to credentialed members of the media. Media interested in participating should RSVP to press@ed.gov to receive additional information.
FAQs on Updated Campus Sexual Misconduct Guidance
What is the purpose of the Q&A on Campus Sexual Misconduct?
- Describes a school's responsibility to address sexual misconduct complaints
- Discusses the relationship between Title IX and the Clery Act
- Provides examples of interim measures that may be appropriate under the circumstances
- Summarizes what procedures a school should follow to adjudicate a finding of responsibility for sexual misconduct
- Describes what constitutes an "equitable" investigation
- Explains a school's obligations concerning appeals
- Clarifies appropriate evidentiary standards
- Informs schools of their responsibilities concerning notifications to parties of the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings
What are a school's obligations under Title IX regarding sexual misconduct?
- Schools must address sexual misconduct that is severe, persistent or pervasive.
- Schools must conduct a fair and impartial investigation in a timely manner.
- Title IX investigations must be led by a person free of actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest and biases.
- Schools must designate a Title IX Coordinator.
Do schools have flexibility to establish fair procedures?
- Schools have the discretion to apply either the preponderance of the evidence standard or the clear and convincing evidence standard.
- Schools are not required to allow appeals; however, a school may choose to allow appeals solely by the responding party or by both parties.
- Schools may permit an informal resolution, such as mediation, if it is appropriate and if all parties voluntarily agree.
- Schools should provide written notice to the responding party of the allegations, including sufficient details and with adequate time to prepare a response before any initial interview.
- OCR recommends schools provide concurrent, written notice of the outcome of disciplinary proceedings to the reporting and responding parties.
Does the rescission letter or the Q&A add legal requirements?
The rescission letter and Q&A do not add requirements to applicable law.
Does the rescission letter or the Q&A limit the right of a person to file a Title IX complaint?
No. A school must adopt and publish grievance procedures that provide for a prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual misconduct. Moreover, whether or not a student files a complaint of alleged sexual misconduct or otherwise asks the school to take action, where the school knows or reasonably should know of an incident of sexual misconduct, the school must take steps to understand what occurred and to respond appropriately. In particular, when sexual misconduct is so severe, persistent or pervasive as to deny or limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the recipient's school's programs or activities, a hostile environment exists and the school must respond.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Classroom popularity contests and the real world of college teaching.
I love the essay by Georgetown's Jacques Berlinerblau in this morning's Chronicle of Higher Education. It's adapted, I am told, from his new book, Campus Confidential.
In the essay, Berlinerblau takes on syrupy, unrealistic movies about college professors, notably Mona Lisa Smile (2003), as well as "Teacher of the Year" awards, and even Ken Bain's iconic book, What the Best College Teachers Do. Berlinerblau's point seems to be that none of these depictions of college teachers walking on water realistically captures the realities of the profession.
The same might be said about student evaluations. Understand: I enjoy getting accolades from my students as much as the next instructor. My kudos hit a new high at the end of the fall semester 2016, when I received this response from some of my students in my HR management class, which I taught on line for Drexel University's Master of Legal Studies program:
In the essay, Berlinerblau takes on syrupy, unrealistic movies about college professors, notably Mona Lisa Smile (2003), as well as "Teacher of the Year" awards, and even Ken Bain's iconic book, What the Best College Teachers Do. Berlinerblau's point seems to be that none of these depictions of college teachers walking on water realistically captures the realities of the profession.
The same might be said about student evaluations. Understand: I enjoy getting accolades from my students as much as the next instructor. My kudos hit a new high at the end of the fall semester 2016, when I received this response from some of my students in my HR management class, which I taught on line for Drexel University's Master of Legal Studies program:
"Q9 - What does this professor need to improve?
You can't improve upon perfection
The class was great, no improvements needed
Nothing, loved him"
When you get that kind of feedback, it's hard not to love student evaluations. It's also hard to shun the temptation to make your assignments a little easier and your grades a little higher in order to sustain the ego-fix such results induce. The solution is carefully crafted evaluation questionnaires that gather useful data while avoiding ego-boosters.
In my experience, distinguished-teacher awards also often reflect a popularity contest, rather than rigorous pedagogy. Reaching back into the mists of my early career as PR director at Case Western Reserve University, I recall that the top-teacher award in Case's liberal arts college became known as the kiss of death... as one winner after another was subsequently denied tenure. Truth be told, the winner I knew best didn't deserve tenure. His scholarship was thin, at best, and his grading standards were flabby. But he was very popular with the students.
The film which depicts my ideal professor is The Paper Chase. Professor Kingsfield, the contracts teacher at Harvard Law School, presents the rigorous course required to mold mushy undergraduate minds into legal brains. I attended Case's law school not long after the movie came out. And, while my contracts teacher was not as fearsome as Kingsfield, he was pretty tough. The course was worth six credits and spanned two semesters, at the end of which the entire grade hinged upon one four-hour exam. Some of my classmates were so nervous going into that final that they threw up in the men's room.
The Business Insider recently pointed out an "epidemic" of grade inflation and "unearned As" at the high school level. This has spilled over into high ed. There are many reasons, a desire to retain as many students as possible in our competitive environment being not the least of them. Professorial popularity contests undoubtedly contribute to the trend. Berlinerblau's essay, and presumably his new book, would be applauded by Professor Kingsfield or the real-life counterpart upon whom his character was patterned. (See Scott Turow's first book, One L).
I applaud him, too.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
"Freshman Year For Free" --- If you own a mobile phone you can complete a year of college
That's the idea behind a new program created by a philanthropic organization out of New York called the Modern States Education Alliance.
Once a person completes a course, college credit can be obtained by taking an Advanced Placement or College Level Examination test via the College Board.
Freshman Year for Free offers some 40 courses prepared by profs out of Harvard, MIT and more than a dozen other good schools. It's perhaps the ultimate example of Harvard Professor Clay Christensen's disruption theory at work in the realm of higher education. Four years ago he predicted that higher ed was "on the edge of a crevasse."
