Breaking the Small Business Code

Comment on Direct Vs Private Loans - Misdirection is the Game

    This morning I posted a comment to an article from Inside HIgher Ed on the muted response from Financial Aid Advisors (FAA) on the proposal to eliminate private lenders from student loans and let the Federal Government be the only provider  effectively making ALL Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) DIrect Loans. 

    The article itself is interesting but it is in the comments that we see the REAL problem with student loans!  It is a "them versus us" dialog that shows the gulf is between the colleges and the recipients!      The premise of manyof the comments is the "evil" nature of FAAs and their representative body the National Association of Student Financial Aid Advisors (NASFAA).  Following is my comment to the dialog:

   

We all know one (or more) rotten apples in any group. We also know many good people in that same group. The "good" or "rotten" actions of indivuduals is not evidence of the value or honesty of the group. It is the VALUE of the service that the group renders that counts. The service itself needs to be judged.

Cutting College Costs - A Fable that is not so Fictional

    As the financial markets and tax revenues tumble, states like California are making steep cuts to education including cuts to the support for state-run colleges like the University of California (UC) and the California State Universities (CSU). The budget that will be signed today imposes a 10 percent across-the-board cut to the UCs and CSUs, saving $264.4 million.

    California is not alone. Massachussetts is planning 11.6 percent in cuts for their state colleges. Florida is starting at 4 percent but more cuts are planned. New York state is cutting between 6 and 7 percent. Google the phrase "xxx budget cuts to colleges" and insert your state for xxx and you'll see what you are facing.

    This means college administrators will soon be living the fable presented by John Lombardi of Louisiana State University at his blog "Reality Check" called "Budget Crisis, Academic Change:A Fable"!

    I STRONGLY recommend that everyone who cares about higher education - both inside and outside the education "industry" - read Lombardi's blog.  How you react to the story will help you understand why there is no clear path to making colleges more accountable and affordable!  Politics, political correctness, turf wars, protectionism, etc., etc., keeps the colleges stuck where they are. 

    What do you think is going to be cut by the all these colleges?  What do you think should be done? What sacrifices/changes can be made?  One thing for sure, aid will go down, class size will go up, space for new students will go down, services will go down, and tuition will go up!

   As the daughter of a college dean, I understand the desire to protect and provide resources that serve more intangible needs like obscure languages, art and music. But when your children are starving, having a Monet on the wall is probably NOT the best use of your resources.

    This brings me back to my question to the social media universe - "What is College For"?  What should we focus on in these times? What should money be spent on?

   

  

What is College For?

   

    FABULOUS article in today's Inside Higher Education!  The topic was 3 year degrees. But it was reading both the article and the comments that made it clear that there is an even more basic question to be answered before deciding on how many years college should take.That question is . . .

WHAT IS COLLEGE FOR?

    Comments show the opinion on what college is all about varies from getting a job, having fun, gaining wisdom, getting an education (as opposed to a degree), research, money, etc.  It is very clear that without lack of clarity on WHY go to college, it is no wonder there is no agreement on how long that process -- whatever it is and it is for -- would take!!

    My first reaction to the article was to talk about my experience that much of the problem today is students simply "choosing" or being "forced" to take 5 years to get a 4 year degree. Sometimes it is the student’s fault by taking light loads for various reasons.  But more and more it is due to the student's inability to get their required courses! State colleges and universities are especially difficult right now because classes are not being offered during this semester/quarter or too few sections are offered to handle all the students who need it or the program is changed, etc.

     I originally was thinking about credit "creep" where more and more units/classes have been added to majors in order to graduate. I was thinking about students who start college with no clear path or major which means they are taking classes that may or may not be appropriate to the final major.

    But I think the dialogue first needs to be What is college for?  I know this both an individual AND a national dialog that needs to be held!  What do you think?

Taxes and College Support

                  

                         I am seeing serious BIG time feedback on many blogs about taxation, patriotism and "critical" services!  With the  melt-down in the financial market combined with the higher taxes that will come with the "bailout" with the losses in home equity with [pick your own financial problem], we have ANGER coming from many taxpayers!  And it is growing. . .

     One of the items in today's Inside Higher Education is a little tidbit about the income tax ballot item in Massachussetts and how the state universities are reacting.  The article was predictable with university officials warning about cut-backs and higher tuition to make up the tax losses. But what I find the most interesting is the responses. Here's one from ProfessorMojo, SUNY-Plattsburgh (I've added bolding for emphasis):

     "As usual, the academics focus on their own livelihoods as opposed to examining the larger issue at hand. Certainly, some taxation is necessary, and few would argue against funding a state university system. However, the issue is the state government’s constant desire to suck more money from the taxpayer as opposed to being responsible stewards of the public treasury.

