Author Topic: Education  (Read 188223 times)




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: Education, Colleges ban debate on issues like gender pronouns
« Reply #353 on: November 30, 2017, 10:36:05 AM »
Odd that I can't find education on the politics forum.  Do we still believe they do something more than political indoctrination?   (

This is about an incident at a Canadian college.  A TA allowed debate on gender pronouns in class and is getting fired for it.  Hat tip Steve Hayward.  40 minutes of your life you will never get back but a direct eavesdrop into the voice of leftism behind the scenes in education.

These [18 year old adults] are children and can't trusted to hear another side to our indoctrination until we develop their skills to a higher level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=9YdFlKaJv4g
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/the-witch-hunt-at-laurier.php


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile
I-Pad bad
« Reply #354 on: December 30, 2017, 06:26:44 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile
WSJ: Studying Western Civilization in the South Bronx
« Reply #355 on: January 13, 2018, 09:43:29 AM »
Studying Western Civilization in the South Bronx
Hostos Community College overcomes students’ resistance to learning about ‘dead white dudes.’
By Jillian Kay Melchior
Jan. 12, 2018 6:40 p.m. ET
The Bronx, N.Y.


On her first day of English class at Hostos Community College during the fall 2017 semester, Maria Diaz glared at the reading handout, a Plato excerpt on the trial of Socrates. “I used to be like, ‘Prof, why are we reading this? It’s so boring and confusing,” she recalls. But only months later, Ms. Diaz would gush about the merits of the Western canon, quoting Socrates’ claim that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

While much of academia continues its progressive and postmodern lurch, these courses at Hostos, first offered in 2016, represent a move in the opposite direction. One of the classes even was designed especially for students who score a “high fail” on their literacy tests. Profs. Andrea Fabrizio and Gregory Marks, along with their colleagues in the English Department, created the courses in collaboration with Columbia University. They borrowed heavily from the Ivy League school’s core curriculum for liberal-arts undergraduates.

So far about 1,300 students at Hostos, which is part of the City University of New York, have taken these Western Civ classes. “We’re trying to make them good writers, good thinkers and ultimately good citizens by talking about these deeply humane questions,” Mr. Marks says.

Studying the classics has become an anomaly on many campuses, as once-foundational texts have come under attack. The faculty at Oregon’s Reed College recently bumped up their decennial review of a required humanities course that student activists claimed was “Eurocentric,” “Caucasoid” and “oppressive.” Yale’s English Department voted in March to change its curriculum after more than 150 students signed a petition claiming “a year spent around a seminar table where the literary contributions of women, people of color and queer folk are absent actively harms all students.” It’s now fathomable that a student could get a Yale English degree without studying Chaucer, Shakespeare or Milton.


And in 2016, Seattle University students held a weekslong sit-in to protest the classical emphasis in the humanities college, ultimately prompting the dean’s departure. One student, Zeena Rivera, complained to reporters that “the only thing they’re teaching us is dead white dudes.”

Based on demographics alone, Hostos Community College might seem like a probable place for similar protests. Hostos is in the South Bronx, in a congressional district that has repeatedly ranked the poorest in the nation. People of color account for more than 98% of the student body. Many are immigrants. In one Western Civ class, the 25 students spoke 10 foreign languages.

Like their counterparts at other colleges, Hostos students are focused on oppression and injustice. During a recent class I sat in on, slavery came up several times, and one student suggested that because of economic disparities and discrimination, “we’re still not really free.” Several students talked about how they suffered from racism and sexism.

“These students’ interest in rights and equality is just burning,” Mr. Marks says. He and Ms. Fabrizio draw on that interest with readings like the Declaration of Independence and excerpts from the Federalist Papers. Students also are given Frederick Douglass’s 1852 Fourth of July oration, which venerates America’s founding principles but notes that they are “flagrantly inconsistent” with slavery.

Students at other schools often cite this mismatch as a reason to reject the Western canon wholesale. Mr. Marks and Ms. Fabrizio say one of their goals is to cultivate critical thinking, so they encourage classroom debate—as long as students first demonstrate they’ve understood the writings and have weighed the merits of the author’s arguments.

After that, “when we see students ripping apart a classical text, we’re like, ‘Great,’ ” Mr. Marks says. But Ms. Fabrizio adds that by the end of the semester, “I think the students appreciate how revolutionary these texts actually are.”

In some cases, at least, that seems to be true. “These are books that should be taught,” says Reynaldo Martinez, a freshman studying chemical engineering. “I think the hypocrisy is not behind the papers, the writing. It’s the people. These works open your eyes to the way morality and education and equality are still needed in our society. These books don’t focus on power, because power is misleading for the purpose of a perfect life.”




Ms. Diaz, the student who was initially so skeptical, says that the class has been “really important, and not just because of language.” The 32-year-old is adjusting to civilian life after nearly seven years in the Navy. There, Ms. Diaz says, she learned to take orders unquestioningly; in Western Civ class, she’s weighing virtues and values and thinking about what it means to live well.

“First, you need to know the concept of what freedom means to be hungry for it,” Ms. Diaz says. She adds that these books “are for everyone. They were different people in different centuries, but at the end, they’re thinking about the same problems. And if we’re talking about this, it’s because we’re not where we need to be.”

Ms. Melchior is a Journal editorial page writer.