In 2013 he observed, "I think higher education is just on the edge of the crevasse. Generally, universities are doing very well financially, so they don’t feel from the data that their world is going to collapse. But I think even five years from now these enterprises are going to be in real trouble."
Now, when we gaze into our iPhones, we may very well see that crevasse gazing right back at us in the form of the "Freshman Year for Free" App.
At the same time, it's hard for any honest educator not to be excited about students being able to carry college around in their pockets. If only some of my millennial daughter's friends had been able and encouraged to take advantage of something like this in lieu of the near-lifetime debts they amassed during their college years!
Once a person completes a course, college credit can be obtained by taking an Advanced Placement or College Level Examination test via the College Board.
Freshman Year for Free offers some 40 courses prepared by profs out of Harvard, MIT and more than a dozen other good schools. It's perhaps the ultimate example of Harvard Professor Clay Christensen's disruption theory at work in the realm of higher education. Four years ago he predicted that higher ed was "on the edge of a crevasse."
In 2013 he observed, "I think higher education is just on the edge of the crevasse. Generally, universities are doing very well financially, so they don’t feel from the data that their world is going to collapse. But I think even five years from now these enterprises are going to be in real trouble."
Now, when we gaze into our iPhones, we may very well see that crevasse gazing right back at us in the form of the "Freshman Year for Free" App.
At the same time, it's hard for any honest educator not to be excited about students being able to carry college around in their pockets. If only some of my millennial daughter's friends had been able and encouraged to take advantage of something like this in lieu of the near-lifetime debts they amassed during their college years!
Saturday, August 5, 2017
My September Webinars are now available for registration
- Comfort and Service Animals
- Intellectual Property
- Indemnification Agreements
- Cheating and Plagiarism
And please watch for the new edition of my HANDBOOK FOR STUDENT LAW FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS (NY: Peter Lang 2017), which will also be out in September.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Do small schools spend too much on administrators?
Yes, indeed, according to a report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. The R1s reportedly spend only 17 cents on administrators for every dollar spent on instructional staff, while the little guys spend 64 cents for every buck devoted to faculty and other instructional folks.
This data point goes hand in hand with two of my pet peeves: The amount of money wasted on executive search firms by higher ed institutions coupled with the incredible amount of faculty and staff energy wasted on conducting searches, and the salaries being paid to CEOs in our industry.
Consider the typical search process for, let's say, a dean or veep. First, a head hunter must be engaged at a not-insignificant fee. Meanwhile, a search committee is constituted. This can run to 10 or 12 busy people, who now will spend a significant chunk of their time reviewing the CVs provided by the search firm, meeting about them, conducting the "airport" interviews, meeting about them, interviewing the finalists, meeting about them.... As for the poor candidate, s/he must write a letter aimed at convincing the search committee that their institution has been the candidate's dream career move since s/he was an undergraduate. Then s/he must prep for the airport interview, usually by reading a thick packet of materials fed-exed by the head hunter. And, if s/he makes it into the final four, there is the fun of two days of being quizzed by every Tom, Dick and Harry at the institution. And, if s/he isn't the winner, well, then, it's time to do it all over again with some other institution. I wouldn't be sounding so critical if I thought we got the best people out of this grueling process. Too often we do not. (You know I'm right.)
I won't even get into the issue of CEO salaries this morning, except to say that the "cult of the CEO", so prevalent in the for-profit world, has come to increasingly control thinking in higher ed as well. I wouldn't be sounding so critical here, either, if I thought the adulation was deserved. But, again, too often our expectations are disappointed and our hopes dashed. I'll leave this topic with just one word: Spanier.
Solutions? Council President Michael Poliakoff suggests that the findings raise questions about the long-range fiscal health of the small-college sector of our industry. (Surprise, surprise.) He adds, they point up the need for schools to explore shared admin services and purchasing consortia, among other solutions. In other words, sub-out the administrative stuff and focus on the core business. The study can be accessed here.
I would add that closing the gap between faculty and staff; cultivating a culture of faculty involvement in recruitment, retention and fund raising; rotating faculty through administrative roles so that they understand the business they are in; promoting from within... all these steps will help create a leaner, meaner, and tighter-knit organization in these times of Fifth Wave financial crises and existential challenges.
This data point goes hand in hand with two of my pet peeves: The amount of money wasted on executive search firms by higher ed institutions coupled with the incredible amount of faculty and staff energy wasted on conducting searches, and the salaries being paid to CEOs in our industry.
Consider the typical search process for, let's say, a dean or veep. First, a head hunter must be engaged at a not-insignificant fee. Meanwhile, a search committee is constituted. This can run to 10 or 12 busy people, who now will spend a significant chunk of their time reviewing the CVs provided by the search firm, meeting about them, conducting the "airport" interviews, meeting about them, interviewing the finalists, meeting about them.... As for the poor candidate, s/he must write a letter aimed at convincing the search committee that their institution has been the candidate's dream career move since s/he was an undergraduate. Then s/he must prep for the airport interview, usually by reading a thick packet of materials fed-exed by the head hunter. And, if s/he makes it into the final four, there is the fun of two days of being quizzed by every Tom, Dick and Harry at the institution. And, if s/he isn't the winner, well, then, it's time to do it all over again with some other institution. I wouldn't be sounding so critical if I thought we got the best people out of this grueling process. Too often we do not. (You know I'm right.)
I won't even get into the issue of CEO salaries this morning, except to say that the "cult of the CEO", so prevalent in the for-profit world, has come to increasingly control thinking in higher ed as well. I wouldn't be sounding so critical here, either, if I thought the adulation was deserved. But, again, too often our expectations are disappointed and our hopes dashed. I'll leave this topic with just one word: Spanier.
Solutions? Council President Michael Poliakoff suggests that the findings raise questions about the long-range fiscal health of the small-college sector of our industry. (Surprise, surprise.) He adds, they point up the need for schools to explore shared admin services and purchasing consortia, among other solutions. In other words, sub-out the administrative stuff and focus on the core business. The study can be accessed here.