     We’re facing budget cuts here at SUNY, and it is noteworthy that my co-worker’s first reactions are to increase taxes and tuition as opposed to reforming the union-driven state spending practices that got us in this mess in the first place."

      I made no secret of my anger at the PORK inside the so-called bailout bill for the financial markets.  That pork will cost ALL of us more tax dollars and redirect them to places we as taxpayers have no say over!  I am ANGRY enough to support a ballot issue just like this for my home state of California AND for the nation over all!!!

      I think this brings up the reason for taxes.

     As I write this, there is a large brush fire in Northern L.A. County where the 118 and 210 freeways meet.  I listened to the City of LA officials point out that there are 1,000 firefighters on the line and that THIS IS WHAT TAXPAYER want from their government - protection of the people.

    I agree that colleges and universities are critical to the well-being of America as are many other essential services like roads and water. But where does the definition of "essential" that stop?

   This question comes from an article in Education Week that talks about the complaints about changes inside the Department of Education combining the Title I and Title III programs for English as a second language programs.  Obviously there are savings in combining the programs as well as oversight issues. But predictably, there are screams that "their" issues are so important that they "deserve" a separate agency.

    Just how many things can we afford to make "special"?  How many tax dollars can we afford to spend on what?

    I appreciate that everyone wants their special needs handled.  I understand it's easy to say mine's more important than yours.  But in TOUGH ECONOMIC times, you make priorities.  You cut back on things that are "nice" and things that might even be "important" and focus on what is essential.  But we need COMMON SENSE.   

   What do YOU think we should pay for?  Where should we say, yes, I know it's important but NOT as important as firefighters or colleges or ????

 

       

NO Limits on College Political Speech - Part 3

       Per this morning's Inside Higher Education, the University of Illinois President  B. Joseph White sent an eMail affirming the right of employees to wear campaign buttons and attend political rallies on campus.  He said that university policy would not bar attending partisan rallies on campus, wearing political buttons, or having political bumper stickers on cars. 

     HOWEVER, he did say that these activities should not take place while employees are on duty [I bolded the phrase for emphasis].

     Gotta love those "wiggle phrases".  So President White, what constitutes "on duty" for a professor?  When are they "off duty" when at their campus worksplace? Can they wear their buttons when on "company" business off-campus? Is this how will you make sure your TAX-EXEMPT nonpolitical status is protected?

     Per my Blog on October 3, I had no objection to academic freedom of speech within the classroom. BUT I do think that University employees - and by this I mean mostly professors -- should be required to meet the same levels of neutrality WHEN IN THEIR WORKPLACE AND WORKING that I as a private citizen and employer also need to follow! The tax-exempt status of a state operated university should be held to the same standards!

     Having grown up on college campuses I can smell that this is a CYA eMail.  I know there will be little (if any!) attempt to enforce the off-duty requirement.  So professors will continue to do what they have always done  under the banner of  "academic freedom".  The university's nonprofit status is supposedly now protected by the insertion of the "off duty" phrase. 

    If I read about enforcement of the off duty requirement I will apologize.  But until then, I see this as another way professors will be allowed to break the rules that rest of us have to follow setting a bad example for our college students. 

Admissions After Dropping the SAT

       This blog is a follow up on the NACAC call for colleges to consider dropping admissions tests (usually short-handed to "drop the SAT").   This parallels my blog article on dropping AP classes/AP testing.  Well my favorite source of insider college information -- the Inside Higher Education eMail -- does a GREAT job interviewing Wake Forest who has gone "SAT-Optional" to see how they have done since dropping the SAT.

     The biggest issue for keeping or dropping the test is how do you measure potential for college success? As a college, you want to have the best students and the highest graduation rate.  But you also want to make sure you have the broadest range of student types and experiences are on your campus.  The push-pull between best students and broadest types is behind this recommendation to drop tests.

    There are good reasons for dropping the test and good reasons for keeping them.  The biggest reason for dropping admissions tests is the contention that testing does not accurately represent the potential of a student to do college level work -- it represents how well they "test".  The second reasons for dropping testing is the fact that minority groups do not do as well on these tests which in turn, means fewer minorities are admitted to higher ranked colleges.

     On the other side, there are good reasons for keeping the tests.  Schools who have successfully dropped the test are mostly small, liberal arts schools where testing is not a good measure of success.  Students in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) are more likely to measure more clearly.  Also, the bigger the college the more likely it is your grades will be based on class tests because there are just too many students to measure classroom performance any other way. So testing "well" may be a good indicator of success at a BIG college.