Appeared in the January 13, 2018, print edition.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Education, Katherine Kersten, Edina MN schools, "Racial Equality" focus
« Reply #357 on: February 01, 2018, 03:35:39 PM »
If you care about K-12 Education and are not a Leftist, please get to know the research and writing of Kathy Kersten, most recently on the changes at Edina Schools.  (eee-Dine-ah)

The district that the Left is trying to change has been one of the best and top performing districts in one of the highest rated education states.  Best because of two parent families, affluence, good values, etc.  What is happening in this is NOT unique to Edina schools.  It is the investigative journalism funded by Center for the American Experiment that is unique.  This is all happening in a school district near you too, building new little Leftists from the ground up.
---------------------------
http://www.weeklystandard.com/inside-a-public-school-social-justice-factory/article/2011402
From the article: The shift began in 2013, when Edina school leaders adopted the “All for All” strategic plan—a sweeping initiative that reordered the district’s mission from academic excellence for all students to “racial equity.”
...
"K-2 students: “Stop thinking your skin color is better than anyone elses!-[sic] Everyone is special!”
...
 A course description of an 11th-grade U.S. Literature and Composition course puts it this way: “By the end of the year, you will have . . . learned how to apply marxist [sic], feminist, post-colonial [and] psychoanalytical . . .lenses to literature.”
...
One student characterized the course this way on the “Rate My Teachers” website: “This class should be renamed . . . ‘Why white males are bad, and how oppressive they are.’”
...
"...their son and a classmate to a lengthy, humiliating and ideologically charged grilling—unlike that faced by other students—after the boys made a presentation with which she disagreed following racially-charged incidents in Ferguson, Missouri."
...
The result of all of this? Four years into the Edina schools’ equity crusade, black students’ test scores continue to disappoint. ... other than that, the news is all bad. Black students “on track for success” in reading decreased from 48.1 percent in 2014 to 44.9 percent in 2017. Math scores decreased from 49.6 percent proficiency in 2014 to 47.4 percent in 2017. Black students “on track for success” in math decreased from 51.4 percent in 2014 to 44.7 percent in 2017.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile
Britain: keeping old trades alive
« Reply #359 on: March 05, 2018, 06:09:30 AM »
A bit scary if the creative destruction of the free market leaves you in the lurch, but , , ,  intriguing.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-42441366

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Re: Education
« Reply #364 on: May 01, 2018, 08:54:46 AM »


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/26/donald-trump-pull-feds-out-k-12-education/
The LEFT will go beyond nuts over this.

How about abolishing the  DoE next?

If only we could break the Fed employee unions next as well.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: Education - What are we teaching our kids??
« Reply #365 on: May 02, 2018, 07:34:32 AM »
The rise of student debt has a near perfect overlap with the timeline of the decline of young people owning a home.



What are we teaching our kids??

http://financeography.com/millennial-home-ownership-shrinks-as-student-debt-grows/
---------------------------------------
-  Prosperity of the teachers comes ahead of best interests of the students.
- "Higher Ed" is a cartel.  No one competes on price.
- Leftism doesn't believe in property ownership, except for themselves.  Go to a college town and see who owns the nice houses.
- Hierarchy of the Left, Academia at the top and then media pulling the strings; Dem politicians are the puppets.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 07:48:06 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: Education, sports and sportsmanship
« Reply #368 on: June 07, 2018, 09:26:46 AM »
I'll put this under education, for a high school competition but she exhibiting what they may not teach in school.  A state champion golfer corrected her scorecard after the round costing her team the championship.
http://www.startribune.com/high-school-golfer-self-reports-violation-loses-state-title/484701581/

I witnessed the same thing in tennis a couple of years ago.  My daughter's friend and teammate had won the decisive point in college doubles match and the other players were headed to shake hands and she stopped, said her racquet had touched the net during the volley, a violation, and she said "That's your point." They went on to finish the match and the other team won.  The opposing coach wrote a letter honoring the girl and her action that was the basis for her to win the NCAA sportsmanship award.
http://athletics.stolaf.edu/news/2015/10/28/WTEN_1028151418.aspx?path=wten

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: Education, VDH: college exit exam
« Reply #369 on: August 01, 2018, 08:43:04 AM »
VDH in National Review today:

Reforming the university would help too, mostly by abolishing tenure, requiring an exit competence exam for the BA degree (a sort of reverse, back-end SAT or ACT exam), and ending government-subsidized student loans that promote campus fiscal irresponsibility and a curriculum that ensures future unemployment for too many students.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/origins-of-second-civil-war-globalism-tech-boom-immigration-campus-radicalism/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile
WSJ supports actions taken by Ed-Sec De Vos
« Reply #370 on: August 19, 2018, 02:56:32 PM »
DeVos’s Gainful Deregulation
Two new rules will expand options for low-income students.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos speaks during a Federal Commission on School Safety meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C., Aug. 16.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos speaks during a Federal Commission on School Safety meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C., Aug. 16. Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg News
348 Comments
By The Editorial Board
Aug. 17, 2018 6:58 p.m. ET

The Trump Administration’s regulatory rollback continues to be overshadowed by the White House circus. In case you missed the news late last week, the Education Department is moving to reverse two Obama rules that would have cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and diminished education options for students who can’t afford tuition at Stanford or Georgetown.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is proposing to repeal the Obama Administration’s 2014 “gainful employment” rule, which was the tip of the left’s spear against for-profit colleges. Under the rule, colleges whose graduates have annual debt payments exceeding 8% of their income would lose federal student aid. Team Obama had grabbed the 8% threshold from a 2006 research paper on mortgage eligibility standards, which the authors acknowledged had no “particular merit or justification” as a gauge of manageable student debt.
Potomac Watch Podcast
Bruce Ohr, DOJ's Man of Mystery
New from WSJ Opinion

Now you can say “Alexa, play Potomac Watch” to enjoy our podcast. #AskAlexa

The department also applied the rule exclusively to vocational programs—i.e., for-profits—yet Monroe College President Marc Jerome calculated based on the department’s College Scorecard that 15.5% of programs at public and 41.5% at nonprofits would have failed the test. When Mrs. DeVos proposed applying the rule to all colleges, nonprofit and public colleges howled.