I would add that closing the gap between faculty and staff; cultivating a culture of faculty involvement in recruitment, retention and fund raising; rotating faculty through administrative roles so that they understand the business they are in; promoting from within... all these steps will help create a leaner, meaner, and tighter-knit organization in these times of Fifth Wave financial crises and existential challenges.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Guns and abortions: What the right and the left have in common
This post is inspired by news this morning that Iowa's three-day waiting period for an abortion is about to be tested in a courtroom. The plaintiffs contend that the law discriminates against women in that no other medical procedure is required to entail such a waiting period under state law.
So why should anyone mind a three-day wait? What difference does it make?
When this question occurred to me on the drive in this morning, that thought connected up with the NRA's adamant stance against any, even the most nonintrusive and commonsensical, gun-control bills. It comes down to that darn camel's nose.
Both sides are ever-vigilant about any new law or regulation that may put their most precious issue on the slippery slope to illegality.
The other thing they have in common: both sides accuse the other of causing millions of unnecessary deaths.
Second-Amendment advocates respond that arming the good guys actually saves lives. Free-choice proponents point to a woman's right to control her own body, while usually adding that fetuses (feti?) aren't people.
I wonder if any of them ever take a step back from the fray to ponder the things they have in common.
So why should anyone mind a three-day wait? What difference does it make?
When this question occurred to me on the drive in this morning, that thought connected up with the NRA's adamant stance against any, even the most nonintrusive and commonsensical, gun-control bills. It comes down to that darn camel's nose.
The other thing they have in common: both sides accuse the other of causing millions of unnecessary deaths.
Second-Amendment advocates respond that arming the good guys actually saves lives. Free-choice proponents point to a woman's right to control her own body, while usually adding that fetuses (feti?) aren't people.
I wonder if any of them ever take a step back from the fray to ponder the things they have in common.
Monday, July 10, 2017
Gainful employment is the challenge for all of us
A new report on the future of work concludes, "In the eyes of many students and their parents, higher education is tied to a job. And yet the world of work is poised to undergo a number of dramatic changes over the next 10 years. This report explores the future job market, reinventing college career services, and higher education's role in the workforce."
For many recent college graduates --- not to mention their less fortunate contemporaries who haven't attended college --- the future is now... no need to look out to the next decade. For example, unless and until America joins the rest of the Western world in providing a single-payer healthcare system, our younger generations by and large will continue to pay through the nose for second rate coverage or do without altogether. This is true of employees and freelancers alike.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has published a series of stories recently regarding the limits of what colleges are able to do for our young people. One story points out that in the heart of Trump country, poverty, addiction and low expectations work against the efforts of local community and four-year colleges. Another notes that in Michigan's car-manufacturing region, high school grads today earn less than their fathers and grandfathers. It goes on to say that the Obama Administration bet heavily on community colleges to retrain these young workers. The auto industry itself has been bailed out time and again by Uncle Sam. But outcomes so far have been mixed at best. Yet another story notes similar efforts by community colleges in coal country, also with mixed results.
The overall message seems to be that we in higher ed are in an uphill fight to turn the tide that has swamped many workers' boats.
I just sent off to my publisher the manuscript for what will be my 21st book (full disclosure: two were self-published on Amazon), titled Riding the Fifth Wave: A Survival Guide to the New Normal in High Education. (Yeh, it's the same as the name of this Blog.) In it, as the title suggests, I analyze the paradigm shift that has occurred in our industry and I offer some suggestions on how to ride the wave to the shores of success instead of drowning in the tsunami of change.
Our survival and our success in large part depend upon how successful we make our students. As the new report and the three stories cited above demonstrate, the "Fifth Wave" isn't threatening to drown only unprepared colleges and universities. It is threatening to wash away the American middle class and sweep our younger generations back to the economic conditions of the first half of the 20th century.
For many recent college graduates --- not to mention their less fortunate contemporaries who haven't attended college --- the future is now... no need to look out to the next decade. For example, unless and until America joins the rest of the Western world in providing a single-payer healthcare system, our younger generations by and large will continue to pay through the nose for second rate coverage or do without altogether. This is true of employees and freelancers alike.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has published a series of stories recently regarding the limits of what colleges are able to do for our young people. One story points out that in the heart of Trump country, poverty, addiction and low expectations work against the efforts of local community and four-year colleges. Another notes that in Michigan's car-manufacturing region, high school grads today earn less than their fathers and grandfathers. It goes on to say that the Obama Administration bet heavily on community colleges to retrain these young workers. The auto industry itself has been bailed out time and again by Uncle Sam. But outcomes so far have been mixed at best. Yet another story notes similar efforts by community colleges in coal country, also with mixed results.
The overall message seems to be that we in higher ed are in an uphill fight to turn the tide that has swamped many workers' boats.
I just sent off to my publisher the manuscript for what will be my 21st book (full disclosure: two were self-published on Amazon), titled Riding the Fifth Wave: A Survival Guide to the New Normal in High Education. (Yeh, it's the same as the name of this Blog.) In it, as the title suggests, I analyze the paradigm shift that has occurred in our industry and I offer some suggestions on how to ride the wave to the shores of success instead of drowning in the tsunami of change.
Our survival and our success in large part depend upon how successful we make our students. As the new report and the three stories cited above demonstrate, the "Fifth Wave" isn't threatening to drown only unprepared colleges and universities. It is threatening to wash away the American middle class and sweep our younger generations back to the economic conditions of the first half of the 20th century.
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Should video games be in your curriculum?
A neuroscientist from UC-San Francisco says that video games can improve students' memory and multi-tasking abilities, and even help treat attention deficit disorders.
I've never been much of a gamer. I'm old enough to remember when "Space Invaders" invaded the local bars. I recall rinky dink games on large cassettes marketed with Color Computers by Radio Shack. And I remember trying to play a bootleg copy of "Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail" in the pre-mouse age of key-stroke codes. My gaming experiences ended just about there.
