In my other class this semester, I am writing about issues facing women’s colleges in the United States. As I was searching for current events last weekend I ran across a jaw-dropping article in The Chronicle that discussed the policy regarding transgender students at an all women’s school touted to be Virginia’s first chartered women’s college. The rule states, "If a degree-seeking undergraduate student initiates sex reassignment from female to male (as defined by the university below) at any point during her time at Hollins, she will not be permitted to continue attending Hollins beyond the conclusion of the term in which sex reassignment is initiated, and under no circumstances will such student be allowed to graduate from Hollins.”
A transgender policy specialist from Western New England University School of Law believes that expulsion is a punitive response to a student’s decision to make a personal medical decision to begin sex realignment. Although the article does not specify if transitioning students are actually expelled or simply compelled to leave Hollins, I agree that this policy appears to raise questions regarding personal (human) rights versus organizations’ rights. Specifically, is it appropriate for a private institution to bar students who no longer identify as members of their population of focus? The three actions that will lead to a student’s removal from Hollins include:
1. When a student “begins hormone therapy with the intent to transform from female to male,
2. undergoes any surgical process (procedure) to transform from female to male, or
3. changes her name legally with the intent of identifying herself as a man."
One key point that strikes me as legally questionable is that the school’s policy requires the departure of students who have initiated gender-reassignment transition (by any of the methods listed above) but are not yet legally considered to be male by the Commonwealth of Virginia, at least with regards to the ability to obtain a new driver’s license with the new gender stated on it.
As I wrote in a previous comment regarding transgender issues and NCAA athletes, the decision regarding when and if to transition must be one of the most significant decisions a person has to make. It seems to me that women’s colleges focus on encouraging women to follow their personal and career aspirations. They are places where women do not have to conform to the traditional paradigms of society. Apparently, this supportive environment ends when a student strays too far from the actual paradigm of socially-constructed gender.
Before you accuse me of ranting, or completely missing the point, please understand that I do realize that private institutions have more freedoms than public institutions. I am also keenly aware that once a person begins the process of transitioning from female-to-male, he is no longer identifying as a woman. But there are a variety of reasons why forcing a student out of school seems wrong to me personally. Can anyone explain to me, beyond the simple reason that a man is not a woman, why a transitioning student should be removed from school?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
New blogs are open
Current Issues Students: the new blog have been created for the second half of the course. Each is based on a student recommendation. You should receive invitations to join these 5 new blogs this afternoon. If you do not (or if you need the invitation to go to a different email address), please let me know. The older blogs will remain open for students who want to post in them for this week.
The new blog titles are: Higher Education in Colorado, For Profit, International, Protest and Conflict, and Graduate Education.
90% Plagiarism in your Publication May Lead to....
Last week, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found former graduate student, Marija Manojlovic, responsible for research misconduct. In the report, the former University of Pittsburgh student was found to have falsified data in a poster presentation and in an article manuscript submitted for publication. Manjlovic fabricated at least some of the steps taken to collect data and the final data itself.
The ORI is a government organization whose purpose is to oversee research misconduct specifically related to Public Health Service (PHS) research. PHS departments include:
- Office of Public Health and Science
- National Institutes of Health.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- The Food and Drug Administration
- The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- The Health Resources and Services Administration
- The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
- The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
- The Indian Health Service
- Office of Regional Health Administrators
In 2004, 30 billion dollars of research funding was provided to health researchers. The ORI ensures the money used in this research is not used on irresponsible research.
Institutions receiving funding assure the ORI that they will comply with administrative procedures, outlined by the ORI, regarding research misconduct. Typically, universities complete their own investigation and then turn cases over to the ORI.
In 2009, the ORI received 179 allegations of research misconduct, which include: "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results." This quote is taken from the 2009 annual report published by the ORI.
Of these 179 allegations, 49 were examined in greater detail to determine the need for a potential investigation. Not all of these cases were completed in 2009.
There were 43 cases closed in 2009, 11 of which found research misconduct. Only 1 person was disbarred from PHS research for 10 years; 2 were disbarred for 3 years, and 2 were disbarred for 2 years. Other disciplinary actions most often included not being allowed to be a PHS advisor and/or having research supervised by someone else for a number of years.
Another recent case investigated Scott Weber. Weber was an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh in the school of nursing. (The research integrity officer there must be pretty busy!) Weber was found guilty of plagiarizing and falsifying data in two publications and plagiarizing in 2 grant applications. Here is the quote from the report, because I think it does a better job than I could of describing Weber's actions:
In both manuscripts, the Respondent falsified and fabricated tables and figures by using all or nearly all of the data in tables and graphs from the plagiarized articles while altering numbers and changing text to represent data as if from another subject population;he also copied most of the original bibliographic references but falsified 35% of the copied references from JAANP MS and 25% of the copied references from JGMS MS, by changing volume numbers and/or publication years, apparently to hinder detection of the plagiarism.The data fabrication occurred when the Respondent altered or added values to Table 2 in each manuscript describing the demographic characteristics of the study population that was never studied.