Colleges noted, among other things, that the metric would punish schools that enroll large numbers of low-income students who take out more debt and those whose graduates choose lower-paying jobs in public service. Many college programs could also be forced to close during recessions as wages dip even as demand for vocational training increases.

Mrs. DeVos has good reason to scrap the rule and is soliciting public comment on adding more granular data to the College Scorecard on student outcomes. This would allow a prospective student to compare the expected earnings of, say, a psychology major at the local community college to a DeVry cyber-security graduate.

If colleges intentionally mislead students, they would be held accountable under the department’s proposed revisions to the Obama “borrower defense” rule. After driving the for-profits Corinthian and ITT Technical Institute out of business, the Obama Administration established a haphazard process for discharging loans of students left in the lurch.

In their final days, Obama regulators expanded loan forgiveness to all students who claimed to have been duped. Like the gainful employment regulation, the “borrower defense” rule eviscerated due process. Students didn’t have to prove they were harmed by a college’s alleged misrepresentations—or that they were intentional—to obtain relief. Nor could colleges dispute student claims though they could be dunned for discharged loans. The rule also pleased plaintiff attorneys by banning class-action arbitration waivers.

Mrs. DeVos late last month proposed applying the same standards and procedures that courts use to adjudicate fraud claims. To discharge loans, borrowers would have to show a college made a misrepresentation with knowledge of “its false, misleading, or deceptive nature or with a reckless disregard for the truth.” Colleges will still be liable for intentional deception.

Liberals say these due process protections will prevent students from obtaining relief. But the Education Department is demonstrating it will hold colleges—regardless of their tax status—accountable by investigating Temple University’s business school for allegedly goosing its US News & World Report rankings with false test scores.

The department explains that its “goal is to enable students to make informed decisions prior to college enrollment, rather than to rely on financial remedies after the fact when lost time cannot be recouped and new educational opportunities may be sparse.” Credit to Mrs. DeVos for prioritizing student welfare over ideological hostility to “profit.”

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Education, more Yale freshman identify LBGTQ than conservative
« Reply #371 on: September 13, 2018, 06:38:29 AM »
More Yale freshman identify LBGTQ  than conservative, Protestant, Catholic or Jewish.

Same goes for the professors.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/more-yale-freshmen-identify-as-lgbtq-than-conservative/

 “Yale is increasingly out of touch with America, and America is increasingly out of touch with Yale.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile
Stratfor: As Academic Freedom Teeters, will the old become new again?
« Reply #372 on: October 13, 2018, 06:04:14 AM »
As Academic Freedom Teeters, Will the Old Become New Again?
By Ian Morris
Board of Contributors

University students in an auditorium listen to their lecturer. Despite the success of the modern university, increasing numbers of people seem to see academically free universities as a luxury they no longer wish to support.
(Shutterstock)
Contributor Perspectives offer insight, analysis and commentary from Stratfor’s Board of Contributors and guest contributors who are distinguished leaders in their fields of expertise.


    Academically free universities have provided tremendous economic and cultural benefits to the United States and the West.
    Despite the success of the modern university, increasing numbers of people seem to see academically free universities as a luxury they no longer wish to support.
    Online education probably will dominate in a world without academically free universities, while top-tier institutions will focus on providing an expensive, individually tailored education to the children of the global elite.
    American institutions seem well placed to control new platforms and revenue flows, though the question likely to arise is whether the loss of academic freedom is something to be wished for.

Academically free universities are one of the West's great strategic assets. The aim of academic freedom, as defined by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in its 1915 Declaration of Principles, is "to advance knowledge by the unrestricted research and unfettered discussion of impartial investigators." The payoffs from pursuing it have been enormous. According to The Times Higher Educational Supplement, only two of the world's top 50 universities are in countries that routinely restrict academic freedom (Peking University, ranked 27th, and Tsinghua University, ranked 30th), and according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, each time a country doubles its number of academically free universities, it reliably adds 4 percent to its GDP. The firm Oxford Economics calculated in 2015 that the gross value contributed by universities to Britain's GDP was £52.9 billion ($69.8 billion), 2.9 percent of the country's total. And that is just the quantifiable, hard benefits of academic freedom. Its soft-power payout is arguably even greater, with more than 1.2 million foreign students flocking to American universities in 2018.

It might seem surprising, then, that the AAUP currently sees "a concerted attack on academic freedom" in the United States, and that The New York Times and other newspapers have reported similar assaults across Europe. In one sense, of course, academic freedom has always been under attack: The AAUP issued its 1915 declaration to push back against academic freedom's critics, and the group felt the need to revise its declaration in 1925 and again in 1940 as the threats evolved. But maybe this time is different.