When my kids were still pre-high school, we took them one summer to see the USA, winding up at a friend's home in San Diego. My wife and I marveled that in the city of endless sunshine, the three boys only wanted to stay home and play video games. What ever will become of them, we fretted. The answer is that all three of them are doing very well, thank you, in the IT industry.
Many years later, I was back in California, attending a seminar at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey. Another attendee went into a bit of rant about the time the younger generation was wasting on video games. An Air Force fighter pilot with perhaps just a fleck of gray at the temples interrupted to observe that the younger pilots were better at flying the newest generation of jets than he was, for all his experience. Why? Because the old days of the stick have given way to control panels not unlike those used in those much-maligned games.
This is only anecdotal evidence, I know. However, it does tend to support what Dr. Adam Gazzaley of UC-SF claims: In our brave new world of AI and bots, gaming may have a legitimate place in the college curriculum.
I've never been much of a gamer. I'm old enough to remember when "Space Invaders" invaded the local bars. I recall rinky dink games on large cassettes marketed with Color Computers by Radio Shack. And I remember trying to play a bootleg copy of "Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail" in the pre-mouse age of key-stroke codes. My gaming experiences ended just about there.
When my kids were still pre-high school, we took them one summer to see the USA, winding up at a friend's home in San Diego. My wife and I marveled that in the city of endless sunshine, the three boys only wanted to stay home and play video games. What ever will become of them, we fretted. The answer is that all three of them are doing very well, thank you, in the IT industry.
Many years later, I was back in California, attending a seminar at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey. Another attendee went into a bit of rant about the time the younger generation was wasting on video games. An Air Force fighter pilot with perhaps just a fleck of gray at the temples interrupted to observe that the younger pilots were better at flying the newest generation of jets than he was, for all his experience. Why? Because the old days of the stick have given way to control panels not unlike those used in those much-maligned games.
This is only anecdotal evidence, I know. However, it does tend to support what Dr. Adam Gazzaley of UC-SF claims: In our brave new world of AI and bots, gaming may have a legitimate place in the college curriculum.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
If you are passionate about gun control, you're aren't going to like this post
I live in a blue city (Philadelphia) in a red state. There's an old joke in my home town: Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between. Like many jokes and cliches, this one persists because there is a core of truth in it.
And so it may come as no surprise that the Pennsylvania Senate is considering a bill that would allow public school teachers to carry guns. Of course, the plan has attracted a lot of push back from gun control groups and also some teachers.
But might the legislators, the majority of whom are Republicans from the Keystone State's "Alabama" heartland, be onto something? After all, even Donald Trump gets it right sometimes.
The Sandy Hook elementary school killer went to the local high school first, but left because he saw a an armed school-resource officer on duty there.
Schools at all levels, from elementary to higher ed, engage in lock-down drills. My personal opinion, based on more than mere speculation, is that these exercises are pretty much worthless. So are unarmed security personnel at the front door.
There's another old saw that holds a core of truth: one definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different outcome.
Einstein is credited with saying that. He also is credited with urging America to develop an atomic bomb, because he knew the Third Reich was capable of developing one. Sounds as if he was a realist.
Is it perhaps time we got real about what doesn't work in protecting our children and ourselves from the radicals and the nuts? Is it time to try something very different?
And so it may come as no surprise that the Pennsylvania Senate is considering a bill that would allow public school teachers to carry guns. Of course, the plan has attracted a lot of push back from gun control groups and also some teachers.
But might the legislators, the majority of whom are Republicans from the Keystone State's "Alabama" heartland, be onto something? After all, even Donald Trump gets it right sometimes.
The Sandy Hook elementary school killer went to the local high school first, but left because he saw a an armed school-resource officer on duty there.
Schools at all levels, from elementary to higher ed, engage in lock-down drills. My personal opinion, based on more than mere speculation, is that these exercises are pretty much worthless. So are unarmed security personnel at the front door.
There's another old saw that holds a core of truth: one definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different outcome.
Is it perhaps time we got real about what doesn't work in protecting our children and ourselves from the radicals and the nuts? Is it time to try something very different?
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Are the Supremes better business people than Mr. Trump?
Yesterday, as we all now have heard, the Supreme Court rendered a preliminary ruling on the President's travel ban. SCOTUS said that travelers from the targeted Muslim countries could enter the US if they have ties here. One such tie is student or faculty status at an American University.
This decision, which probably prefigures how the Court will come down when it hears the case on its merits in October, was a sound business decision. Higher education is one of the few remaining industries in which the US ranks number one in the world. Despite stiff competition from Europe and Australia, international students still prefer an American educational experience by a wide majority. A travel ban that disrupts this flow of students (and dollars) into the US might be called dumb.
But, then, t"dumb" has been Uncle Sam's --- and many states' --- approach to higher education during the past two decades or more. Having created a world-beating higher-education industry in the US, our political leaders seem to have been bent on doing all they can to starve it of funds, regulate it half to death, and in general see just how much stress it can take before it implodes.
Even 20 years ago, colleagues of mine from public university systems around the nation were complaining that, "We used to be state supported. Then we were only state affiliated. And now we are merely state located." Thankfully the funding drought seems to be lifting in many states, although some --- such as Illinois --- continue to leave their public systems panting for fiscal relief.
Meanwhile, back in DC, the Obama Administration orchestrated a regulatory ramp-up that strained the resources of many small and medium sized colleges and universities.
Mr. Trump and his team of billionaires and generals aims to provide regulatory relief across the economy. And, in fact, news out of the DeVos Department of Ed in recent days indicates implementation of just such an intent. Unfortunately --- as I have predicted --- so far all the regulatory relief has gone to the for-profit sector of higher education.
Meanwhile, although Trump's travel ban ostensibly affected only a half dozen countries, its chilling effect on international students worldwide seems undeniable. That's why I say it might be called a dumb business decision.
