Rhodes College

Image via Wikipedia

There’s been a really interesting conversation going on over at Laura’s virtual Apt. 11D.  She posted several pieces of advice she’d give to students about to enter college.  She got poked at a bit for being “elitist” and “NE Centric”, but I don’t think that’s entirely fair.  I think the whole thing boils down to individual choices.  I have a very weird perspective being the teacher of students who are all likely to go to Ivies or at least to exclusive schools.  I have a student who’s choosing between MIT and Princeton.  UPenn is almost a fallback school.  My son, on the other hand, is likely going to end up at a state school or something like it out of state.  It’s a weird perspective to be in.  For my son, I want to maximize what he gets out of college for what we can afford.  It means getting a good financial aid package or going to a state school, perhaps also with a solid financial aid package.  He’s not a straight A student, but he’s smart and capable.  I think he’d be better off in a smaller environment, but he thinks a larger place would be better.  Hard to know.

While I think there’s some general advice about being as selective as possible when choosing a college, sometimes the choice is very individual.  It depends on where your student can get in, what you can afford, where you live, etc.

One might start by looking at this list of colleges that change lives.  My school, Rhodes College,is on the list.  Some of these are exclusive, but not all.  They are all interesting.  I chose my school after going to a summer program and because my parents went there.  I got damn lucky.  I’m grateful every day for my education, even if not everyone has heard of my school.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Although this article is a few months old, I just bumped into it in my Internet wanderings.  We just had this conversation at home, since Geeky Boy, struggling with getting his work done, declared that maybe he didn’t want to go to college.  We popped out all kinds of statistics (as educators, we have these things constantly in our minds).  This article gives some really fascinating details to the story of the advantages of a college education.  Earning a better wage (or wages over time) has always been something most people knew almost instinctively.  It turns out, that education (and increased wage) pays dividends in many other ways.  College-educated people are less likely to divorce, less likely to smoke, more likely to live in urban areas with lots of culture.  All those things benefit their children, who grow up healthy, go to the best schools (because their college-educated parents can afford to live in affluent areas or pay for private school), and have a wealth of culture at their doorsteps.  And so they perpetuate the benefits onward.

Two quotes that struck me.  This, about marginal students:

Research shows that being in school longer – whatever is happening in and around the classroom – improves young people’s chances of doing well in most areas of life. Moreover, it is the marginal students, the ones who barely get into college, who benefit most from a college education.

Those are the ones I tend to latch onto.  Yes, I love the smart ones, the ones who give great answers, but I like the spunky ones, the ones who struggle a bit, and who usually figure things out in the end.

And then this one, about where people live based on education:

. . . neighborhood segregation by college education grew substantially between 1970 and 2000. It grew faster than segregation by income, even as segregation by race declined. Another study documents how the highly-educated are concentrating in the downtowns of the most booming cities.  And a recent story reported that these degree-holders are starting to raise their children in center cities — even in Manhattan. Thus, enclaves of the highly-educated are growing in chic, gentrified, non-smoking neighborhoods, while the less educated move to the scraggly, sprawling suburbs of stagnating cities.

That last line struck me.  I’ve seen those suburbs of stagnating cities (yes, Indianapolis, I’m looking at you).  It’s not pretty.

Some very interesting stuff there.  What do you think?

I’m not alone, apparently, in feeling the pressure to put my kids through the paces to get them into a good school.  This article explains that much of the increase in childcare over the last 20 years despite a decrease in the amount of time most women can dedicate to childcare is about college admissions.  While the number of students eligible to attend college has increased, the number of slots available has not increased at the same rate, and likely at an even lesser rate at elite schools, who often don’t want to increase enrollments or risk losing the quality of education.  Thus, there’s an increase in competition among students qualified for those elite schools.  And that competition begins early.

Apparently, though, the pressure only applies to the parents.  Geeky Boy says he knows no one who’s overly concerned about getting into college.  Keeping their grades up, sure.  Building their portfolios, not so much.

09. June 2009 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: , , ,

Inside Higher Ed, among other sources, has been reporting on several incidents of institutions gaming the US News and World Report ranking system. No one should be surprised, today’s report says, especially when the stakes are so high. These incidents dovetail nicely with my own recent thoughts about college expectations for my kids. My brother-in-law is visiting this week and we took a stroll around campus while Mr. Geeky was in a meeting. He asked how much it cost to go to fancy pants liberal arts college. The total price tag, with room and board, is about $50k. He wanted to know why the hell it cost so much and what makes going to a place that costs that much so much better than a state school. For the record, he has 4 kids to get through school (10 years from now), with a huge amount of overlap, so cost is going to be a huge factor, as it is for many parents.