Academic freedom was barely a century old when the AAUP first defended it. It had been created at a particular time (the early 19th century) and in a particular place (Western Europe and North America) in response to particular conditions. But today, despite the astounding success of the modern university (globally, 32 percent of college-age students are currently enrolled in higher education), increasing numbers of people seem to think that the conditions that made academic freedom seem like such a good idea have now changed so much that academically free universities are just a luxury. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries currently spend an average of 1.6 percent of GDP on higher education because their citizens think it is good investment, but that might be changing. For thousands of years, the world did perfectly well without these institutions. Perhaps, an increasing number of people seem to think, it can do so again.

The (Relatively Cheap) Price We Pay for Academic Freedom

In both East Asia and Europe, educational institutions that can be reasonably called universities have been around for a thousand years, but before 1800 hardly any were academically free. Rather, they were what the AAUP called in 1915 "proprietary institutions." What they meant by this was that "If a church or religious denomination establishes a college … with the express understanding that the college will be used as an instrument of propaganda in the interests of the religious faith professed by the church or denomination creating it, the trustees have a right to demand that everything be subordinated to that end." Such institutions "do not … accept the principles of freedom of inquiry, of opinion, and of teaching; and their purpose is … to subsidize the promotion of opinions held by the persons, usually not of the scholar's calling, who provide the funds for their maintenance."

The difference between proprietary and academically free institutions is that the latter do not assume in advance that they know the truth, and so cannot tell professors what to think or students what to learn. In the absence of such certainty, all the institution can do is bring together experts and students and leave them to argue it out, following the path of knowledge wherever it leads, regardless of what the people paying for it might think. This is a radical idea, and takes some getting used to. One of the few things I found entertaining about being a dean at my own university was telling potential donors that if they gave us their money, we would in return give them no say whatsoever in how we spent it or who we hired with it and what they subsequently did on the donors' dime. They often looked amazed, but not, I suspect, as amazed as I looked myself when they wrote their checks anyway.

The academically free institution brings together experts and students and leaves them to follow the path of knowledge wherever it leads, regardless of what the people paying for it might think.

But, like every radical idea, this one has its downsides. The obvious one is that if academics alone can judge what counts as good scholarship, who judges the judges? Earlier this month, a trio of disaffected scholars published an expose of 20 peer-reviewed academic journals to which they had sent spoof articles. None of the authors had any prior experience in the relevant academic fields, but despite cranking out a new paper every 13 days (most professors think one or two papers per year is pretty good), they got seven of their nonsense texts accepted for publication. At the time of writing, seven more were still under review, and while six had been rejected, four journals did ask the hoaxers if they'd like to act as referees of future submissions (they declined).

Their report — "Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship," published online by Areo magazine — makes hilarious but sobering reading. The authors admit to "considerable silliness." This, they tell us, included "claiming to have tactfully inspected the genitals of slightly fewer than 10,000 dogs whilst interrogating owners as to their sexuality ('Dog Park'), becoming seemingly mystified about why heterosexual men are attracted to women ('Hooters'), insisting there is something to be learned about feminism by having four guys watch thousands of hours of hardcore pornography over the course of a year while repeatedly taking the Gender and Science Implicit Associations Test ('Porn'), expressing confusion over why people are more concerned about the genitalia others have when considering having sex with them ('CisNorm'), and recommending men anally self-penetrate in order to become less transphobic, more feminist, and more concerned about the horrors of rape culture ('Dildos')." "Considerable silliness" is quite the understatement; yet "Dog Park," "Hooters" and "Dildos" were among the seven papers accepted for publication. "CisNorm" was one of those still under review, and the editors of the journal Porn Studies had asked that "Porn" be resubmitted without its (made-up) statistical support.

Predictably, some of the duped editors found the authors' violation of "many ethical and academic norms" (as one put it) more shocking than the exposure of their own journals' vacuity, and equally predictably, some conservatives saw the whole thing as evidence that the sky is falling. Writing in London's Sunday Times, my Stanford University colleague Niall Ferguson concluded that "grievance studies" pose more of a threat to the West than cyberwar.

Both reactions are silly. This is just the cost of doing business. Free riders find ways to flourish in every walk of life, and in some academic fields — particularly the humanities, where it is often quite difficult to specify what would constitute falsification of a hypothesis — it is all too easy for pseudo-scholars to set themselves up as cartels, validating one another's writings and extracting rents from everyone else. Nor is this new. Ever since peer review was established as the only real basis for judging research, professors with nothing much to say have been building careers on dry-as-dust, jargon-ridden nonsense that no one ever reads. This is the price we pay for academic freedom, and it is relatively cheap.
Top-Tier Advantages

The obvious response to the absurdity is for academics to redouble their efforts to root out pseudo-scholars, silliness and rent-seeking. However, increasing numbers of people seem to suspect that what journals like Porn Studies and their self-righteous defenders really show is that academically free universities are not in the public interest. The ridiculous professors are not a few bad apples: They are part and parcel of a rigged system, run by self-serving elites for their own benefit.

Students of American higher education often divide colleges into four "tiers." Tier 1, at the top, contains the 154 main research universities; Tier 4, at the bottom, contains more than 1,000 less-selective, less research-oriented institutions, which between them grant 60 percent of the nation's bachelor of arts degrees. Graduates of Tier 1 colleges are roughly 10 times as likely as those from Tier 4 colleges to get into Tier 1 graduate programs. Even if a student with a Tier 4 bachelor's degree does obtain a Tier 1 higher degree, he will earn 30 percent (or, if a she, 40 percent) less than students who went to Tier 1 institutions throughout.