But perhaps "dumb" is the wrong word. Anyone who thinks Donald Trump is dumb is being pretty naive. So if it's not dumb, what is it? In 1924 Calvin Coolidge said, "The chief business of the American people is business." There's the answer. Harking back to those halcyon days before the Great Depression, the Trump Administration has brought to Washington the same philosophy. That's why the Prez sees nothing wrong with profiting from the international business being drawn into the Trump Hotel. It's why Betsy DeVos sees nothing wrong with shelving the "gainful employment" regs intended to ensure that students investing federal-loan dollars in for-profit education companies are coming away with valuable skill sets.
Let me suggest that Trump and Company in Washington, like such governors as Walker of Wisconsin, disdain the not-for-profit sector, including public and non-profit universities. The idea that an industry not organized to maximize its profits could be one of the top economic drivers runs contrary to their fundamental beliefs. I believe that the rich live with themselves in a world that is mostly poor by persuading one another that they have earned and deserve every dollar they have hoarded. They cling tenaciously to the notion that market forces must rule, regardless of who gets crushed. They vociferously and endlessly assert that the profit motive is the best incentive for every sector... including health care, the penal system, policing, and yes, education. And, if they happen to enhance their own fortunes along the way, well, all the better.
That the public and non-profit realms might be best at delivering universal healthcare and universal education is anathema to that mind set.
The travel ban's potential impact on international-student attendance at US universities was just one small indicator of this blind spot. Thankfully, SCOTUS seems to be more savvy.
This decision, which probably prefigures how the Court will come down when it hears the case on its merits in October, was a sound business decision. Higher education is one of the few remaining industries in which the US ranks number one in the world. Despite stiff competition from Europe and Australia, international students still prefer an American educational experience by a wide majority. A travel ban that disrupts this flow of students (and dollars) into the US might be called dumb.
But, then, t"dumb" has been Uncle Sam's --- and many states' --- approach to higher education during the past two decades or more. Having created a world-beating higher-education industry in the US, our political leaders seem to have been bent on doing all they can to starve it of funds, regulate it half to death, and in general see just how much stress it can take before it implodes.
Even 20 years ago, colleagues of mine from public university systems around the nation were complaining that, "We used to be state supported. Then we were only state affiliated. And now we are merely state located." Thankfully the funding drought seems to be lifting in many states, although some --- such as Illinois --- continue to leave their public systems panting for fiscal relief.
Meanwhile, back in DC, the Obama Administration orchestrated a regulatory ramp-up that strained the resources of many small and medium sized colleges and universities.
Mr. Trump and his team of billionaires and generals aims to provide regulatory relief across the economy. And, in fact, news out of the DeVos Department of Ed in recent days indicates implementation of just such an intent. Unfortunately --- as I have predicted --- so far all the regulatory relief has gone to the for-profit sector of higher education.
Meanwhile, although Trump's travel ban ostensibly affected only a half dozen countries, its chilling effect on international students worldwide seems undeniable. That's why I say it might be called a dumb business decision.
But perhaps "dumb" is the wrong word. Anyone who thinks Donald Trump is dumb is being pretty naive. So if it's not dumb, what is it? In 1924 Calvin Coolidge said, "The chief business of the American people is business." There's the answer. Harking back to those halcyon days before the Great Depression, the Trump Administration has brought to Washington the same philosophy. That's why the Prez sees nothing wrong with profiting from the international business being drawn into the Trump Hotel. It's why Betsy DeVos sees nothing wrong with shelving the "gainful employment" regs intended to ensure that students investing federal-loan dollars in for-profit education companies are coming away with valuable skill sets.
Let me suggest that Trump and Company in Washington, like such governors as Walker of Wisconsin, disdain the not-for-profit sector, including public and non-profit universities. The idea that an industry not organized to maximize its profits could be one of the top economic drivers runs contrary to their fundamental beliefs. I believe that the rich live with themselves in a world that is mostly poor by persuading one another that they have earned and deserve every dollar they have hoarded. They cling tenaciously to the notion that market forces must rule, regardless of who gets crushed. They vociferously and endlessly assert that the profit motive is the best incentive for every sector... including health care, the penal system, policing, and yes, education. And, if they happen to enhance their own fortunes along the way, well, all the better.
That the public and non-profit realms might be best at delivering universal healthcare and universal education is anathema to that mind set.
The travel ban's potential impact on international-student attendance at US universities was just one small indicator of this blind spot. Thankfully, SCOTUS seems to be more savvy.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
What Kalanick and Trump should tell us about our Entrepreneurial Studies programs
Every business school now has an entrepreneurial studies program, my home institution being no exception. We focus --- quite appropriately --- on the challenges of starting up an enterprise. Some programs even provide seed money to seniors to get them launched. All good stuff... but do we teach them enough about continuity? And if we did, would it really help?
CEO Travis Kalanick's departure from Uber yesterday is a case on point. His is the classic tale of a brilliant entrepreneur, who in his case couldn't get a cab in San Francisco and turned his frustration --- plus the the then-new app craze --- into an international enterprise. And it is a classic tale of mismanagement, scandal and investor dissatisfaction.
As one who reports on labor and employment issues --- Termination of Employment Bulletin; The Employment Law Answer Book; Employment and Labor Law--- I have been following the Uber story for a long time. I have reported on the company's tribulations, and expensive settlements, involving class action suits by drivers claiming employee (rather than independent contractor) status. And I have been a satisfied Uber passenger on more than one occasion in more than one city.
My two contrasting experiences --- as a writer/reporter and as a customer --- are emblematic of the situation leading to Kalanick's ouster. One commentator is quoted as observing, "Kalanick had become a giant liability to the car-hailing company for a growing number of reasons, from sketchy business practices to troubling lawsuits to a basic management situation that was akin to a toxic goat rodeo."
Once upon a time I personally experienced a similar situation. While working for a major Philadelphia law firm I defended a major retailer in a wage & hour suit brought by the US Department of Labor. We settled for $3 million and the company's CFO led a group of us in the leveraged buy-out of the company. I had skin in the game to the tune of $50,000. And it was a one-year roller coaster ride, not least because the CFO-turned-CEO was, like Kalanick, a classic entrepreneurial type. His day-to-day management style was erratic and unpredictable, leading a major investor to exercise its right to buy me and my partners, including the CEO, out a year after we started. And, trust me, the buy-out came as a big relief to me.
