March Madness

People often speak about "March Madness" as simply the temporary focus of the national attention on the 68 college teams competing this month in the NCAA's basketball tournament.  (It used to be 64, but the NCAA keeps adding to the team numbers, recognizing that there's more money to be made out there if they can add games without anybody paying much attention.  And this by the way, doesn't even count the 'loser's tournament' for those who weren't for some reason invited to the big dance.  By this of course, I mean the 32 colleges of the NCAA 'invited' to the NIT [National Invitation Tournament] as a consolation.)  March however seems to have been a month long infected with both fervor and madness before anyone considered 'Sweet Sixteen' as a phrase that could used in a discussion of sports. 

The Ides of March, for example occur on the 15th, and is famous as the day in which Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC.  Now normally the Ides of any month (usually the 13th - 15th) were marked by the Romans through religious celebrations which concluded with a sacrifice.  In this particular case however, the sacrifice turned out to be their dictator (a term which meant something far different in those days).  The Religious implications of Politics are often rather difficult subjects to understand however; and while normally the elimination of a dictator would likewise be considered a reason for celebration, history remains confused over the elimination of this particular one.  Perhaps it's because so many of us were forced to translate what were considered Caesar's heroic efforts in the "Gallic Wars" during our classical education, and perhaps it's because of Rex Harrison's sympathetic depiction of him during the 1963 classic "Cleopatra".  It could also have something to do with the fact that many of those who replaced Caesar (even keeping his name) were promoted from Roman Dictator (only a nominal king) to Emperor (more in keeping with our current definition of the term), and in many cases were far worse than the original.  It may even be a confused reverance and prejudice against the offences committed by later iterations of the title, 'Kaiser' and 'Czar'.  Then again, there may just be those who simply have a grudge against eating the salad that retains the name.

Two days later on the 17th, many around the world celebrate the feast day of the Patron Saint of Ireland, St. Patrick (except of course for those of us celebrating my granddaughter Maggie's birthday).  This too (as those of you who read my St. Patrick's Day post would have noted) is an event rife with confusion.  Beginning with the concept of a former English slave becoming the patron saint of the nation that imprisoned him, proceeding through a number of falsehoods surrounding his use of the shamrock and the departure of Ireland's snakes, and finishing up with the concept of a religious holiday designed to be celebrated with prayer that's become the secular equivalent of a donnybrook.   There's certainly enough befuddlement in its history therefore to cheefully add it, along with the Ides, as bit of March's mania.  (And at this, I have yet to add my own discomfiture over the consumption of some poor examples of the brewer's art somehow being suddenly found to have become seasonal ambrosia through the addition of emerald-colored chemical enhancement.)

For those of you who might have missed it (unable to see it even days later through the blinding snow that's stretched through the Midwest), next was the arrival of the Vernal Equinox at 7:02 EDT on the 20th; and with it the beginning of Spring.  As for me, I have little doubt that the 6-10 inches of white stuff currently falling at the "Just Blowing Smoke" headquarters in Mission, Kansas is a violation of Nature; and no doubt due to the ongoing 'mad scientist' battle between the forces of 'Global Warming' and the secret weather experiments being conducted by the government 'Military-Industrial Complex'.  ("Haliburton ... you Bastards!" he said, as he readjusted his tin foil hat .)  This of course, leaves local 'Missionaries' complaining about still being trapped in freezing temperatures that only months from now they will long for, when suffering from the soul-sucking heat of another 100 degree Summer.  This weather anomaly in a state where basketball is king creates its own form of madness, as locals who would in no case be venturing too far from their television sets suffer from a bi-polar disorder that finds them curiously discomfited at their climactic entrapment.   

(This is a well-chronicled condition that has something to do with a mental malady that arises from the manic conflict between wanting to be in an adult beverage dispensing establishment with a bunch of strangers, consuming over-priced ethanol-based concoctions vs. doing the same thing at home with ones family at much lower prices, while at the same time not gambling on potential arrest from the process involved with getting from one to the other.  There's an ongoing government study that's sucking up millions in funding for years without yet producing definitive results on the subject.)