Nor do the advantages of getting into a Tier 1 undergraduate program end there. American higher education is staggeringly expensive. My own university, Stanford, says it costs $64,729 for one year. However, these universities are also staggeringly rich — Stanford's endowment is worth about $25 billion; Harvard's, $36 billion — and they share this largesse with their undergraduates. In 2014-15, the most recent year for which I have figures, the typical Stanford student actually paid $17,952 — still a lot, but a lot less than $64,729, and less, in fact, than students typically pay at Tier 2 and Tier 3 institutions.

Access to Tier 1 universities can produce personal wealth, and personal wealth can produce access to Tier 1 universities.

This, of course, is how a meritocracy is supposed to work, with the academically strongest universities attracting the best students, rewarding them and adding value to them throughout the process. However, it is also the case that fully 64 percent of the undergraduates in Tier 1 colleges come from families in the top 10 percent of the income distribution. At Stanford, legacies — the offspring of previous generations of Stanford students — are three times as likely to be admitted as anyone else. Access to Tier 1 universities can produce personal wealth, and personal wealth can produce access to Tier 1 universities.

With American student debt currently standing at $1.5 trillion, and the average member of the class of 2016 carrying $37,172 of that debt, it is easy to see how those who have not had access to Tier 1 universities might conclude that the entire system is rigged. If we then add in the mounting suspicions that much of what is being studied and taught in Tier 1 universities is in fact nonsense, it is no great leap to the conclusion that academic freedom is just a smoke-screen, behind which a self-perpetuating elite is exploiting its cultural capital to extract rents. As one scholar of education told The New York Times in 2014, "even if you distinguish yourself as a great student at a Tier 4 school, and by some miracle you get into a good grad program, you aren't likely to wind up with the tools you need to ever catch up to those people who went to a more selective four-year college … By high school, it's pretty much over."

This is why, if you Google the phrase "colleges are just businesses," you will get 50.7 million hits. And it's why, in 2017, Congress imposed an endowment tax on nonprofit universities that have more than 500 students and net assets of more than $500,000 per student. Even though this excise tax is only 1.4 percent, it may well be merely the opening shot.
Glimpses of a New Norm

Modern higher education is a massive, complicated structure. Even if Western electorates do decide that academic freedom is a scam, rather than a vital part of liberal democracy, it will probably take decades to unwind it — although, in what I suspect is the closest analogy, when England's King Henry VIII persuaded Parliament in 1534 that the Catholic Church was a similar scam, it only took five years to close every monastery in the land and plunder their assets.

But we can perhaps already see what the institutions of higher education might look like in a world without academically free universities. For most students, online education will probably be the norm by the mid-21st century. Early experiments with massive open online courses, or MOOCs, have had only mixed success, but if university tuition keeps rising at twice the rate of inflation, technology carries on improving and costs go on falling, it is hard to see how the trends can take us anywhere else.

Scholarship is morphing from a career into a gig.

Much of the online infrastructure might be provided by institutions that grow out of the old, campus-based universities, but a handful of residential, Tier 1 institutions — the Harvards and the Stanfords — probably will survive too. Shorn of the need to pay lip-service to 20th century egalitarian ideals, they will be free to concentrate on their core mission of providing an extremely expensive, face-to-face, individually tailored experience for the children of the global elite (much as universities did before the 20th century). The rich will get richer. But plenty of the best and brightest 18-year-olds will probably decide that they don't need even these services from brick-and-mortar universities. Already, the maverick tech billionaire Peter Thiel is offering some students up to $100,000 to drop out of college and start their own businesses.

The professoriate, which currently boasts 1.6 million members in the United States alone, will surely shrink sharply. The 20th century ideal of academia as a lifelong vocation is already in retreat — 45 percent of American academics were tenured in 1975, but by 2015 the figure was just 25 percent, and full-time positions now make up just half of the total. Scholarship is morphing from a career into a gig.

Profound as this transformation would be, none of it will necessarily affect the West's domination of both the hard- and soft-power dimensions of higher education. American institutions seem far better placed than any rivals to control the new platforms and revenue flows. But is it something to be wished for? As a fan of academic freedom, warts and all, I suspect that the only way to decide will be by frank and forthright argument among communities of experts. But that, of course, is just what you would expect a professor to say.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: Education, Harvard Admissions
« Reply #373 on: October 18, 2018, 10:57:18 AM »
"An Asian-American applicant with a 25 percent chance of admission would have a 35 percent chance if he were white, a 75 percent chance if he were Hispanic, and a 95 percent chance if he were black."
https://www.city-journal.org/racial-balancing-by-colleges-16237.html

We just don't like him or her 'personally'.

It's all exposed now.  "Students for Fair Admission will get its day in a Massachusetts federal district court on allegations that Harvard University discriminates against Asian-American applicants."

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
9 Years Into Common Core, Test Scores Are Down, Indoctrination Up
« Reply #374 on: November 18, 2018, 08:04:54 AM »
Funny that our Ed thread is under humanities, not politics.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/05/9-years-common-core-test-scores-indoctrination/
9 Years Into Common Core, Test Scores Are Down, Indoctrination Up

The latest English ACT scores are slightly down since 2007, and students’ readiness for college-level English was at its lowest level since ACT’s creators began measuring that item, in 2002. Students’ preparedness for college-level math is at its lowest point since 2004.
---------------
On a positive note with declining achievement and lowering standards, at least these illiterate, math challenged kids will be qualified to teach.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Re: Education
« Reply #375 on: November 18, 2018, 11:20:59 AM »
'Funny that our Ed thread is under humanities, not politics.'