Coming, then, as I do from my reporting on Uber and my own personal experience, I can't help but see the same story unfolding in the White House. Donald Trump, a consummate entrepreneur, saw an opportunity to win the presidency. Those who call him dumb are themselves being stupid. His capture of the presidency was a brilliant coup.
But... now there he is: like Kalanick, and like the CEO in my LBO experience, a bored entrepreneur and a terrible manager. The parallels are absolutely compelling. I can only wonder how long it will be until his "board of directors" (aka the GOP establishment) will push him out.
Meanwhile, let me circle back to my first couple of questions. Are we doing enough in our business schools' entrepreneurial programs to prepare our budding enterprise-builders to run the enterprises they found? And can we do enough? This second question derives from my suspicion that the Kalanicks and Trumps of the world may be hard wired. What makes them brilliant and revolutionary innovators may doom them to be lousy long-term business leaders.
CEO Travis Kalanick's departure from Uber yesterday is a case on point. His is the classic tale of a brilliant entrepreneur, who in his case couldn't get a cab in San Francisco and turned his frustration --- plus the the then-new app craze --- into an international enterprise. And it is a classic tale of mismanagement, scandal and investor dissatisfaction.
As one who reports on labor and employment issues --- Termination of Employment Bulletin; The Employment Law Answer Book; Employment and Labor Law--- I have been following the Uber story for a long time. I have reported on the company's tribulations, and expensive settlements, involving class action suits by drivers claiming employee (rather than independent contractor) status. And I have been a satisfied Uber passenger on more than one occasion in more than one city.
My two contrasting experiences --- as a writer/reporter and as a customer --- are emblematic of the situation leading to Kalanick's ouster. One commentator is quoted as observing, "Kalanick had become a giant liability to the car-hailing company for a growing number of reasons, from sketchy business practices to troubling lawsuits to a basic management situation that was akin to a toxic goat rodeo."
Once upon a time I personally experienced a similar situation. While working for a major Philadelphia law firm I defended a major retailer in a wage & hour suit brought by the US Department of Labor. We settled for $3 million and the company's CFO led a group of us in the leveraged buy-out of the company. I had skin in the game to the tune of $50,000. And it was a one-year roller coaster ride, not least because the CFO-turned-CEO was, like Kalanick, a classic entrepreneurial type. His day-to-day management style was erratic and unpredictable, leading a major investor to exercise its right to buy me and my partners, including the CEO, out a year after we started. And, trust me, the buy-out came as a big relief to me.
Coming, then, as I do from my reporting on Uber and my own personal experience, I can't help but see the same story unfolding in the White House. Donald Trump, a consummate entrepreneur, saw an opportunity to win the presidency. Those who call him dumb are themselves being stupid. His capture of the presidency was a brilliant coup.
But... now there he is: like Kalanick, and like the CEO in my LBO experience, a bored entrepreneur and a terrible manager. The parallels are absolutely compelling. I can only wonder how long it will be until his "board of directors" (aka the GOP establishment) will push him out.
Meanwhile, let me circle back to my first couple of questions. Are we doing enough in our business schools' entrepreneurial programs to prepare our budding enterprise-builders to run the enterprises they found? And can we do enough? This second question derives from my suspicion that the Kalanicks and Trumps of the world may be hard wired. What makes them brilliant and revolutionary innovators may doom them to be lousy long-term business leaders.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
The Elephant in the Living Room
Sure, there's something to that. But is there an underlying, more fundamental cause? Let me suggest that the word everyone should be looking for is "class." In America we have been in denial about class for generations. It isn't supposed to exist. That's why politicians (such as TIM Kaine) like to be called by their nicknames: Bill and Mike and Chris. (Although always Donald and not Don or Donny, I note.)
It was a lot easier to maintain that illusion back in my salad days. As Robert Reich pointed out in The Work of Nations some 25 years ago, in the 1950s and 1960s, the CEO of a major manufacturing company, after paying his taxes, took home only about 12 times the net pay of the men and women on the assembly line. A high school graduate with a good job and a good union contract could call him/herself middle class and plan to send the kids to college.
I've mentioned Joe Bageant's 2006 Deer Hunting with Jesus several times in this space in recent weeks. The author retired from journalism and moved back to his home town in rural Virginia, where he wrote about his friends and neighbors. For me the most telling chapter involved the Rubber Maid plant that was the town's chief employer. Joe recalled how, when he was young in the 60s and 70s, good jobs and a good union contract provided a middle-income lifestyle for the Rubber Maid workers. Then along came Wal-Mart, which demanded that Rubber Maid cut its costs of production by 30 percent. Out with the union... out with good wages and benefits... in with ongoing fear of losing the plant and the jobs to an offshore operation.
In Joe and my salad days, guys like us had to work hard at failing. It was just so darn easy to find a good job... even without a college education. If you were a white boy --- even the son of a coal miner/bricklayer, such as myself --- you really did have to consciously choose to "tune in and drop out," if you wanted to be poor. Poverty was a lifestyle choice.
Today, the good news is that our society is much more embracing of diversity then when Joe and I were young men. Women and people of color are much more likely to have an equal chance alongside Joe and my progeny. The real question --- the elephant in the living room --- is " a real chance at what."
My children and their friends --- college graduates one and all --- feel the challenges acutely. One young colleague, aged 34, who holds a Ph.D., told me that he will be 60 when his student loans are finally fully paid off. A young woman, who graduated seven years ago with my daughter and now has an MA from NYU, worked as a shop girl after getting that degree.
Robotics and AI, globalization, the decline of organized labor, the cost of a college education, the gutting of home equity in the Great Recession... all these have contributed to the decline of the great American middle class of the 50s and 60s and the widening gap between rich and poor in the US.
And, as Joe Bageant documented ten years ago and Donald's victory ten years later confirmed, the late, great American middle class is feeling the pain. Should we be surprised if some of them --- perhaps the mentally ill ones --- lash out violently? Yesterday's shooter, I hear, was a homeless man and former Occupy activist living out of his van.