One key reason people want to go to expensive schools, of course, are all the intangible benefits: the connections you make, the name recognition, etc. I agree that the cost seems way out of sync, but it also gets you some tangible benefits as well. At an exclusive SLAC, you won’t have a class larger than 40 or 50 people (and those are the lecture classes). Most classes will have 15 or so people. That means your opportunities for engaging in class discussion, for the teacher knowing you and keeping an eye on your progress are vastly increased. Your faculty will be from “better” schools (they cost more as a result, though their pay is still less than other professionals). The faculty will also be more available for one-on-one consultation and in theory, will also be more focused on teaching and learning rather than research (though this is debatable). Even at schools like Harvard and Yale, one could argue that having the opportunity to work with the great minds of our time is a privilege worth paying for.*

So here’s the thing, yes, state schools can be just fine for many people. Mr. Geeky attended state school and went on to get a Ph.D. from said state school and ended up teaching at a presitigous liberal arts college. There are thousands of success stories like that. But it’s also true that some students would be lost in a large state school population and would not only not thrive, but might even fail. I knew that of myself after visiting a large state school I was considering. Not only did I not check out any of the classes (because my hosts were skipping classes), but I spent the entire time there really drunk. I figured I would spend 4 years drunk if I went there.

Rankings don’t tell you that. They might help you begin to make a list, but there are many other factors to consider. Location, demographics, class size, curriculum, general philosophy. Going to a school ranked below the top 25 isn’t going to ruin your life. It might not catapult you into that fabulous political career, but it will probably allow you a pretty good life.

*Of course, with many of those great minds’ lectures and course materials being made freely available, one can forgo the expense of Harvard and simply take advantage of the free offerings while attending state school.

09. May 2008 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: , , ,

Yesterday, I had the great pleasure of visiting the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia. I’ve been following the development and progress of this schools via its principal, Chris Lehmann’s blog. I’m not a K-12 educator, but I like to frequently remind myself and others, that the students currently going through K-12 will eventually be our students and their expectations of higher education will be shaped by their K-12 experience. What I saw and heard in SLA is very different from what I’ve seen in my own kids’ suburban schools and even here at this small liberal arts college. The classrooms are active. The students all have laptops and are working in groups on projects–everything from writing up abstracts for science fair projects to creating documentaries for a history class. Even in classes where there was a teacher at the front of the room, the students were participating, being asked to participate, to ask questions, to answer questions, to think in different ways.

One of the teachers I met, Zac Chase, discussed several projects he’d done with his students that got them to engage with both reading material and with the real world, to make those connections between school and life that keep students seeing the point of this whole education thing. He had students read Their Eyes Were Watching God and, focusing on the theme of sacrifice, asked them to interview someone who had made sacrifices and create a “This American Life” like production. Many of them blew him and his students away (hopefully they’ll be public soon). Another project he did was the “Change the World Project,” where the kids picked a real-world problem to solve. Through this project, the kids learn research methods, writing skills, and more. And that more part says a lot, because often, the teachers and kids both are surprised by what they learn.

Afterwards, Chris and I talked a little about education, the changes that need to happen, and whether or not the model that SLA espouses will spread and whether there will be pressure on higher ed as a result. What Chris said was a bit depressing, but rang true to me. He said that the higher up the food chain, you go, the less it’s about the students. So, for example, he said that if you ask an elementary school teacher what they do, they say they teach 5th grade or whatever, the kids are very present. By the time you get to high school, teachers often say they teach physics, when really, they should say, I teach kids physics. The kids are the object, not the content. When you get to college, content becomes king. At R1′s, it’s really not about the kids. Teaching is foisted onto lower class labor. And that’s a real shame. And, further, Chris added, he saw little incentive for higher ed to change. And, deep in my heart, I knew it was true. Sure, there are lots of individuals trying to effect change, really focusing on the students, making teaching their primary focus, but it’s not enough to turn the aircraft carrier that is higher ed. Each institution is an equally large boat. So, really, it might be more like getting a huge formation of battleships to make a 90 degree turn. Not easy.

But still, I have to say I’m inspired by our students and I was inspired by the SLA students. There’s such potential there for change–for changing the world. As Chris said himself in a blog post, the kids are alright; it’s the grownups who are getting in the way.

28. February 2007 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: ,

A Fighter for Colleges That Have Everything but Status – New York Times

I have other things on my mind, but I ran into this article this morning which mentioned my own alma mater as a place that changes lives. I’m not sure if that was true of my school 20 years ago, but maybe it was. In many ways, it did change my life, but I don’t think I took full advantage of all it had to offer. I certainly appreciated the close attention I usually got from faculty. I enjoyed the way my classes seemed to have connections to each other and that faculty enjoyed talking about (and understood!) these connections. Even though I felt kind of jaded about school by the time I was a senior and considered myself active only in the fringe groups (theater and writing and the newspaper) rather than being part of student government, I still feel a pretty close connection to the school. I have thought seriously about setting up a scholarship with them (for women in computer science, of course). And I’ve been generally impressed with the work they’re doing. So maybe I can’t pinpoint precise moments where my education there changed me, but I still value that education today and it still influences me in many ways.

I did apply to an Ivy League school and a big name school, but I got waitlisted at both places and eventually rejected. Though I was a bit disappointed, I think things turned out fine. As I think about where my kids might go to college, it’s reassuring to know that smaller schools with lesser reputations might be a good choice for them. With all the hype and competition around here, it’s hard not to be pressured to consider just the ivies and the big name schools. In many ways, shouldn’t college change your life? Isn’t that the whole point?