Good point. 

I can think of other threads that would be more fitting such as "cognitive dissonance of the left"

or social justice  warriors
or maybe a new thread on "unions"

or maybe under government programs








ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Thats it - remove Ben Carson's name
« Reply #376 on: November 30, 2018, 09:37:41 AM »
from a school because he doesn't espouse victimization and preach the old tired racism mantra or reparations stuff:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/removing-ben-carsons-name-from-a-detroit-high-school-wont-help-the-students-dismal-academic-results/

Not withstanding he is a shining example of pre eminent success from a poor background.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: Education
« Reply #377 on: January 25, 2019, 06:17:07 AM »
That's odd.  When this thread was started, Education was thought to be more a part of Culture and Humanities than of Politics.  It's too bad the Leftists who control American Education don't think of it that way!

Speaking of Leftists' pretend ideals, what happened to the promise of making a college education more affordable?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Freeman,  WSJ Opinion
https://outline.com/uTafgH  

Remember When Politicians Promised to Make College Affordable?

JAMES FREEMAN JANUARY 17, 2019
Most Americans can’t remember a time when politicians weren’t claiming to make education more affordable by funneling more money to colleges. But after the latest surge in “affordability” policies, implemented over the last decade, the staggering costs are becoming clear.

Josh Mitchell and Laura Kusisto report in the Journal:

The Federal Reserve has linked rising student debt to a drop in homeownership among young Americans...

Most Americans can’t remember a time when politicians weren’t claiming to make education more affordable by funneling more money to colleges. But after the latest surge in “affordability” policies, implemented over the last decade, the staggering costs are becoming clear.

The Federal Reserve has linked rising student debt to a drop in homeownership among young Americans and the flight of college graduates from rural areas, two big shifts that have helped reshape the U.S. economy.
The effect of student debt on the economy has been debated in recent years, as the total has soared to $1.5 trillion, surpassing Americans’ credit-card and car-loan bills.
Expanding federal grants and loans to finance higher education has predictably given colleges the ability to raise prices, which in turn requires students to take on even more debt to pay the new higher prices.

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Doug] Does that remind anyone of what happened when we made health care "affordable", and when government decided to make housing 'affordable'?
-------------------------------------------------------------

[Back to the article]

 It’s not a new story. In 1965 Washington launched a program to make college “affordable” by offering a taxpayer guarantee on student loans. By an amazing coincidence college costs have been rising much faster than inflation ever since.

[Remind anyone of healthcare, housing?]

Despite decades of data showing that colleges were simply pocketing the new subsidies by raising prices on students, many politicians have been unable to resist the urge to send more money to campus. In June of 2008, the Detroit News reported on a presidential candidate who just happened to be a former university professor. The newspaper covered his appearance in Taylor, Michigan:

A tearful Wayne County Community College student got advice and encouragement from Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday, as he touted his plan to improve financial aid and tax credits to college students.
Marilyn Pace is about $1,500 short of paying for tuition and supplies for her dental hygiene studies, she told Obama at a meeting arranged by his aides. After she described the costs of supplies and exams, gas to get to and from classes and her father’s disability, which keeps him from working, a financial aid counselor told her and Obama that private loans should be able to close her financial gap – prompting tears from her and encouraging words from the candidate.
“You’re doing a good job,” he told Pace. “The key is just hanging in there. But you’re making good choices.”
Pace later introduced Obama to a small group of WCCC students, where he described his proposal for a $4,000-a-year tax credit to help pay college costs and to reform the federal student loan market.
“I will make college affordable for every American. Period,” Obama promised the students.
He didn’t keep the promise because he didn’t make good choices. In 2010 he enacted still another expansion of the federal role in financing higher education. More “affordability” initiatives followed. Speaking at the University at Buffalo in 2013, Mr. Obama had to acknowledge that his promise still hadn’t been kept:

This is something that everybody knows you need -- a college education. On the other hand, college has never been more expensive. Over the past three decades, the average tuition at a public four-year college has gone up by more than 250 percent -- 250 percent. Now, a typical family’s income has only gone up 16 percent...
So the bottom line is this -- we’ve got a crisis in terms of college affordability and student debt... The problem is, is that even if the federal government keeps on putting more and more money in the system, if the cost is going up by 250 percent, tax revenues aren’t going up 250 percent -- and so at some point, the government will run out of money, which means more and more costs are being loaded on to students and their families.
Audience members might have hoped that Mr. Obama had finally learned that more government subsidies weren’t the answer. But in January of 2016 CNBC reported:

In his final State of the Union address, President Barack Obama touched on the student debt crisis and emphasized the problem with college affordability.
“We have to make college affordable for every American, because no hardworking student should be stuck in the red,” the president said Tuesday night.
“We’ve actually got to cut the cost of college. Providing two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student is one of the best ways to do that, and I’m going to keep fighting to get that started this year,” he added.
Has all of this taxpayer money and all of this student debt at least fulfilled the stated objective of allowing more people of modest means to earn degrees? This week the Journal’s Jason Riley reviewed the results:

In 1970, about 12% of recent college grads came from the bottom 25% of the income distribution. Today, it’s about 10%.
Education “affordability” is among the most expensive promises politicians have ever broken.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[Doug]
The more government/taxpayer money we inject, the worse it gets.