Weber changed data in tables from another publication to make it seem like they were from his "study." He actually never conducted a study, but created demographic data for a population.
He plagiarized 90% of one of these articles mentioned and 66% of the other article mentioned! Seven of his previously published articles have now been retracted. Weber has been barred from participating in federally funded research for 3 years.
Weber
It has been briefly mentioned in class that faculty are under enormous pressure to publish. Faculty under this pressure are often tempted to commit acts of research misconduct or questionable research practices. Questionable research practices are often defined as actions that stray from accepted practices of the research community. There are a couple of great articles from the counselor education field examining research misconduct and questionable research practices among faculty. I'll put the references at the bottom of this blog.
I have lots of questions for you. This topic is an area of interest for me, so you can see that I have geeked out a bit on it.
I would imagine most people would have issues with Weber's egregious plagiarism. Is his disciplinary action appropriate? For me this brings up questions of whether certain research misconduct or questionable research practices should be weighted differently. Is plagiarism worse than falsifying data? They both feel dishonest to me, yet the disciplinary actions in these cases indicates that they are different.
What about the use of federal funding for these behaviors...should students or faculty be allowed to use federal funding for research after committing research misconduct?
Should they be allowed to continue in their programs or maintain their status at the university? Should graduate students and faculty punishment be all that different? When the student mentioned above becomes a faculty member and is under pressure to publish, are they going to resort to research misconduct in order to survive?
What kind of career implications does this have for students or faculty?
References:
Davis, M. S., Wester, K. L., & King, B.(2008). Narcissism, entitlement, and questionable research practices in counseling: A pilot study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 200-210.
Wester, K. L., Willse, J. T., & Davis, M. S. (2010). Psychological climate, stress, and research integrity among research counselor educators: A preliminary study. Counselor Education & Supervision, 50(1), 39-55.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Governing Boards in Higher Education
I came across this article in Inside Higher Ed within minutes of reading about newly appointed board members to my institutions Board of Trustees. I have not really given much thought to the selection process of the board members before this, but in reading the article “A New Tea (M) on the Field”, I began to wonder a lot about the details that go into the selection of a college or universities governing board.
To summarize the article, in case you did not read it, members of the Tea Party are attempting to gain access to seats on the three largest institutional governing boards in Michigan. They are doing this by flooding the caucuses, trying to get their people on the ballot for election. Because most voters tend to vote party-line, and the Tea Party is making large strides in the state, there is a good chance voters will elect Tea Party affiliates to the governing boards. Advocates of the Tea Party argue that new blood is needed on the governing boards of University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State, arguing that the change in political affiliation will help bring college down to the “average man”. Opponents worry that those elected will not be invested in higher education due to the anti-government philosophies and practices of the Tea Party.
I learned that it is a rare practice/policy/law that voters elect members to a governing board through a yearly ballot. I know that Colorado voters decide who will be on the Board of Regents for the University of Colorado, but I assumed it was typical for states to vote on the leadership at that level for flagship institutions, while other schools had members directly appointed by the Colorado Governor. As it turns out, only 3 schools in the nation have governing boards that are voted on by the public (arroding to the article). In addition to CU, the University of Nevada and the University of Nebraska’s governing boards are elected.
The benefit to an election process is that members of the board would be more likely to reflect multiple political parties, rather than all coming from the same one, which could happen when appointed by t he same public official. The risk of gubeterial appointment, is that boards will start to only represent one side of political thought- the one in which the governor subscribes, which could affect the direction of the institution. In Texas, as the article describes , all members of each of the 6 governing boards are republican because they were all selected and appointed by the current governor, a republican, for example. However, even though this appointment process could skew the political make -up of boards, it is still the preferred method over general elections. I wonder why that is?
Going back to Michigan, one of the candidates running for the board is running on a platform that would encourage high school students to stay in the state of Michigan to pursue higher education. This is one example of a hot issue in Michigan, where a candidate for the board makes their opinion clear and the voters can pick if they support that or not.
Reading the article got me thinking about a variety of aspects pertaining to governing boards. I wonder if board members who are appointed are more or less likely to have an opinion about certain issues in higher education than their elected counterparts? I wonder if there are differences in education and career fields? I wonder, how do faculty get along with the Board? Is that relationship contingent upon election veruses appointment? In general, I am curious about the actual involvement of governing boards on the day-to –day as well as the overall direction of the institution. Does that change based on type of institution?
I looked at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges website. Having not looked at this site before, I was more curious about the kinds of resources available to members of governing boards. It appears as through the Association subscribes to 5 values: Strengthen, Define, Guide, Identity, and Foster. There is a national conference as well as regional workshops, where the topics are related to educational quality, board assessment, and athletic involvement.
