Breaking the Small Business Code

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?

MBA Schools "Retooling Emphasis" and Business Grads With No Jobs

     I recommend those interested in high end business schools read this article about Wharton MBAs in Reuters.  It is an interesting analysis of two key problems facing business schools and their graduates.

     The first problem is many of the banks, financial houses and major corporations had CEOs and senior advisors who were graduates of some of the most elite business schools in the country.  Yet having degrees from the exclusive programs at Harvard, Yale, Wharton and others did NOT stop the melt-down, bank failures, etc.  As a matter of fact, many insiders are saying the pride and hubris of these elite graduates would not let them consider there could be downsides to their actions!

     This "failure to plan for failure" has led schools like Wharton to rethink the curriculum being taught.  Many of the major companies had used the programs and skills they learned in Biz schools to justify their flawed thinking. So schools are now looking at planning for downside assumptions and using the melt-down as a "teachable moment".  As an engineer, I was taught to ALWAYS plan for failure.  Makes me wonder if maybe tech geeks would make better managers to help lead us out of this crisis!

     This leads to the second problem which is the lack of jobs for graduates. The article presents the obvious reason which is the traditional employers are gone or in serious contraction.  But what was unsaid is many employers do not want to hire students whose predecessors have not done such a good job! 

     I don't think graduating from a name brand MBA program will become a "Scarlett Letter" that keeps graduates out of good jobs. But many companies are not giving graduates a "free pass" just because they came from an elite school.  I see more and more companies looking for "dirty hands" and experience in making things work and grow. I am recommending more internships, MLM/network marketing businesses, and/or running a business from a "dorm" to my students!

    Comments and experiences from recent graduates are welcome!

College Kids and Monkeys About Equal on Math

 "College Kids and Monkeys About Equal on Math" is an eye-catching title of an article posted by MSN Health today,  (PDF copy available here if it is missing from the MSN Site: LPT_PDF02142009).

Elizabeth Brannon, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University is studying how human adults and infants, lemurs and monkeys think about numbers without using language. She is trying to identify which parts of the brain house "number sense" and the she is trying to determine how this math skills develop.

Among other things, she found college students and macaque have similar speed and accuracy (!) when doing a rough sort of math by summing sets of objects without actually counting them! As an engineer who speaks "math", I found it very interesting that math skills are apparently inherent to primates!

When I first saw the title I was prepared for an article on the sad state of math skills in our college students.  So while it didn't turn out to be that, it got me thinking about why students fight math when it is such a critical tool for college and life success.

I regularly have students tell me they are picking their college major based on NOT wanting anything with "math in it".  I have also lost count on the number of times one of my solid "B to B+" students ended up in a remedial math class in college - a situation which added time AND costs for getting their undergraduate degree!

I started my college planning career with college funding and scholarships, then added admissions, then majors and careers, and eventually added test prep.  But over the last 15 years it has become apparent that focusing on those 4 college-related steps with just high school juniors and seniors was not addressing the real needs of my client families.  Something was missing in their tool kits for success in college and for life!

Basic math skills are critical in the increasingly high tech economy.  Math is needed for personal financial literacy. A lot of our current economic problems can be blamed on people's inability to understand their personal cash flow. That is because virtually all the studies show our students are NOT getting what they need for math success.

I am not going to point fingers at anyone in the education "system" for failing to create math "literate" students. Blaming schools, teachers, parents, administrators, and/or the government is not the way to find solutions. Instead, I went looking for PROVEN TOOLS to make basic skills accessible and successful for more students regardless of the system.  I wanted to find something for teaching 21st century students using 21st century technology.

I am taking an engineering approach to building a SYSTEM for success in education available to anyone with internet access. I am proud to announce the launch on March 1 of a new initiative from Linda P. Taylor's Insider Secrets:  "Creating Access to Higher Scores and the Education Edge" (CAHSEE). 

CAHSEE is designed to pull together the tool kit that middle school, high school, college, and even adults need for learning success!  I want to give families access to the FUNDAMENTAL SKILLS we ALL need for a lifetime of success.  

I will soon announce the CAHSEE program for creating mastery in Math and English Language Arts (ELA).  But in the meantime, I want suggestions from readers about what other needs and especially what tools, programs, and systems you think should be included.  PLEASE send me comments, suggestions, ideas and referrals to make CAHSEE rock!

Class on Boston Red Socks - Is This What College is For?

    Just read an announcement that Bates College in Lewiston, Maine is offering a class on the Boston Red Socks.  A lucky group of 15 students at this $51,400 per year college got into the class.

     Because the class is an elective, IN THEORY, taking it does not cut into the required/standard curriculum needed to graduate from Bates.  But when your student's college education costs over $50,000 a year, is this a good use of their time in college?  Is this what you are paying for on a per unit basis?  Should electives outside the major be allowed?