If you are worried about easy access to guns by such folks, read Joe Bageant's chapter on firearms; it'll make you worry even more. If you are worried about mental illness, then rethink healthcare reform; ask what policy changes put so many homeless, mentally challenged people on our streets. And if you are worried about "toxic" rhetoric, maybe rethink the mean-spirited, insensitive and just-plain-greedy policies that underly that rhetoric.
If the elephant rampages, no one's living room will be safe... not even in America's gated communities.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
I predicted it in my recently published article...
... in the SAGE Journal of Industry and Higher Education:
The fortunes of the for-profit higher education industry rise and fall with the political tides in the United States. During the 8 years of the George W Bush Administration (Republican), the for-profit sector of US higher education prospered. The following two terms of the Obama Administration (Democrat) resulted in the loss of all the ground gained during Mr Bush’s two terms in office. Indeed, the US Department of Education, led by Secretary Arne Duncan, aggressively attacked the for-profit higher education providers. This attack took two very effective forms: the wielding of ‘gainful employment’ regulations to sever the eligibility of for-profit corporations to receive federal financial aid funding for admitted students, and the withdrawal of authority from the for-profit sector’s accrediting agency. This article argues that, if the past is predictive, the prospects for the for-profit higher education providers are bright under Mr Trump.
The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting this afternoon that DOE Secretary DeVos just announced that the "gainful employment" regulations, that the Obama Administration fought so hard to put into place and defend against court challenges, will now be rolled back. The subsequent news release speaks for itself:
Secretary DeVos Announces Regulatory Reset to Protect Students, Taxpayers, Higher Ed Institutions
U.S. Department of Education sent this bulletin at 06/14/2017 12:06 PM EDT
|
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
The Decline in For-Profit Higher Education During the Obama Administration and Its Prospects in the Trump Presidency
That's the title of my new article, which you can access in the JOURNAL OF INDUSTRY AND HIGHER EDUCATION.
The fortunes of the for-profit higher education industry rise and fall with the political tides in the United States. During the 8 years of the George W Bush Administration (Republican), the for-profit sector of US higher education prospered. The following two terms of theObama Administration (Democrat) resulted in the loss of all the ground gained during Mr Bush’s two terms in office. Indeed, the US Department of Education, led by Secretary Arne Duncan, aggressively attacked the for-profit higher education providers. This attack took two very effective forms: the wielding of ‘gainful employment’ regulations to sever the eligibility of for-profit corporations to receive federal financial aid funding for admitted students, and the withdrawal of authority from the for-profit sector’s accrediting agency. This article argues that, if the past is predictive, the prospects for the for-profit higher education providers are bright under Mr Trump.
Friday, June 9, 2017
It's easier to kill Dracula than to kill a fraternity.
This story from yesterday's Chronicle of Higher Education is a case on point. It reports on a rogue fraternity gone wild. The particular fraternity gained national notoriety when the Huffington Post published what allegedly are strings of emails in which brothers boast of rapes, drunkenness and more. The article adds that, despite complaints from other students, the university was able to do little more than decry the rogue organization.
In the 1960s I majored in fraternity at my alma mater. It's fair to say that we were the college's Animal House. At one point we wore the "triple crown" : academic probation, disciplinary probation, and national-chapter probation. Everything except double secret probation.
Not long after I graduated, the college began admitting women. And not so very long after that, the college withdrew recognition of all 11 fraternities. My fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, lost its house, which was converted to the college's "art house." But the chapter never died. Alumni, in addition to loudly voicing their ire about the withdrawal of recognition, continued to work with current brothers to procure a new house. Eventually, the college caved and Phi Psi recovered its historic venue and came out of the shadows.
American higher education has for decades, if not centuries, been characterized by a love-hate relationship with "Greek Life." If we administrators are honest, we will admit that fraternities and sororities contribute to recruitment and retention, as well as alumni loyalty... often for a lifetime. At the same time, they are the loci of outrageous misconduct, alcohol and drug abuse, sexual misconduct, and hazing.
In my day, as a pledge, I suffered a broken nose during hazing. A fellow pledge faired worse: two broken arms as a consequence of hazing antics.
That hazing remains alive and unwell was driven home starkly by a recent death in a Penn State frat house. Predictably, PSU --- still reeling from the jail time imposed upon the school's disgraced past president --- has announced tougher rules for the Greeks. It's a cycle that has been repeated at hundreds of US colleges and universities down the decades.
The Greek system is woven into the fabric of American higher education. It seems that we can no more separate our colleges and universities from it than Mr. Trump can escape the clutches of his right-wing base.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Apprenticeship programs are enjoying renewed interest in the US
Here's a good article from today's Chronicle of Higher Ed about one entrepreneur who is actively promoting apprenticeships in his state. His organization is CareerWise Colorado.
As I've noted in this space a few times in the past, Germany can be looked to as a role model for apprenticeship programs.
Although the high-school dropout rate in the US has declined to about six percent, fewer than 70 percent of hight school graduates go on to college immediately after graduation.
The 30 percent who don't go off to college may be prime targets for apprenticeship training. That's a lot of young women and men. And the jobs are out there, too. According to USA Today, this year an estimated 2.5 million so-called "middle skill" jobs will be added to our economy, accounting for 40 percent of all US job growth. Adds the paper, some energetic young people in these jobs can amass $100,000 in annual income, counting expected overtime opportunities.
Unions used to be the biggest providers of apprenticeships. With the decline of unionization in the private sector to less than 10 percent of the total workforces, apprenticeship programs sponsored by organized labor have also declined. Outfits such as CareerWise Colorado are attempting to fill the vacuum.
As I've noted in this space a few times in the past, Germany can be looked to as a role model for apprenticeship programs.
Although the high-school dropout rate in the US has declined to about six percent, fewer than 70 percent of hight school graduates go on to college immediately after graduation.