Of course for those of us not consumed by the media-generated version of 'March Madness', all of this basketball nonsense is simply that.  Perhaps in my case, it has to do with having played hockey for most of my childhood and a good part of what society considers my adulthood (the latter term being very much subject to interpretation).  The two sports after all have competing seasons, for a dedicated 'puckster' one basketball games looks pretty much the same as another, and even the occasional distraction of current cheerleader uniform styles is not enough to entice me into watch a sporting event that has so much scoring going on that a 20-point lead at halftime is often meaningless to the result of the game.  As for filling out 'The Brackets', I only use brackets to install wall shelving and they don't require any filling out.  (Only filling in when I drill a hole in the wall improperly...)

As far as I'm concerned the madness of March can easily do without the absurdity of colleges I've never heard of playing a game that I don't much care for, all to raise exorbitant sums of money for a higher education system that squanders such funding as quickly as they get it and then looks for more in tuition rates increases that far exceed that of inflation.  I will choose instead to wait yet another week for Easter, and let the intersection of yet another religious / sectarian holiday fight its own lunatic battle between rampant consumerism and ecclesiastical fervor.  I find it far more entertaining, having once had to do so myself, to watch parents deal with the competing ideological battle for attention as my fellow Christians attempt to reconcile their children's conflicts beliefs during another co-opted pagan holiday with serious economic considerations.  I'm fascinated in their attempts to explain the spiritual significance of painted hard-boiled eggs, chocolate bunny rabbits, and jelly beans.  Having suffered through similar uncomfortable discussions for years with my own offspring, I take a twisted solace from the inevitable psychosis arising from attempts to steal the doctrinal thunder of a miracle of faith by the sugar-frenzied distractions presented by its alternative.  

I'm sorry my friends, but quite frankly I have no time in a world far too full of delusion to find a place for the college tournament madness of a sport which I'm not even sure that its inventor James Naismith would still recognize, after the abandonment of so many of his original rules.  There's far too much aberration and absurdity in my life in general and March in particular than I care to deal with, to add this made-for-TV hysteria.  If it's all the same to you, I'd like to skip ahead now to some April showers and May flowers ... thank you very much.

The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #33

Apparently the staff disciplinarian here at Just Blowing Smoke has achieved a modicum of success through the occasional beating of the lazy lexicographers working on the "Stuck on Stupid" dictionary.  And though it would be difficult to say that morale has improved, these 'enthusiasm enhancing episodes' appear to do have had at least some impact on the quantity, if not the quality of their efforts.  (Personally, I just think they're jealous of the Cheetos that we supply to the DJBSS in their attic Command Center.)  Senior staff will continue to search for new ways to 'inspire' greater output.

Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the label of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different when looked at in a political context, especially to those us who have come to understand the often peculiar vernacular of politics in Toledo, Northwest Ohio ... and sometimes even the nation as a whole.

Tuition:

1. A sum of money imposed for the purposes of defraying the costs associated with an education annually on a per student basis.

2. A sum of money which is usually considered too low for the purposes of defraying the costs of a K-12 education annually on a per student basis; possibly because the charges carry a 'veil of invisibility' from being spread over property tax payers whether they have children in school or not.  (This is not to be confused with the sum paid for the same K-12 education at private schools, which is usually less, and paid directly to those schools by the parents who use it in addition to the taxes which they otherwise pay.)

3. A sum of money which is usually considered too high when paid to an institution of higher learning for a college education annually on a per student basis; in spite of the fact that it's nearly identical to the sum paid for the K-12 education.  (The difference in how this number is perceived may be due to the fact that it has lost its 'veil of invisibility', is not spread over property tax payers whether they have children in school or not, and must therefore be paid for either by the parents or the students themselves  ... even if they have to borrow the money to do so.)