     As the daughter of a retired college dean, I have talked to many professors who teach classes on pet interests. I have seen classes on speaking "Klingon" or analysis of the soap opera "Dark Shadows" or classes on current "topics" like Paris Hilton.  Why such off-the-wall topics? 

      The real question is what is the purpose of electives?  Colleges say that electives "help a student become more well-rounded" by "exposing them to topics that help them better implement their major".  And virtually everyone of the professors I talked to defended their unusual topics by saying they "wove current events and unpopular topics into the class disguised by the more 'sexy' class topic".  But talking to the students, the class was usually more fun than "well-rounding".

      So is this a good use of your student's time?  Is this what you pay a per-unit tuition fee for? Does taking a class on the Boston Red Socks or Star Trek or . . . help with your career choices? And most important, should such classes even be offered when students can't get into required classes because there aren't enough of them?

      As an engineering major, taking an off-the-wall elective on "Star Trek" (yes I did) was a mental vacation for me.  But I should have taken a class in marketing or public speaking.  My parents weren't paying for me to use my units for "fun".  And about that "weaving" unpopular topics into the class -- talk to most students and usually does NOT happen. (Sorry professors who do, many of your peers use these classes for their mental vacations!).

      So what do you think about these not traditional classes being part of your student's options?  Do you think it is appropriate to pay per unit for these classes?  Do you think professors should teach these topics if the school doesn't have enough prerequisite classes?

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?

Do AP Classes Teach the Subject or to Pass the Test?

     My favorite resource for college-related news US News has ANOTHER great article -  this time on how some high schools are considering dropping the College Board's Advanced Placement (AP) classes. 

    The reason being given is it "restricts" how teachers can teach.  The issue teachers say is they want to put less emphasis on memorization and test preparation and more on "exploration" of the material.  This is another example of the conflict between testing to make sure our students have a minimum level of skills versus teaching to pass the exit or other measurement exam!

     What complicates things is the AP class is considered as being a "valuable"  indicator of the ability of the student to do college-level work compared to taking a traditional/non-AP classes.  Because AP classes are taught to a specific "rigorous" college prep level and there is a national test through the College Board (same people who do the SAT), it helps validate a student's college potential compared to other students.  This is especially valuable when the college admissions staff does not know much about the high school's reputation.

     Most high schools also add a point to the student's classroom grade (e.g., a 3.0 is a 4.0 in an AP class) in recognition of the difficulty of the classes compared to the traditional level classes.  This AP bonus can mean a higher overall GPA value for students.  The problem in dropping the AP classes is the more elite the college, the more likely other applicants are taking AP classes and that their high school GPA will be over 4.0!

    I can agree that "learning" may be different when there is less emphasis on memorization and preparation for passing the AP test. I also agree there is a need to measure the "learning outcome" so we can tell if our children are getting the education they need.  So both approaches are right and both are wrong.  We need a blend of both!

   Again, what do you think?  What should we do to measure student preparation versus teaching beyond passing a test?

   

Example of Our Problems with Education!

       There is a great article by Howard Blume today in the Los Angeles Times on the problems with the new mandatory Algebra class in California schools.  This debate is an example of what is happening in our high schools:  how to educate our students to the highest level possible while accomodating students not ready for "prime time".

     For those who don't know, it is now California state policy to REQUIRE algebra in the eighth grade.  There are now two sides pulling and pushing over this requirement.

     One side is supported by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to create a math test for all eighth-graders that would satisfy federal officials.   The other side as represented by the California School Boards Assn. and the Assn. of California School Administrators (suing to stop the implementation) which feel the new requirement sets up unprepared students for failure while holding back others with solid math skills.

     This is a classic example of positive intentions (teach higher math) running into social issues (students arriving in 8th grade with 2nd grade skills).  My questions are:

• How did those kids hit 8th grade with 2nd grade skills? 
• What does that say about the education system that allows students to be passed along? 
• Why is money always the answer when the amount of money already being spent in cities like Washington D.C. (the most money per student) is cited in the story as dead last in math assessment?
• What does it say about educators who sue to stop the implementation rather than sit down and address these real problems?

    As a college planning advisor, these are REAL issues that I face evry day trying to find colleges for students and then helping them pay for it.  What happens when a student who can be 6 grades behind in skills like math are given a position in colleges as a "special admit" for athletic or other reasons?  What happens to the USA in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) when students enter less than prepared?

    Let's start talking NOW.  The longer we wait to address these issues, the more students will end up dropping out or taking majors that do not have math components that lets the USA fall farther behind in STEM.

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?