The 30 percent who don't go off to college may be prime targets for apprenticeship training. That's a lot of young women and men. And the jobs are out there, too. According to USA Today, this year an estimated 2.5 million so-called "middle skill" jobs will be added to our economy, accounting for 40 percent of all US job growth. Adds the paper, some energetic young people in these jobs can amass $100,000 in annual income, counting expected overtime opportunities.
Unions used to be the biggest providers of apprenticeships. With the decline of unionization in the private sector to less than 10 percent of the total workforces, apprenticeship programs sponsored by organized labor have also declined. Outfits such as CareerWise Colorado are attempting to fill the vacuum.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Do MOOCs still matter?
The Massive Online Open-Enrollment Course... not many years ago it was being touted as the pedagogical revolution that would break higher education wide open, knocking down the traditional classroom walls. A leader in the MOOC movement is "edX". Its CEO, Anant Agarwal, was interviewed recently by a Chronicle of Higher Ed reporter. Five years and 11 million students after its founding, the non-profit hopes to be sustainable by 2020.
In my experience --- and I "taught" a couple of MOOCs a few years ago (although mine amounted only to Minor Online Open-Enrollment Courses --- Mini-MOOCs) --- two kinds of students are attracted. The first are the dilettantes, i.e., folks with a casual interest in your topic, who sign up and participate to widely varied degrees from 'hardly at all' to 'across the finish line.' Instructors may or may not award a certificate, which may or may not have any value to the student.
The other market is students who can translate the MOOC experience into credit hours toward a degree at a legit college or university. This is where the future lies, if there is a future for MOOCs.
As potential for-credit offerings, MOOCs might be viewed as a sub-set of online learning more broadly. I have quite a bit more experience with that, having taught online courses for a couple of years now for a Philadelphia law school. I confess that even after two years, I still struggle with the pedagogical and technological challenges of online learning. Last fall I taught Human Resource Management and received the best student reviews of my long teaching career. Asked "what does the professor need to improve?" answers included:
"You can't improve upon perfection."
"The class was great, no improvements needed."
"Nothing, loved him."
No, I'm not making those up. Then, this spring, I taught ADR for the second time. I tried using video to improve the interactive nature of the experience, which after all included units on negotiation and mediation. Whether due to the technology or the students' lack of sophistication, the video components performed very poorly. And I had one student --- who didn't seem to think he needed to provide more than two or three sentences for any discussion or exam question ("Hey, this is graduate school") --- tell me I was the worst online prof ever. I put most of that right back on him. But, like any good and responsible teacher, I'm left wondering how I might have brought him around. I've had duds like this --- who are in the class only to get a grade and ultimately a credential --- in my face-to-face classrooms, where I could deal with them one-on-one and gage their body language and expressions. Lacking that opportunity online, it's much more difficult, if not impossible, to engage this kind of intellectually bankrupt student.
In last week's post, I made the point that a liberal education is important not only because it teaches students how to think, write, analyze and adjust to life's fast-paced changes. I contended that it also teaches them how to live meaningful lives... even if they find themselves professionally redundant some day, despite those skill sets. In my view, only an extended on-campus (preferably residential, aka, traditional) college experience can do that.
Let me close, then, by saying, I see two types of college students in our future. The first will be those who use MOOCs, AP credits, and life experiences to help them cobble together a credential and a career. They hopefully will achieve gainful employment. They will not in my opinion achieve an "education."
To become an "educated" human being still requires the much-maligned traditional college experience. Providing that without putting a mortgage on the student's diploma is a major challenge for us "traditional" college teachers and administrators.
In my experience --- and I "taught" a couple of MOOCs a few years ago (although mine amounted only to Minor Online Open-Enrollment Courses --- Mini-MOOCs) --- two kinds of students are attracted. The first are the dilettantes, i.e., folks with a casual interest in your topic, who sign up and participate to widely varied degrees from 'hardly at all' to 'across the finish line.' Instructors may or may not award a certificate, which may or may not have any value to the student.
The other market is students who can translate the MOOC experience into credit hours toward a degree at a legit college or university. This is where the future lies, if there is a future for MOOCs.
As potential for-credit offerings, MOOCs might be viewed as a sub-set of online learning more broadly. I have quite a bit more experience with that, having taught online courses for a couple of years now for a Philadelphia law school. I confess that even after two years, I still struggle with the pedagogical and technological challenges of online learning. Last fall I taught Human Resource Management and received the best student reviews of my long teaching career. Asked "what does the professor need to improve?" answers included:
"You can't improve upon perfection."
"The class was great, no improvements needed."
"Nothing, loved him."
No, I'm not making those up. Then, this spring, I taught ADR for the second time. I tried using video to improve the interactive nature of the experience, which after all included units on negotiation and mediation. Whether due to the technology or the students' lack of sophistication, the video components performed very poorly. And I had one student --- who didn't seem to think he needed to provide more than two or three sentences for any discussion or exam question ("Hey, this is graduate school") --- tell me I was the worst online prof ever. I put most of that right back on him. But, like any good and responsible teacher, I'm left wondering how I might have brought him around. I've had duds like this --- who are in the class only to get a grade and ultimately a credential --- in my face-to-face classrooms, where I could deal with them one-on-one and gage their body language and expressions. Lacking that opportunity online, it's much more difficult, if not impossible, to engage this kind of intellectually bankrupt student.
In last week's post, I made the point that a liberal education is important not only because it teaches students how to think, write, analyze and adjust to life's fast-paced changes. I contended that it also teaches them how to live meaningful lives... even if they find themselves professionally redundant some day, despite those skill sets. In my view, only an extended on-campus (preferably residential, aka, traditional) college experience can do that.
Let me close, then, by saying, I see two types of college students in our future. The first will be those who use MOOCs, AP credits, and life experiences to help them cobble together a credential and a career. They hopefully will achieve gainful employment. They will not in my opinion achieve an "education."
To become an "educated" human being still requires the much-maligned traditional college experience. Providing that without putting a mortgage on the student's diploma is a major challenge for us "traditional" college teachers and administrators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)