The Value of Higher Education

I started to do some research for an effort about the cost of higher education this week; concerned about the $1 trillion dollars in student loan debt, yet another politically motivated debate on a program that is little more than federally funded 'price fixing' where interest rates on college loans are concerned, and disquiet that the price of a college education might be rising far faster than the national rate of inflation would predict.  College tuition seems to be the issue de jour in politics these days, as the campaigns vie for student votes in an election year; and as a consequence, the obligatory pandering to their suffering is currently going on.

In fact, according to this ABC piece, tuition costs rose in last year at a level of 8.3% (for at least one type of college), while the inflation rate was only 3.6%.  ABC was even kind enough to break the numbers down for all of us, so I highlighted them for you here below:

1.  Published in-state tuition and fees at public four-year institutions average $8,244 in 2011-12, $631 (8.3 percent) higher than in 2010-11.

2.  Published tuition and fees at for-profit institutions average an estimated $14,487 in 2011-12, 3.2 percent higher than in 2010-11.

3.  Published out-of-state tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities average $20,770, $1,122 (5.7 percent) higher than in 2010-11. 

4.  Published tuition and fees at private nonprofit four-year colleges and universities average $28,500 in 2011-12, $1,235 (4.5 percent) higher than in 2010-11.

(These numbers reflect costs per semester, and therefore double as an annual tuition cost.  Note that I did not include costs associated with living on campus that were available in this piece, as they are not 'tuition' costs, and for reasons which will quickly become apparent.) 

When I looked at these numbers, a couple of things struck me however.  First, that the greatest increase in percentage was in in-state tuition a public universities, though the dollar amount itself didn't seem life threatening.  Second, that most of the other increases were pretty much in keeping with the inflation rate, give or take a point or two.  Third, that the 'choice' of a for-profit university can get pricey in a hurry; and that looking at out-of-state tuition or that of a private non-profit school could get downright expensive.

There was something about that first number that kept nagging at me however, and I was forced to continue digging through old notes and efforts until I discovered why this was.  What I discovered not only took me aback, but changed the direction of this piece entirely. 

What I rediscovered was a paper on policy analysis done by Adam B Schaeffer of the CATO Institute entitled, "They Spend WHAT?  The Real Cost of Public Schools" on March 10 of 2010.  This CATO Policy Analysis, #662, remains spot on though now two years old.  I highly recommend that you take the time go over the material contained in this 32 page effort on the state of public education in this country.  

Having grown up and attended schools in both the suburbs and city of Chicago, it was rediscovering the numbers that I had once read about the place of my birth that now began to haunt me.  Rather than bore you with trying to explain them, I have cut and pasted the requisite graph and chart below in order to simplify. 

2010 money spent on K-12 education in three areas of Chicago as provided by the district and as actually spent.

Now for those of you who weren't paying attention in math class, what these numbers appear to indicate are a couple of things that we've long known, that the amount of taxpayer money reportedly spent is not always that actually spent, and that private schools provide an education for less than their public school counterparts (and in some cases, far less).  It also seems to glaringly indicate that two years ago in Chicago at least, taxpayers were paying about the same per student for K-12 education that the average college student pays in 2012 in the way tuition at an in-state institution of higher learning (if we adjust for two years of inflation, that seems almost certain).

So which is it?  Is $16,000 per year too much to spend on higher education, or is it an amount that needs to be increased in order to properly educate our K-12 children?

It seems apparent that it's in fact not the cost of higher education that's too high, unless those demanding more funding for K-12 education are likewise willing to concede that the mostly failed effort of a government-controlled education system is in fact also too high (something that I would gladly do).  It also seems that such a sum should be more than enough to cover communicating basic learning skills to 5 thru 17 year-olds if it's enough to educate a college student.  One might even go further, and say it's logical to conclude that many more might be able to afford to pay the higher education bill for their children (as they have a K-12 education), if they weren't already paying taxes for someone else's child's education at the same time (you know much as parents whose children attend private schools do for others every day).  