     But the main reason most schools rely on Admissions Tests is it is a "shorthand" for how good the high school education was!  Most parents and students don't know how the "ranking" of their high school impacts their admissions. Per the article, Wake Forest Admissions are now asking more questions than they used to of high school counselors.  Without a test like the SAT or ACT, the admissions staff needs to get a better feel for the applicant's high school's rank and the "rigor of a curriculum".  This is why I am concerned about dropping AP classes which are taught at the most rigorous levels (read my blog and comment!)

     So what if you are concerned that your school or classes may not be perceived as "good enough"? Should you still take and submit your SAT and ACT scores?  What if you had no AP classes?

     In my opinion, it will depend on the size of the college and their commitment to doing a thorough job of research on you and your high school background.  That means number of applicants and number of admitted students.  The more students, the more likely it will help.  Per Wake Forest, the good news is if  an applicant attends a high school with 'a weak curriculum' and  was unable to take the kinds of college-prep courses and "if you feel the score is a good representation, then go ahead and submit. If you don’t, don’t.”

     My guess is that most students who "test well" will continue to submit scores.  Students who don't test well will gravitate towards colleges who don't require or want tests.  It will be interesting to watch what happens over the next 10 years to colleges without testing and how their graduates do in the work world.

    What's your opinion on admissions testing?

Free Speech Versus Candidate Endorsement Limits

       A VERY timely and interesting article in the Inside Higher Education daily eMail today about the new University of Illinois policy that bans the wearing of campaign buttons, sporting of bumper stickers, and attendance at campaign rallies ON CAMPUS for employees of the University.  As expected, the outcry from staff and especially professors was quick and loud.

     Without taking sides, I wanted to explain to everyone what the issues were because it is a 4-way conflict between:

1. The right to free political speech,
2. Workplace rules,
3. The college's broad definition of workplace free speech, and
4. The IRS rules that nonprofits cannot directly support political candidates.

    First, we all have the right to support the political party and candidate of our choice under free speech.  On our private property and in the public locations, we can do, wear or say pretty much whatever we want as long as it follows the law.  It is not only allowed, it is encouraged that citizens be legally pro-active in the political process.  So if you want to wear a button or put a poster in your window or a sign on your lawn, it is your right.

     However, political speech can be constrained by the policy of your workplace as long as it is equally applied.  Companies usually restrict things that an employee may find offensive. This is because of all the lawsuits that have been filed regarding hostile or discriminatory work environments.  So most employers practice work site neutrality for virtually everything from religion to politics.  As an employee, you can expect to be asked to remove or cover political buttons or t-shirts.

    What creates a challenge for colleges is they do not think of themselves as a "traditional" workplace.   Colleges consider themselves a unique location where free speech of any kind is considered an essential part of their reason for being.  University staff usually felt their colleges were  "public" areas where workplace rules do not apply.  Students as "customers" are allowed to freely express their beliefs on campus.  So it was natural for professors and staff  to feel they too could participate as if the college were not their workplace!    But this has now run headlong into IRS rules for nonprofits!

     The IRS rules on nonprofits are VERY clear that they are not allowed to be partisan and support a specific political candidate.  This means that university employees including professors cannot show support WHILE THEY ARE BEING EMPLOYEES.  So to protect their tax-free status, the U of Illinois has issued rules on what staff can and cannot have or do while on campus -- their workplace. 

    It will be interesting to see if the professors on the U of Illinois finally understand what it is like out here in work-land where we have to adhere to rules that they have traditionally supported but not been constrained by because of their "special" nature. 

    What do you think of the new policy of U of Illinois?

Student Learning Outcomes and the Univ of California

       

      In today's Inside Higher Education News is a great summary article on proposed accountability plans for University of California.  The new system President Mark Yudof presented a draft of his suggestions to the Board of Regents over this past (September 20, 2008) weekend.

     Good news, is the proposal was a framework to pull together all the things the member campuses already measure but are scattered and difficult to find.  Bad news is the Regents are still fighting measuring student learning outcomes.  I appreciate their reluctance but . . .

     My issue is whether or not measuring things like faculty performance, finances and research output are really indicators of STUDENT learning!

      My main concern is that the UC system still does not participate in the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA) which is designed to provide transparency on things like educational outcome.  The UC system does not participate in the VSA because of their suggestion to use one of three national tests measuring student learning.  The UC faculty states that such testing “usurps the role of campus and departmental faculty in assessing student learning”.

      I appreciate that no one likes being measured based on the success of another person.  Plus I know that learning is made up of many pieces that a college cannot control including preparation from high school and individual student motivation.  BUT I think there needs to be an independent measurement that is NOT controlled by the people who are being measured!

     I am the daughter of a college dean so I understand the need for research and scholarship by colleges. The problem for UC faculty is the  "product"  families are paying for is learning outcome.  Measuring how much the UC schools spend or how many grants and publications the faculty has in research is probably not something important to parents and students.   

   

WHAT DO YOU THINK?