I am curious how many boards, or individual members of boards, participate in this association. Is there training for this type of role? Definitely an area I would have an interest in learning more about. I would also be interested to hear if any of you have sat on the board for any organization. It would be interesting to see how the leadership required for one industry would or would not translate to the skills needed for an institution of higher education governing board.
To summarize the article, in case you did not read it, members of the Tea Party are attempting to gain access to seats on the three largest institutional governing boards in Michigan. They are doing this by flooding the caucuses, trying to get their people on the ballot for election. Because most voters tend to vote party-line, and the Tea Party is making large strides in the state, there is a good chance voters will elect Tea Party affiliates to the governing boards. Advocates of the Tea Party argue that new blood is needed on the governing boards of University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State, arguing that the change in political affiliation will help bring college down to the “average man”. Opponents worry that those elected will not be invested in higher education due to the anti-government philosophies and practices of the Tea Party.
I learned that it is a rare practice/policy/law that voters elect members to a governing board through a yearly ballot. I know that Colorado voters decide who will be on the Board of Regents for the University of Colorado, but I assumed it was typical for states to vote on the leadership at that level for flagship institutions, while other schools had members directly appointed by the Colorado Governor. As it turns out, only 3 schools in the nation have governing boards that are voted on by the public (arroding to the article). In addition to CU, the University of Nevada and the University of Nebraska’s governing boards are elected.
The benefit to an election process is that members of the board would be more likely to reflect multiple political parties, rather than all coming from the same one, which could happen when appointed by t he same public official. The risk of gubeterial appointment, is that boards will start to only represent one side of political thought- the one in which the governor subscribes, which could affect the direction of the institution. In Texas, as the article describes , all members of each of the 6 governing boards are republican because they were all selected and appointed by the current governor, a republican, for example. However, even though this appointment process could skew the political make -up of boards, it is still the preferred method over general elections. I wonder why that is?
Going back to Michigan, one of the candidates running for the board is running on a platform that would encourage high school students to stay in the state of Michigan to pursue higher education. This is one example of a hot issue in Michigan, where a candidate for the board makes their opinion clear and the voters can pick if they support that or not.
Reading the article got me thinking about a variety of aspects pertaining to governing boards. I wonder if board members who are appointed are more or less likely to have an opinion about certain issues in higher education than their elected counterparts? I wonder if there are differences in education and career fields? I wonder, how do faculty get along with the Board? Is that relationship contingent upon election veruses appointment? In general, I am curious about the actual involvement of governing boards on the day-to –day as well as the overall direction of the institution. Does that change based on type of institution?
I looked at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges website. Having not looked at this site before, I was more curious about the kinds of resources available to members of governing boards. It appears as through the Association subscribes to 5 values: Strengthen, Define, Guide, Identity, and Foster. There is a national conference as well as regional workshops, where the topics are related to educational quality, board assessment, and athletic involvement.
I am curious how many boards, or individual members of boards, participate in this association. Is there training for this type of role? Definitely an area I would have an interest in learning more about. I would also be interested to hear if any of you have sat on the board for any organization. It would be interesting to see how the leadership required for one industry would or would not translate to the skills needed for an institution of higher education governing board.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Back in Class
As budgets are put on hold and class sizes increase some professors are being asked to teach more in the classroom. A recent article in the Chronicle highlights one professor’s frustration with the changes he is experiencing. The Arizona State University professor claims he selected the position because he would not have to teach as much in the classroom. One year later, it turns out this is not the case.
The article goes on to outline how other campus professors are coping with the numbers of students and who is teaching introductory courses. Some institutions are compensating their faculty who serve as chair or on other department committees by assigning fewer courses to teach. Other institutions are requiring that all faculty teach introductory courses from year to year.
In the case of the ASU professor, a contract (something in writing) is one thing to uphold and should be put to question if an institution is not upholding their bargain. For class sizes and with budget cuts, a movement of expectations for faculty may need to shift to support the growing changes on every campus. I am on the fence about having full tenured faculty teach introductory courses. Usually they need time to focus more on their writing and research. At the same time, since they are already well established, it may be really good to have new students have experts teach intro courses to invigorate energy and bring a big picture from a long time teaching professor. It may be hard for faculty who become accustomed to teaching only one or two courses a year to now be expected to teach twice a term.
It comes down to what the departmental needs are and how will they meet those changing needs. Do they use the current faculty they have on hand or hire more adjuncts to take on the work load?
A topic that was not discussed in the article was the use of technology and how it could be used to record or document course teachings. This could be advantage for courses that are introductory as they are offered usually many times a term. Instead of having faculty teach various sections, perhaps do it online. I think the departments are stuck in thinking that there are only a few ways to solve a problem instead of seeking new solutions or outcomes that support all stakeholders involved.