Yet another lesson exists for those who view such numbers as these and still choose expensive for profit universities, out-of-state, or private schools.  The vastly greater funds you will spend on tuition can teach you a different and valuable lesson that most of us learned outside of the classroom and far more cheaply; that while either will get you where you're going, a Cadillac costs more than a Chevy (unless of course, it's a 'Volt').  

As for those whose four year education has earned them little more than a place in the unemployment line, perhaps it was not the cost of their education that was the problem, but the value of what they 'chose' to learn while obtaining it.

Unhappy Valley

.
It's Saturday, and for the first time in 46 years, Joe Paterno will not be on the sidelines at Penn State.  Last week "Joe Pa" was fired, not for his performance on the field for the 'Nittany Lions' where he has 409 victories (vs 136 losses), but for a defeat that he suffered off of the field.  That mistake was one of judgment with regard to one of his assistant coaches Jerry Sandusky.

Mr Sandusky worked with Coach Paterno for some 20 years as a defensive coordinator, and seemed at one time to be the heir apparent to the throne in Happy Valley (a rather dubious honor, since Joe at 84, showed little interest in retiring until this week).  Mr Sandusky lost his status in1999 however, abruptly retiring after an incident reported by the mother of an 11 year-old in which he was giving the child a bear hug in the shower.  The University police investigated this occurrence, but no charges were filed, nor apparently was the information turned over to local authorities outside of the university.

Three years later, as it emerges in a recently released Grand Jury report, Sandusky was apparently caught in the showers at a campus locker room with a boy who appeared to be around 10 years-old by now linebacker coach Mike McQueary, who was a graduate assistant at the time.  Though there was some delay involved, McQueary eventually reported the incident and this report reached Coach Paterno, who in turn reported it to the Athletic Director.  That Grand Jury report in fact points to eight potential victims of Mr Sandusky, and is often the case when such charges are publicized, more may yet surface.

OK, these are the alleged facts as we know them now, but how then do we question what went on and judge those involved, if such judgment is permitted?

Why weren't the accusations in 1999 reported to local authorities?  When did it become the province of University Police to determine such things?  If Jerry Sandusky retired in 1999, what was he doing on campus, using school facilities, three years later?  Who permitted this and gave him access or keys?  Why, if he was granted access at all, wasn't he under closer scrutiny, based on previous accusation?  One must certainly call into question the judgment of the University in general and the Athletic Department in particular for allowing an alleged sexual predator access to the scene of many of his alleged past crimes.

Forget the delay in 'reporting' on Mike McQueary's part, why didn't he move immediately to protect the child in question?  It's reported that McQueary called his father for advice, so the question extends to asking why his father didn't tell him to go back and protect the child? These events show a serious lapse in judgment on McQueary's part, if not one of courage.  There is guilt by commission and guilt by omission, and if the story told by McQueary in this case is true, he is certainly guilty of the latter in the form of a cowardice that would be hard to defend.

(On a side note, let me say that a reaction of 'kicking the crap out of Sandusky seems the rather logical and immediate, if a bit Neanderthal solution.  If this didn't occur to McQueary Jr, it should have certainly occurred to McQueary Sr.  I understand that Michael McQueary is currently under suspension.  Perhaps he should be permitted to keep his job if he allows the father of the abused child to kick the crap out of him as he should have done to Sandusky when witnessing this event.)

How could no one else have noticed what was going on?  Campus life is largely provincial, and everyone knows everyone else's business.  It seems to defy credibility that this could have been going on for an extended period of time (which it apparently was) without others knowing.  If in fact others did know, then they too must share some complicity in this heinous behavior.

While I don't normally comment on sports, this story transcends athletics, and should act as an indictment of Penn State University itself.  This is not an NCAA rules violation on recruiting, undercover payments to players by slimy Alumni, or players attempting to cash in early on a fame that may be all too fleeting.  This is an institutional and systematic choice to turn a blind eye to child abuse going on by a current or former employee on your property.  It's also an apparent willingness to sweep such immoral and illegal behavior under the rug to keep the money associated with college sports spilling into Penn State's coffers.