The more we move away from market discipline on costs, the worse it gets.

The debt is screwing up a a generation.  Not to mention that the government money injected is all debt too that will be left to fall on the next generation.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 08:32:13 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
E-12 Education, government control cradle to career
« Reply #378 on: February 19, 2019, 10:54:48 AM »
Two terms new to me in liberal-speak education: 

"E-12" now replaces the term K-12 in terms of government funding and control with the E meaning Early Childhood replacing the K of Kindergarden as the government's  first touch of your children.  We are not talking about pre-school, we are talking about everything starting from birth [sooner if they admitted it was a life in there].

Second, Leftist politicians now talk about "Cradle to Career", meaning government involvement and control is not limited to k-12 classroom curricula but includes lunch, breakfast, after school, break and what is happening at home - at any age even into adulthood.

If you think government involvement in education ends at high school graduation you are probably a racist conservative living in the 1950s, in their view.

Oddly, the more they touch the worse it gets.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 12:21:17 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile
Re: Education
« Reply #379 on: February 19, 2019, 02:41:52 PM »
Deep implications in those two terms!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile
George Friedman: American Universities are in Crisis
« Reply #380 on: March 21, 2019, 05:21:33 PM »
March 19, 2019

By George Friedman
Geopolitical Futures

American Universities Are in Crisis

Elite universities are once again looking for social conformists rather than disrupters.

Last week, dozens of wealthy parents were charged for allegedly paying a firm to cheat on college entrance exams or bribe officials to get their children accepted into elite colleges. The number of people involved in the scam is small, so the case itself has proved little except that all human institutions can be corrupted. But there’s a broader point that must be considered. This case is an indicator of a profound crisis at American universities. I know that profound crises have become a dime a dozen, manufactured by people like me with writing deadlines, but I ask you to bear with me.

We live in a knowledge-based economy. Our universities are the social institutions designed to produce and educate the next generation that will participate in that economy. But the best universities do more than this. They teach those outside elite circles the manners and customs of power. They allow them to meet others who will form the networks of authority that are indispensable to society. If you go to Harvard, you likely won’t learn any more about biology in your freshman year than you would at a state school. But you will learn something that isn’t taught by professors but is still vitally important: how to fit into the structure and customs of influence.

Harvard is blunt about this, though it might be unaware how blunt it is. The school’s website lists several factors considered in the admissions process. One is particularly striking: “Would other students want to room with you, share a meal, be in a seminar together, be teammates, or collaborate in a closely knit extracurricular group?” In other words, the school wants to know if an applicant will conform to the social order. Eccentrics and non-conformists – people who have radically different views that might be offensive to some – are not really welcome.

There is, of course, always the socially acceptable oddity, but the real outlanders, the ones who have beliefs or interests that would cause them not to attract roommates, are screened out.
According to the Harvard Crimson student newspaper, about 12 percent of Harvard’s student body is Republican. But it’s unlikely students with conservative views would, for example, wear MAGA hats or organize pro-life rallies because most students likely wouldn’t want to room with them if they did, and that would make them a bad fit for Harvard. What’s missing in all this is the idea that you should be required to work and learn with people who you profoundly disagree with and face the fact that those who disagree with you may be not only reasonable but even right.

Many will leap on the political imbalance in the student body, but the more important issue is that Harvard bases its admissions policy on social conformity. And in doing so, it undermines one of its most important claims: that it promotes social diversity. As in the 1920s, elite schools now are looking for students who would fit in, not those who have different or uncomfortable perspectives on life. It should be the role of a university to, as H.L. Mencken and others said about newspapers, “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

The American university system was transformed after World War II by the GI Bill, which provided educational assistance to veterans. They flooded the nation’s universities and were admitted into some of its top schools. They did superbly and created the mass professional class that powered the nation through the 1970s. The GIs were mostly men, many of whom faced the abyss and saw it smile back at them. Many others had not been in combat but understood discipline and knew that life did not have to be pleasant, but had to be lived. They had to live with strangers they may not have liked. They never expected to be surrounded only by people who had similar views and experiences as they did. They understood diversity in a personal way and were there to learn the skills they would need in the next phase of life.

During this time, money flowed into universities from the federal government. The Manhattan Project, the U.S.-led effort to develop an atomic bomb, turned universities into centers for national security research. They were an integral part of American life and, in the 1950s and 1960s, included the best of Europe’s emigre scholars. While teaching for a short time at Louisiana State University in the mid-1990s, I remember discovering that the legacy of German political philosopher Eric Voegelin, who fled Germany in the 1930s and taught as LSU, was still alive and well.

When I went to college, candidates were still judged on their merits, but the ideological battle had already surfaced at Cornell and was developing into a discussion of what was and wasn’t socially acceptable at Harvard. Having the wrong point of view (and I always seemed to have the wrong point of view) could get you barred from grad school parties, and debates on the Vietnam War began redrawing the lines of propriety as they had been before the war.

Today, that divide seems even deeper. According to a study cosponsored by the College Board, there are 800,000 veterans or family members of veterans enrolled in U.S. colleges under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Only 722, however, are enrolled at the country’s 36 most selective universities. That’s a stunning reversal of the numbers under the previous GI Bill. What that bill broke open more than 70 years ago is now closed.