The article goes on to outline how other campus professors are coping with the numbers of students and who is teaching introductory courses. Some institutions are compensating their faculty who serve as chair or on other department committees by assigning fewer courses to teach. Other institutions are requiring that all faculty teach introductory courses from year to year.
In the case of the ASU professor, a contract (something in writing) is one thing to uphold and should be put to question if an institution is not upholding their bargain. For class sizes and with budget cuts, a movement of expectations for faculty may need to shift to support the growing changes on every campus. I am on the fence about having full tenured faculty teach introductory courses. Usually they need time to focus more on their writing and research. At the same time, since they are already well established, it may be really good to have new students have experts teach intro courses to invigorate energy and bring a big picture from a long time teaching professor. It may be hard for faculty who become accustomed to teaching only one or two courses a year to now be expected to teach twice a term.
It comes down to what the departmental needs are and how will they meet those changing needs. Do they use the current faculty they have on hand or hire more adjuncts to take on the work load?
A topic that was not discussed in the article was the use of technology and how it could be used to record or document course teachings. This could be advantage for courses that are introductory as they are offered usually many times a term. Instead of having faculty teach various sections, perhaps do it online. I think the departments are stuck in thinking that there are only a few ways to solve a problem instead of seeking new solutions or outcomes that support all stakeholders involved.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Money, Money,Money, Money...Money
If you had to guess, how much do you think the President of the University of Colorado at Boulder makes each year? What about the president of the University of Central Florida? When you think of a President’s salary, do you automatically stop there, or do you consider if they would receive things like car and housing allowances or even bonuses?
Prior to reading the “Compensation of Public-University Chief Executives, 2009-10” article as published in The Chronicle, I will confess that the salaries of University presidents never really crossed my mind much. I was intrigued by the title of the article though, so I opened it…and as I was reviewing the chart of salaries, the words…”really, this I unbelievable” (with a few choice other words to add a little color) actually came out of my mouth.
I know that, as a mere Director, I have no real idea of what it takes to be the president of an institution, especially a Research University, which are the institutions included in the table. But really, does a university actually need to pay a president $500,000+ in a base salary? People who aspire to these levels of leadership likely have a number of skills and qualities that make them sought-after and I do not begrudge anyone for being successful; however, I wonder what the tipping point is. At what point are we paying far more than something is worth, and what is the return on investment for that type of financial outlay?
While I’m not David Letterman, I thought I would pull together a “Top 10” of sorts…well, actually three “Top 5’s” of information from the table in The Chronicle.
Top 5 Total Compensation
5. Michael Young University of Utah $723,595
4. Mary Coleman University of Michigan System $728,504
3. William Powers, Jr. University of Texas at Austin $746,738
2. Francisco Cigarroa University of Texas System $750,000
1. Gordon Gee Ohio State University $1,323,911
Top 5 Base Salary
5. Graham Spanier Pennsylvania State University System $620,000
4. Mark Emmert University of Washington $620,000
3. Elson Floyd Washington State University $625,000
2. Francisco Cigarroa University of Texas System $750,000
1. Gordon Gee Ohio State University $802,125
Top 5 Bonuses
5. Alan Merten George Mason University $135,000
4. Lester Lefton Kent State University $157,470
3. John Hitt University of Central Florida $210,000
2. JoAnn Gora Ball State University $222,750
1. Gordon Gee Ohio State University $296,786
In addition to observing how much Ohio State University enjoys being ranked number one (no offense to any Buckeye fans out there), I thought the following were very interesting:
- 172 of 185 have housing allowance
- 170 of 185 have car allowance
- 83 of 185 have allowance for club dues
- 7 of 185 have tuition assistance
- 3 of 185 provide spousal compensation
After viewing the table, I will admit that I was more than a little disgusted. The amount of money that was laid out before me on the pages was bordering on obscene. All I could think about was an email I received from one of my foster kids today (to clarify…she’s not my actual foster daughter, she is one of a small group of foster youth that I'm working with who are attending our institution on a scholarship) telling me that she was thinking about withdrawing from a class because she needed to find a job (she just aged out of the system and is on her own in her first apartment) and didn’t believe she was going to be able to handle the workload of taking her full-time class load and working part-time. I would love nothing more than to take a fraction of the salary of just one President on that list and use it to provide stable housing for all of the foster youth that I have attending my institution.
Prior to reading the “Compensation of Public-University Chief Executives, 2009-10” article as published in The Chronicle, I will confess that the salaries of University presidents never really crossed my mind much. I was intrigued by the title of the article though, so I opened it…and as I was reviewing the chart of salaries, the words…”really, this I unbelievable” (with a few choice other words to add a little color) actually came out of my mouth.
I know that, as a mere Director, I have no real idea of what it takes to be the president of an institution, especially a Research University, which are the institutions included in the table. But really, does a university actually need to pay a president $500,000+ in a base salary? People who aspire to these levels of leadership likely have a number of skills and qualities that make them sought-after and I do not begrudge anyone for being successful; however, I wonder what the tipping point is. At what point are we paying far more than something is worth, and what is the return on investment for that type of financial outlay?
While I’m not David Letterman, I thought I would pull together a “Top 10” of sorts…well, actually three “Top 5’s” of information from the table in The Chronicle.
Top 5 Total Compensation
5. Michael Young University of Utah $723,595
4. Mary Coleman University of Michigan System $728,504
3. William Powers, Jr. University of Texas at Austin $746,738
2. Francisco Cigarroa University of Texas System $750,000
1. Gordon Gee Ohio State University $1,323,911
Top 5 Base Salary
5. Graham Spanier Pennsylvania State University System $620,000
4. Mark Emmert University of Washington $620,000
3. Elson Floyd Washington State University $625,000
2. Francisco Cigarroa University of Texas System $750,000
1. Gordon Gee Ohio State University $802,125
Top 5 Bonuses
5. Alan Merten George Mason University $135,000
4. Lester Lefton Kent State University $157,470
3. John Hitt University of Central Florida $210,000
2. JoAnn Gora Ball State University $222,750
1. Gordon Gee Ohio State University $296,786
In addition to observing how much Ohio State University enjoys being ranked number one (no offense to any Buckeye fans out there), I thought the following were very interesting:
- 172 of 185 have housing allowance
- 170 of 185 have car allowance
- 83 of 185 have allowance for club dues
- 7 of 185 have tuition assistance
- 3 of 185 provide spousal compensation
After viewing the table, I will admit that I was more than a little disgusted. The amount of money that was laid out before me on the pages was bordering on obscene. All I could think about was an email I received from one of my foster kids today (to clarify…she’s not my actual foster daughter, she is one of a small group of foster youth that I'm working with who are attending our institution on a scholarship) telling me that she was thinking about withdrawing from a class because she needed to find a job (she just aged out of the system and is on her own in her first apartment) and didn’t believe she was going to be able to handle the workload of taking her full-time class load and working part-time. I would love nothing more than to take a fraction of the salary of just one President on that list and use it to provide stable housing for all of the foster youth that I have attending my institution.
Drunkorexia
Drunkorexia is the newest fad in drinking habits among college students, particularly women. I actually put together a program and bulletin board for the RAs last year to educate the students about the concept. Drunkorexia is a new slang term that describes the practice of restricting food intake in order to drink more alcohol. It’s a result of constant pressure for young people to be thin. The term describes a fad that is a combination of symptoms of alcoholism, bulimia, and anorexia.
In order to compensate for the calories found in alcohol consumed during the evening, students may exhibit the following behaviors: Eating little to no food during the day, eating very low calorie foods, and drinking low/no calorie drinks during the day. Students may refrain from or limit food on any day they intend to drink excessively and then consume “drunk food” (non-nutritious food that is readily available) during or after drinking. They follow up the binging by intentionally ridding their body of the food consumed after drinking through purging and may later claim that it wasn’t intentional, but a result of the alcohol consumption. They’ll use phrases like, “I was just too drunk,” or “I drank too much!” There are several dangers of “Drunkorexia.” The strategies are very similar to eating disorders and may lead to the development of even more serious eating disorder behaviors. Young adults between ages 15 and 24 are 12 times more likely to die from eating disorders than other ages. Students may also develop symptoms of alcoholism. Drinking on an empty stomach also means the alcohol effects the body much quicker and is much more dangerous. Rapid intoxication from drinking on an empty stomach without food to absorb alcohol means the Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) rises quickly and increases the risk of alcohol poisoning.
The concept of Drunkorexia is important as it shows us that students are concerned with body image but are not willing to give up the party scene. Sometimes universities unintentionally put these pressures on students as well. Last year, one of the dining halls on campus had a bulletin board that said “Is your salad making you fat?” While the person who put that up had good intentions about educating students about their food intake, portions, and nutrition, they may have caused more damage than good. The contradictory message also happens in places like a Campus Recreation Center offering free body mass index tests and offering a free diet analysis or advice during Eating Disorders Awareness Week. It’s crucial as student affairs professionals to be aware of the way we present programs, the phrasing we use, and the types of advertisements we allow to be posted. I’m sure we all know the obvious things not to say and do regarding these issues, but it’s important to be sensitive to these struggles in our student population.
Readings
If you have not received the readings for tomorrow evening please let me know immediately so I may send them to you. It is critical for tomorrow's class that all students have completed them.
Monday, October 17, 2011
"A Smile in Every Hershey"???
Yesterday’s issue of the New York Times reexamines an event that took place this past summer. In Palmyra, PA 400 international students were employed at the Hershey’s packing plant. Although they were led to believe they would actually be working for Hershey, these students were employed by a contracted company known as Excel. Students from around the world traveled through a company known as Counsel for Educational Travel, USA or CETUSA. The services of this international organization, which provides a J-1 visa, comes with a hefty price tag. Students reported paying up to $6,000 to travel to the United States.
Several students attempted to report their harsh working conditions to little avail. Students later reported being threatened with termination of their visas should they involve higher authorities. Conditions finally changed when 200 students walked out of the plant in protest. This was the first labor protest in 50 years for CETUSA. The state department had validated claims of abuse of international students in several states the year before. As a result of these unfortunate situations, stricter regulations are now in place to prevent this from happening again.
Traditionally students in this program came from Eastern Europe, China and Russia and were employed at national parks, summer camps, and amusement parks. In 1998 this organization served 30,00 students. A decade later this work and travel program assists 150,000 students. This far exceeds the programs expectations.
Although I think international travel and work experience is a great opportunity, at this time do we have the resources to employ such a large number of students? I would have to say at this point, we do not. Clearly, employment of international students is not being monitored closely enough. At this time, I do not feel as though we have the manpower to make sure international students are safely employed through these work exchange programs. The experience of these international students will impact the reputation the United States has with other countries abroad for years to come. Another thing to take into consideration at this point is the lack of jobs. With the unemployment rate at an unacceptable high, employing international students is not helping the problem. I hope in the next decade this changes and we are able to welcome international work students with open arms. However, at this point I believe we should put a limit to the number of international students we employ..
Vanderbilt v Chrsitian Clubs
Separation of church and state has long been an issue that has caused a strain on the relationship between public universities and religious and spiritual clubs and organizations. For private institutions of higher education, however, those relationships do not experience the same constraints as their public counterparts. Public institutions are held accountable for enforcing federal, state and local laws; private institutions are not.
Recently Vanderbilt University began to take a proactive role in managing their religious clubs and organizations. Some are saying that the actions are Vanderbilt’s way of attacking religious groups. It started with Vanderbilt asking the Christian Legal Society to remove the requirement that their officers lead a bible study, worship and prayer. The justification of this requirement, it ensures that the officer’s beliefs are in line with the organization’s beliefs. Although the group allows students to be member of the group regardless of beliefs, leadership roles are strictly monitored to ensure no alternative beliefs are being promoted at the Christian Legal Society’s expense.
The changes at Vanderbilt have occurred in response to a gay student being dismissed from the Christian Fraternity Beta Upsilon Chi. According to Vanderbilt, the institution is only trying to enforce its anti discrimination policy, in order to promote diversity in student groups, and the institution’s response has been felt in a multitude of ways through the university.
Not only did the university have issues with the requirements of leadership for the Christian Legal Society; the university also asked them to rewrite their constitution, finding issues with the citation of Romans 1: 21-32, defending the organizations stance that homosexuality is a punishment from God. Another Christian organization at Vanderbilt, InterVarsity, is also feeling tension from the university.
Those opposed to allowing diversity in religious clubs on campus, state that it protects them from being overrun by people who hold different beliefs and values in order to change the nature of the clubs. Many religious and spiritual clubs and organizations receive funding from sponsors at the local and national level, and it is the desire of those sponsors to keep their money doing the work that they intended it to do; the easiest way to ensure this is to limit the alternatives options presented to the students spending the money. However, Vanderbilt feels it is important students do feel discriminated against and it is a campus that promotes diversity everywhere, including within its student groups; even though legally it is not required to do so.
I personally have been involved in different chapters of the same religious organization for almost six years now, and I believe that it is one the major catalysts I have encountered in my adult life. It was because that group encouraged questioning and diverse beliefs. This past year, one of the members of the club leadership was a devout atheist. Allowing this student to lead discussions on morality, ethics and spirituality provided in valuable experiences for students to understand multiple perspectives (a keep part of student development).
Religious and spiritual student groups are usually founded around one central belief system, and members of those groups cater to that set of beliefs. How are their students supposed to really understand their own individual beliefs and support their decisions to follow the path they have chosen, if they have never been exposed to alternatives?
Recently Vanderbilt University began to take a proactive role in managing their religious clubs and organizations. Some are saying that the actions are Vanderbilt’s way of attacking religious groups. It started with Vanderbilt asking the Christian Legal Society to remove the requirement that their officers lead a bible study, worship and prayer. The justification of this requirement, it ensures that the officer’s beliefs are in line with the organization’s beliefs. Although the group allows students to be member of the group regardless of beliefs, leadership roles are strictly monitored to ensure no alternative beliefs are being promoted at the Christian Legal Society’s expense.
The changes at Vanderbilt have occurred in response to a gay student being dismissed from the Christian Fraternity Beta Upsilon Chi. According to Vanderbilt, the institution is only trying to enforce its anti discrimination policy, in order to promote diversity in student groups, and the institution’s response has been felt in a multitude of ways through the university.
Not only did the university have issues with the requirements of leadership for the Christian Legal Society; the university also asked them to rewrite their constitution, finding issues with the citation of Romans 1: 21-32, defending the organizations stance that homosexuality is a punishment from God. Another Christian organization at Vanderbilt, InterVarsity, is also feeling tension from the university.
Those opposed to allowing diversity in religious clubs on campus, state that it protects them from being overrun by people who hold different beliefs and values in order to change the nature of the clubs. Many religious and spiritual clubs and organizations receive funding from sponsors at the local and national level, and it is the desire of those sponsors to keep their money doing the work that they intended it to do; the easiest way to ensure this is to limit the alternatives options presented to the students spending the money. However, Vanderbilt feels it is important students do feel discriminated against and it is a campus that promotes diversity everywhere, including within its student groups; even though legally it is not required to do so.
I personally have been involved in different chapters of the same religious organization for almost six years now, and I believe that it is one the major catalysts I have encountered in my adult life. It was because that group encouraged questioning and diverse beliefs. This past year, one of the members of the club leadership was a devout atheist. Allowing this student to lead discussions on morality, ethics and spirituality provided in valuable experiences for students to understand multiple perspectives (a keep part of student development).
Religious and spiritual student groups are usually founded around one central belief system, and members of those groups cater to that set of beliefs. How are their students supposed to really understand their own individual beliefs and support their decisions to follow the path they have chosen, if they have never been exposed to alternatives?
In Light of Weekend Conversations
I love when things fit together. All weekend we talked about higher education sometimes functioning like a business but not always. Well low and behold, I opened up Inside Higher Ed today to find an article about a young college, University of North Texas at Dallas, hired a business consulting company to help them define and create a new structure for education.
If you want to read the article, here it is.
From the article the CEO (yes, that is his title) of the university decided it was time for UNT Dallas to make a name for themselves and he believed working with the Fortune 500 consulting company Bain & Company would challenge the institution to create a different kind of curriculum.While this concept seemed interesting, the article shared that schools like Cal Berkeley, Cornell and UNC Chapel Hill had all worked with the consulting firm before.
In reading, the idea sounds good. The CEO stated this reason for working with Bain:
"Instead, he wants to create a model of higher education that, he says, is more accessible, more flexible, and more student-focused. "The one thing at the forefront of everything we do is what can we do to drive down the cost of instruction and the time that it takes to complete a four-year degree while maintaining quality," Price says." I could get on board with that idea. But what does it really mean for this campus? Will things actually change?Oh, and PS, Bain is doing the work valued at $1 million for free.
The article really intrigued me for three reasons. One it brought up a potentially new way to rearrange higher education. Two, faculty at the university are not excited about bring in a business consulting group. Finally, if this works, the potential for change across higher education could be a tidal wave.
As I have sat in classes this semester and heard over and over again how the current system of higher education may not be working but this is the historical way things have always happened, I feel like I'm in a whirlpool trying to figure out a solution before the water runs out. I don't know if this is a solution but it is a potentially out of the box way to change the current state of higher education. On the other hand, what will actually change? it sounds to me like the consulting firm is there to look at curriculum content. We are going through a general education change and review here at Metro State. Is there any difference?
Faculty are challenged and I could see why. This sounds like it is potentially challenging academia at its core where faculty live and buy into even with the flaws and challenges. If someone want to come in an completely change the functions of student affairs that have been at the core of the profession since its inception, I might freak out too.
In my opinion, this model to me will thrive or fold and I will be watching this one closely. I think if it thrives the potential of change is huge. If it fails, it will be swept under a rug until the next time people are fed up with higher education and try it again. I do think that something to watch about this partnership is the potential for it to lead to the privatization of a public school depending on the results. This is another way higher education is allowing an outsider come in to the house, have a say, and make changes. I would be caution of this because we have little to no experience as to the results of these partnerships.
This is going to get interesting.....
If you want to read the article, here it is.
In reading, the idea sounds good. The CEO stated this reason for working with Bain:
"Instead, he wants to create a model of higher education that, he says, is more accessible, more flexible, and more student-focused. "The one thing at the forefront of everything we do is what can we do to drive down the cost of instruction and the time that it takes to complete a four-year degree while maintaining quality," Price says." I could get on board with that idea. But what does it really mean for this campus? Will things actually change?Oh, and PS, Bain is doing the work valued at $1 million for free.
The article really intrigued me for three reasons. One it brought up a potentially new way to rearrange higher education. Two, faculty at the university are not excited about bring in a business consulting group. Finally, if this works, the potential for change across higher education could be a tidal wave.
As I have sat in classes this semester and heard over and over again how the current system of higher education may not be working but this is the historical way things have always happened, I feel like I'm in a whirlpool trying to figure out a solution before the water runs out. I don't know if this is a solution but it is a potentially out of the box way to change the current state of higher education. On the other hand, what will actually change? it sounds to me like the consulting firm is there to look at curriculum content. We are going through a general education change and review here at Metro State. Is there any difference?
Faculty are challenged and I could see why. This sounds like it is potentially challenging academia at its core where faculty live and buy into even with the flaws and challenges. If someone want to come in an completely change the functions of student affairs that have been at the core of the profession since its inception, I might freak out too.
In my opinion, this model to me will thrive or fold and I will be watching this one closely. I think if it thrives the potential of change is huge. If it fails, it will be swept under a rug until the next time people are fed up with higher education and try it again. I do think that something to watch about this partnership is the potential for it to lead to the privatization of a public school depending on the results. This is another way higher education is allowing an outsider come in to the house, have a say, and make changes. I would be caution of this because we have little to no experience as to the results of these partnerships.
This is going to get interesting.....
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Big-time college sports vs Academia
I was surprised to read about Charles T. Clotfelter’s take on
his perception of big-time college sports. Clotfelter is a professor of public
policy, economics, and law at Duke University. He even has a book that just
came out about big-time sports in American universities. Clotfelter argues that
big-time athletic sports are now one of the core functions of several hundred
prominent American universities, and these universities should embrace the
benefits of commercialized college sports. Clotfelter suggests that rather than
ignore the magnitude of intercollegiate sports, professors at these institutions
should acknowledge them.
To satisfy some curiosity I read the first few pages of his
book online. In his book, he describes two different worlds of American higher
education that coexist. One is the familiar one, which is colleges and
universities are created for the diffusion of knowledge. The other is the world
of big-time college sports. To make his point, he provides a virtual tour of
the world-renowned Center for Nano- and Molecular Science and Technology and of
the Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, both of which belong to the
University of Texas at Austin. The first exemplifies the academic purpose of
American universities and the latter exemplifies big-time college sports.
Hence, these are the two worlds that coexist.
I was astonished to read about the amenities of the stadium
and the treatment of the players. The stadium seats 100,000 people and games
are usually sold out. There are towers at the ends of the stadium that are actual
suites equipped with theater-style seating, televisions, kitchenette, and bars
and are leased for $88,000 a year. The team rides to practice everyday in
chartered buses and their locker-room contains five flat-screen TVs. The
coach’s salary is four times that of the university president and he has his
own weekly television show broadcasted on 14 local stations and one regional
network every week during the football season.
According to Clotfelter, the core function is birthed from
evidence of how the institution’s environment is affected by big-time sports. Universities
with big-time sports enterprises function around the schedule of the football games.
Football games can shut down entire campuses and important meetings will not be
held if there is a game to watch. Athlete recruits even have their own admissions
criteria totally separate from general applicants. One last wild example is the
University of Alabama postponed their spring semester start date because the
football team was playing in a bowl game in California. I could easily provide
more examples, but I think I’ve made my point, let’s move on to Clotfelter’s
benefits.
There are three “benefits” he maintains. First, is the
aspect of a social benefit. Americans cherish sports and view them as the “university’s
most significant activity.” (what the f@#*?) He concludes to this by the amount
of Americans who attend games and who watch them on television. The numbers are
enormous which means high commercial value. The revenues from commercials are
crucial because universities need the finances to keep their teams competitive
(coaches salaries). Clotfelter points out how Americans care deeply of their
college teams. To watch one’s favorite hometown college football team can lead
to life happiness. Second, is big-time college sports can teach civic values
such as interracial cooperation and meritocracy. Since coaches and players
treat each other as equals, interracial teams have served as models for the
rest of the U.S. in regards to diversity and equality. What I would like to know is what happens
with these relationships after football season? In regards to meritocracy, how
great it is to know that you have been promoted because of your athletic
ability. Which is a good thing, but as a college student and athlete, wouldn’t
it be equally important to achieve merit on one’s academics, too? And last, is
the benefit to the academic enterprise. Big-time sports programs can raise the
amount of contributions and applicants to the institution.
If a professor’s job is to seek truth and speak truth,
Clotfelter feels that professors should stop ignoring the fact that big-time
college sports are a function of the university just as much as the art museum.
It is what it is so tell it like it is. Um…I disagree. Without a doubt,
big-time college sports are as American as apple pie, however, I think it would
be in everyone’s best interest to regulate the payroll of athletic departments
because at the same academic departments have to cope with cut-backs and downsizing.
It’s hard for me to fathom the scope of big-time athletics
because I do not live in a city that has a nationally known football or
basketball program. Perhaps if I did, this article would make sense to me…wait,
I still don’t think it would. Yet, in some ways I’m glad my university is not
part of the big 10 sports league because then we might share the same
perspective as Clotfelter. A fun fact--I have read that when students are
selecting a college/university, athletics are less important factors than
others.
Around here (UNC), it’s exciting when our teams have winning
seasons or even achieve a championship. Win or lose, academics, research,
scholarship, and creating ties with the community are aspects that are at the
forefront of UNC’s mission. Hopefully that will never change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)