If the NCAA is to continue to hold any moral dominion with regard to its mandated mission, there can be only one answer to these charges, if they are in any part proven to be true:  "The Death Penalty".  I leave it to this organization of dubious moral character whose inability to police its members is well known, the period which Penn State should do without their football program; but considering the length of time that this appears to have been going on, certainly such punishment should be greater than any of the one or two year sentences previously handed out by this bastion of all that's fair in college sports (sorry, that's alleged bastion).

I pronounce sentence without desiring to see any of the players currently on the Penn State football team punished (though I'm afraid that they will be forever tainted by association).  They should be permitted to transfer without eligibility penalties and allowed to continue their sports futures.  Penn State and its football program must however be punished in the only way that Universities and 'Big Time College Football' programs seem to understand, by hitting them in the revenue stream where it hurts.

Could this hurt other sports programs at the university or the admissions of new students?  I'm sure it could, but it certainly appears that more than the Athletic Department were at least aware of this situation and that the university as a whole is responsible for looking the other way for a considerable period of time.

Let the picture of an empty stadium in what will become 'Unhappy Valley' be shown every week on 'football Saturdays' to serve as a reminder to all those who see themselves as living in the ivory towers of academia and above the more mundane concerns of everyday living that they have a responsibility to the mere mortals who surround them and the communities they live amongst; and most especially to the children who may one day walk their halls.


.

The Future of Government and Higher Education?

.
Many in the 'Occupy' movement are complaining about the burden of student loans that they have after leaving an institution of higher learning. Having completed a degree in English Renaissance Literature or Sociology (and not paid attention during those boring economics courses), they are only now discovering that their investment in higher education is not going to pay the dividends that the broker (Admission's Counselor) encouraging them to speculate led them to believe.

Now finding themselves so underwater on college loans that they will never be able to achieve the American Dream of being underwater on a mortgage, they (like many homeowners) look to the government for relief.  Like many in banks, auto manufacturers, and green energy companies, they would like some assistance to help them survive the piling of one bad loan upon another, in their own form of investment 'bundling'.  It is their contention that government's involvement and intervention is not only preferable, but essential.  Some even go so far as to say that government should provide such education as a 'right'.

(Am I the only one who's noticed that the group constantly asserting 'rights' are those on the 'left'?) 

While not normally being one for capitulating to the demands of those with little in the way of logic and reason on their side (evidently these too were courses mostly ignored).  There are times when one must seek a more compassionate perspective; and I am willing to expend the effort required to do so.

Oh I don't believe that these loans should be forgiven.  Personal responsibility is something that society should prize, and not allowing them the opportunity to accept responsibilities for past mistakes and pay back legitimate financial obligations would be doing them a serious disservice.  I am willing to concede (or accede, as the case may be) to their cries for government intervention in higher education if that is the path that they wish to take.  In fact, I believe that some of the proposals that progressives in both education and government have told us for many years have reaped great rewards in society as a whole should be used as a model of such intervention.

I therefore propose:

* Reducing or eliminating much of the funding in pure research at universities that sees no likely immediate return.  Like that done for defense or space exploration, most could be done away with in the name of attempting to maintain the costs of operation within reasonable growth percentile.  There should likewise be a National Research Board to strictly monitor and regulate what research is done and who will do it in the name of fairness. There's no point in having one university duplicate the research of another .... that's simply inefficient.  Ultimately we need to recognize that Professors are after all teachers; and teachers get paid to teach, not financed for working on a patent that could make them rich.  

* A National Board of University Departments would have to take control and come up with rules to cover the regulation of all university departments, their budgets, and even their necessity.  I'm sure that a mostly college-educated bureaucracy could come up with a set of guidelines in enough annoying detail for even the most prestigious of universities to be able to understand and follow.  Just as with research, it would be inefficient to have too many colleges too close to each other, duplicating the departmental offerings of others.  Certainly some form of government regulation could relieve some of this duplication and function in as efficient a manner as say, government regulated railroads.

* A National College Housing Authority will be needed institute rent controls for dormitories across the country.  Student housing is a classic example of people living on minimal (or even borrowed) income that need affordable housing.  It would not be fair to let universities take advantage of this need through market regulated pricing structures when so many are in need.  Additionally, universities should be mandated to provide low-income housing to any and all students that require it as a measure of egalitarian compliance.  Something will likewise have to be done in regards to food for these students, but that can be addressed by further regulation and bureaucracy after the housing issue is addressed. 

* Perhaps a National Tuition Board should be appointed as well.  Colleges like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale simply cannot be allowed to charge whatever extravagant prices for their offerings they choose, regardless of the services they offer or the potential advantages that a diploma issued by them provides.  To do so would hardly be fair to those to whom it's not available.  Of course it's possible that they could allowed to continue to charge what what the market will bear for their product (perish the thought), but only if no federal money in the way of grants, loans, subsidies, or funding in any way, shape, or form is provided to the university.  If even $1 is accepted by any part of the university, they too become subject to the rules of a faceless bureaucracy that probably graduated from far less grand institutions (and in the bottom half of their class). 

* Of course, all of this leads to the logical conclusion that in fact a Government Board of Admissions would also be required.  You can't just have people taking government money for education and spending it wherever they chose.  A government regulatory board to apportion admissions to all universities using that money would be required.  Through the use of government efficiencies and 'mandated fairness' to determine the placement of students, a sufficiently egalitarian method of placement could replace the current unfair method of having them simply choosing a school based on its educational expertise, the pleasant nature of the campus, or whether the student feels that an education in such a place would be enjoyable.

You know, if we are going to in effect, nationalize higher education, perhaps professors should be put under government employment standards while we're at it.  Based on teaching ability, education, and testing, they would be granted government occupational pay levels or 'grades'.  University Administrators would likewise be given government ratings to provide an equitable level of compensation for all of those in salaried positions.  Of course such strict structures as the granting of 'tenure' or allowing paid leaves like 'sabbaticals' would need to be done away with, as they would hardly fall within existing federal employment guidelines and compensation plans.  Professors would however, have a government pension to look forward to; and at least be able to compete on a equal footing for advancement once they reach the 'full-performance level' of their existing position.

I can't help but wonder how many professors would be out in the quad protesting in solidarity with their students if such a double dose of of their demands were granted to them?  I wonder how many of those universities would allow them to do so if they understood that the strong arms of federal bureaucracy were about to tightly embrace them?  I wonder how many of those students would be protesting if they knew that new federal regulation and restriction on their choices was going to be the likely result?  Then again, perhaps among the other things that they have yet to learn is that with government funding comes government control.  But such would inevitably be the case for the future of government and higher education if those in 'Occupy' get their wish.

. 

Education Quotes

.
My disdain for some of that which calls itself higher education has been increased recently by some of those in 'Occupy' movements across the country.  It appears however, that I am not alone; and that such thinking has roots in minds far greater than mine for a far greater period than I have been around:

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught. 
- Oscar Wilde

Education is a state-controlled manufactory of echoes.
- Norman Douglas

An education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.  It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
Terry Pratchett

Nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts.
- Henry Adams

Education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices.
- Laurence J Peter
  
The advantage of a classical education is that it enables you to despise the wealth that it prevents you from achieving.
- Russell Green

Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it.
- Stephen Vizinczey

.

Higher Education

.
You know, you have to sympathize with the complaints of some of the recently graduated college students in the 'Occupy' movement.  After all, leaving the safety of protection of the academic world after 4-6 years, only to find yourself saddled with a debt equivalent to the purchase of a small home in the Midwest can be a rather startling revelation.  Discovering that this encumbrance has provided you little in the way of earning collateral, since your degree in English Renaissance Literature has as much value in the real world as one in Underwater Basket Weaving can be unnerving.

Listen, I can feel your pain.  Back in the days when I was seeking a degree in Philosophy (and no, Socrates and Aristotle were not teaching then, but I think Descartes was), I remember how interesting the courses were and how exciting and fun it was to be learning things that I'd never dreamt existed.  Fortunately for me, I was waylaid in my quest for ultimate knowledge by a professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City from whom I was taking two courses from at the time.  Though not my academic adviser (who curiously enough, I never met during my time at UMKC), Dr. Minton took the time to patiently explain to me that my Bachelor's degree would do little more than qualify me to sort mail at the Post Office.  He further explained that I would need both a Masters degree and Doctorate to pursue the one job open to such graduates, becoming a professor like him.  Soon after that, I left school forever to pursue the full-time employment in the printing industry that led me to where I am today.

(Of course looking back, getting a job at the USPS in the mid 70's would have meant that I could have been retired by now with a pretty decent pension, instead of having to restart a career after the all but demise of the daily newspaper business; so I should probably be a little pissed at the man.  He at least did me the favor of explaining the hard realities of the world to me however.) 

Knowledge is a beautiful thing in and of itself, and continuing education is a goal to be pursued, not a destination to be reached.  Nor is the process limited to the academic environs of a university and the structure of a classroom.  I have achieved far greater knowledge and insight in the last few years under the tutelage of friends now living in Virginia or still living in Toledo than I did in many of the years before (Thanks Brian and Maggie).  With no more instruction than, 'if this is what you believe, figure out why and keep your thinking logically consistent' and 'here's the title of a few good books you might want to read'; they sent me on a voyage of discovery that will likely never end. The cost of this instruction by the way, has been that of the books themselves, and the treasured and all too rare opportunity to provide reimbursement to those instructors through the purchase of an adult beverage.

I understand that not all were or will be as fortunate however, and the cost of a college education continues to rise.  While the rest of the world is suffering in the economic malaise and many commercial concerns are seeking strict cost cutting measures, the world of academia seems to be living a far different existence.  Many universities across the country are building new dormitories to provide what most would consider 'high-end amenities' to current and prospective students.  Sports facilities, long a source of contention between academics and alumni, likewise continue to be erected or upgraded in an effort to attract the best and brightest on and off the field.

At a time of complaints over the reductions of aid to education by states already strapped for cash is demonized, pay continues to increase for both instructors and administrators.  Here in Kansas, the Board of Regents approved modest increases of 1.8% for all; but in spite of the tough times, slightly larger ones for some who they felt were being paid less than their peers.  Kansas State's Kirk Schultz's pay will go from $350,000 to $400,000, President of Pittsburg State Steve Scott's compensation will go from $213,000 to $248,000, Hays State's Ed Hammond's pay will jump from $222,860 to $255,200.  By comparison, the increases of University of Kansas Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little from $425,000 to $432,650 seems hardly worth mentioning (except that she's making over $400k); as does the increase of Wichita State University's Don Beggs from $277,160 to $282,150.  (And don't get me started on the pay of full professors, the madness of  the tenure system, how much of their responsibilities they delegate to TA's and graduate students, or the concept of paid sabbaticals.)

I know that Universities, like other businesses, seek to attract the top flight administrators; and compensation is certainly a way to do that.  While recognizing this necessity however, I cannot help but deplore what at best is an example of poor public relations and at worst an almost intolerable insensitivity to current economic realities shown by such compensation packages. 

Perhaps those camped out and sleeping under tarps in places where they aren't allowed to do so might want to redirect their faulty target identification systems from the fat cat bankers who loaned them the money for an education they can't find a use for to the institutions of learning that accepted that borrowed money in what they believed was a legitimate contract to provide them with not only an education, but a future.  (A situation which has apparently been solved now by insuring that most if not all student loans in this country will come henceforth from the government.)  Perhaps they might also set their sights on those in Washington DC who strangely seem oblivious to the fact that education costs have been going up at rather startling rates lately.  

I fear however, that until we either stop telling young people that they need a college education to succeed in life, or start telling everyone in this country that tuition rates have been going up at twice the rate of inflation since 2000, those entering universities around the country will indeed be seeking and getting a 'higher education'.


.

Freshman Excuses

A recent article in the Kansas City Star got me thinking about my college days. Oh I know that looking back that far is difficult, and am sure that Socrates and Plato have long since retired as philosophy professors (but that's a story for another day). I could not help but be taken by the point of view of the article, and of the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute study that it reported on. For it seemed that UCLA and the KC Star's Diane Stafford, rather than welcoming these young people into this fledgling period of adulthood, have instead discovered yet another way to produce a class of victims in today's society. While I'm sure that in fact many of those entering higher education today are under a degree of stress, I'm not sure that it's any higher than it was for previous generations, including my own lo, those many years ago. Of course as they enter college, these young people are:

• For the most part, on their own without daily parental supervision for perhaps the first time in their lives.
• Attempting to balance class work, a social life, and sometimes even part or full-time jobs while attempting to learn.
• Having to begin to make decisions as to long-term goals and their employment futures.

So have students entering college for many generations. This is a required skill set of maturity, and a necessary part of growing up and accepting adult responsibility. In fact, I would suggest that this has been the case since higher education became a realistic goal for most in this country. I would dispute however, that the nation's economy has a greater influence on their long-term coping skills. After all:

• Students in their first year of college are far less likely to be concerned about what department they will be earning a degree in, as they are required for the most part to take general education credits.
• Early choices of major are largely made without much real understanding and are likely to be change multiple times before a chosen field is settled on.
• While there are always majors that lead to higher paying jobs (medicine was one of them until the government recently decided to take it over), it is still the case that a degree in almost anything will do as a stepping stone to a better job.
• The economy that they will be looking at four years from now will, according to most predictions, be far better than today's; and far more likely to offer them greater opportunities.
• The availability of grants and low interest loans is far greater than at any time past, and it appears likely that the forgiveness for any such debt incurred will be far more likely in the days ahead if the government who now controls it has its way.

The article instead goes on to point out that in order to cope with the stress of this situation, some students are either going home more on weekends, or "partying hard on weekends as a relief mechanism". I hate to seem unsympathetic to the mental anguish described, but going home to mommy (probably to have your laundry done as well) or underage drinking is something that has been going on far longer than the current economic downturn, and can hardly be lauded or written off as today's version of 'coping skills'.  


What I do agree with in the study however, is the conclusion that students "are arriving in college already overwhelmed and with lower reserves of emotional health". I would further suggest that they are arriving without the requisite educational tools to gain higher education. So perhaps instead, this study should be used as an indictment highlighting the failures of the education system at the college level as well as those we are increasingly becoming aware of in K-12. 


Students ill-prepared academically in grade school will certainly experience stress as they enter middle school. Middle-schoolers whose education skills are not up to snuff will experience stress as they enter high school. It certainly follows that as those students graduate without the expertise required to take on advanced learning, they will feel even more stress when those failures become a hindrance to further educational achievement in college. (I was recently told a story by a friend who has returned to college that in the first day of class, a student asked the professor if papers submitted needed to be written in complete sentences.) 


We must then ask ourselves who it is that trains the teachers that go on to instruct these young people in their first twelve years of education? Is not in some part the failure of those educators to provide basic skill sets required of their students not also a failure of the college professors who trained them to be teachers? Are today's professors themselves not also a product of the same failed education methodology at every level? Is not their failure yet another example (like the UCLA study) of a system that focuses far too much attention on the feelings and self-image of students and far too little on the acquisition of knowledge, the achievement of goals, and the ability to compete with others who are doing the same? 


It seems however, that rather than admitting that they have failed to equip these young people to cope with the challenges presented by a university education in every way, the study simply hands them a victim button. Perhaps instead, it's time we told these young people the truth about life before they are forever thrust into it. It is and always has been a tough, competitive world out there; and you will have to work hard and compete in order to succeed. That may at times mean stress and perhaps even failure, but excuses in most cases will be neither accepted nor tolerated ... unless of course, one's long-term goal is to remain always a freshman.