This is part of the nation’s upward mobility problem. The lower-middle class has an average annual income of about $35,000. That leaves a take-home pay of about $2,500 a month, barely enough to rent an apartment, much less buy a house. I grew up in a lower-middle-class family. We had a small house and a car, but these days, that would be nearly impossible. For families facing such circumstances, getting a university education gives some hope that they’ll be able to improve their lot in life. Some of these students may even have the qualifications to get into an elite college, but the question remains whether they would be accepted in such schools. Would, say, a devout Catholic from a lower-middle-class home in Michigan be welcomed at Harvard? Would the university support such diversity?

Here’s a radical idea. I taught political philosophy for many years, and I noted that my students were less than thrilled to prowl through Plato. At 19 years old, a student’s hormones are raging and the desire to be liked by others is at its peak. Plato has little to do with any of this. The idea of going to university at this age originated in the Middle Ages when the university was created and life expectancy was in the mid-30s. Now, life expectancy is about 80, and a 40-year-old would be far more willing to learn about Plato than a 19-year-old. A 40-year-old student can understand the importance of justice; a 19-year-old can understand only that class will be over shortly.

Universities are failing in two ways. First, they have slipped back into the role of gatekeeper for the conformists. Second, they seem incapable of playing their historic role in not just promoting upward mobility but integrating the brightest of the poor with the existing elite. That was a vital function, and as everyone knows, unrest begins when the most intelligent youngsters have no hope left.

The university has become the major bar to the kind of social ferment the United States has always enjoyed. The problem started when universities stopped focusing on achievement and tried to admit students based on personal characteristics that were impossible to verify. The result was inevitable. They recruited students who were intelligent, likeable and liked. Plato wrote about Socrates, who was put to death for being an ass. I guess he wouldn’t have been accepted into Harvard either.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Is it that hard to get into USC
« Reply #382 on: March 25, 2019, 09:57:10 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile
Re: Education
« Reply #383 on: March 25, 2019, 01:22:43 PM »
Around LA it is said the initials USC stand for University of Spoiled Children and that UCLA stands for University of Caucasians Lost among Asians.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Education, 9 yrs into Common Core, Indoctrination up, test scores down
« Reply #384 on: April 09, 2019, 07:45:34 AM »
https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/05/9-years-common-core-test-scores-indoctrination/

ACT scores released earlier this month show that students’ math achievement is at a 20-year low. The latest English ACT scores are slightly down since 2007, and students’ readiness for college-level English was at its lowest level since ACT’s creators began measuring that item, in 2002. Students’ preparedness for college-level math is at its lowest point since 2004.
...
During the Obama administration, writes Harvard professor Paul Peterson, “No substantively significant nationwide gains were registered for any of the three racial and ethnic groupings in math or reading at either 4th or 8th grade.”
...
the evidence indicates that at best Common Core made negligible improvements, and at worst it’s reduced student achievement, all while soaking up huge amounts of time and money. The years of small but visible achievement growth under George W. Bush have been replaced by zero growth under and after Obama.
-------------------------------------
Who could have predicted all this? 




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: June 08, 2019, 09:51:42 AM by ccp »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Re: Education
« Reply #390 on: June 09, 2019, 09:05:24 AM »
agree with Kurt

making an adversity score as factor for college admissions will also lead to its being used for other things.
like ensuring the Democrat Party supports people in a way to ensure more votes for itself.

Thinks the Communists in China now scaring all their citizens to ensure they are in control of thinking , freedom of thought and behavior

The elites and all the other cheats will simply change their strategy

instead of making up phony athletic participations  have other take their tests , cheat on the tests,
the NEW
scam will be
to "color your application " with "ADVERSITY".

Such as:

I grew up living out of car.
My father ditched the family after I was born.
We had no money
Had to work 7 jobs while in high school to pay for books
I have grandparents who are  black, native American, Muslim , and one who fleed Venezuela long ago.

....... maybe admitting , if female, you had 2 abortions already would also be a few points in one's favor
Or one of the LBGTQ and the rest for even more points....

 :-o

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile
Re: Education
« Reply #392 on: June 26, 2019, 10:01:46 AM »
Please post in Race thread as well.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47737
    • View Profile
Re: Education
« Reply #394 on: June 30, 2019, 01:22:59 PM »
Please post in Race thread as well


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Robert Reich
« Reply #396 on: July 08, 2019, 06:30:15 AM »
This guy is , and always has been so crazy.  To think he is a "professor"

Just to show how meaningless that title is:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/megan-rapinoe-science-is-science_n_5d22b3f6e4b04c4814163c9e


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Chicago parents getting around the rules
« Reply #397 on: July 30, 2019, 07:37:56 AM »
to save money for their children to go to College:

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/illinois-college-scholarships-034913070.html

Frankly I do not blame them.

Why not?  I am sure they are sick and tired of having to subsidize other people's kids.....
(of course not mentioned in the Huff compost article)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Education - NYC Diversity Panel Scrapping Gifted Programs
« Reply #398 on: August 27, 2019, 07:55:57 AM »
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mayors-diversity-panel-recommends-scrapping-gifted-programs-at-new-york-city-schools-11566863093?mod=hp_listb_pos1
A diversity panel appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio has called for New York City to stop using academic criteria to screen applicants for admission to public middle schools, and to phase out elementary gifted-and-talented programs that now require a test.
-----------

Why would you want to educate the gifted?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile