Standards in Higher Education In Question

Did you hear about the recent experience of an NYU professor who caught 20% of his class cheating? [Read this account here, and here, "Why I will never pursue cheating again"; Here's the NYU prof's points for debate as he sees them.]

Well, that's not news, but what most people may not know is how higher-ed institutions deal with cheating. It's a problem but it's hush-hush. Obviously, like many other trespasses in life, not all (cheating) is the same. Looking over the shoulder of a classmate to sneak in a look at a multiple choice answer isn't the same as submitting a plagiarized major research paper, or using a smart phone to write paragraph after paragraph in verbatim during a final exam.

You'd think cheaters are punished, and their transcript would indicate the serious violation, or that there's a record somewhere, etc. Not so. Actually, there's little risk in cheating, because of several factors. One is that many instructors aren't interested in catching cheaters, while others willfully believe their students would never cheat.

Catching cheaters creates a headache, paperwork, and may reduce the number of majors/minors in the department!  It hurts student-teacher evaluations too. Just as it hurts if the instructor is "too demanding." Usually, such instructors are labeled "hard" and "unreasonable," best to be avoided. Confidentiality about a student's record means that if a teacher catches a cheater, and if he decides to assess a penalty, the student can avoid taking any courses with that teacher again. That's all. And, this student isn't prevented from saying anything he wants about the teacher on the evaluation form at the end of the semester.

The situation has gotten so bad that there's a prevailing audacity among some students; they get indignant when caught cheating. "At least I didn't copy from others like several students did during your final exam," was the response I got from a student who had used his smart phone to copy paragraphs from Wikipedia when I confronted him!

"Did the instructor make you interested in the subject matter?" asks one of evaluation questions. This means that if a student takes a course for which they have no interest (and usually aren't likely to put some effort into it), the instructor can be at fault for not managing to raise the excitement level. I've seen this in my Rate My Professor comments: "The course was boring, it was all over the place, about politics and stuff, not my major anyways." Well, I'm sorry I didn't play a movie and provide popcorn but lectured instead.

The institution also shies away from supporting the instructor fearing lawsuits from the students who are accused of cheating. So, unless you catch someone cheating during the exam (and even so, you'll probably need another student willing to ..testify), there isn't any circumstantial evidence that would suffice!  Let's throw out all the forensic science, because, unless you see someone pulling the trigger, such person is innocent regardless of the overwhelming evidence. It matters less and less whether the instructor can safely ascertain whether the student has learned anything from taking a course...

I've had a student who wrote paragraph after paragraph in verbatim from the textbook during a proctored exam. When I confronted this student, I was told that it was their way of learning (by memorizing word for word, paragraph after paragraph). OK, fair enough. Perhaps the student could then recite something for me to demonstrate acquired knowledge.

Guess what? That student couldn't recite anything just one day after the exam, because he had "dumped" his memory after the final! Yes, this is how he.. reasoned with me. I'm probably not shocking anyone if I also mention that this student couldn't use his own words to show me he had understood at least enough to pass the course.

Further, my esteemed colleagues lectured me that unless I had ..absolute proof, I couldn't accuse that student of cheating! They reminded me that if the student decided to sue the university, I would be on my own, not supported by the school and would have to get my own lawyer!  Needless to say that this whole matter was draining--in time and energy--and it's not something teachers want to experience. Thus, most teachers just look the other way and reason that if they students don't want to learn it's their problem. I guess it's true that attitudes and habits stay with a person; eventually they'll shape a person's success in life. Meanwhile we certify and pass young people along down a road of higher life expectations with lower standards and skills.

That NYU professor mentioned earlier was a tenured one, so he thought he could be a bit stricter. What, then, should the other non-tenured and adjunct instructors do? Silence is probably golden here. The lower(ing) standards are a matter of concern for many teachers, however, for the non-tenured ones, at least, if they want to advance, they should avoid making too much noise catching serious cheaters, and avoid creating headaches for their institution. A few pats on the back by understanding colleagues are nice but can't offset the real danger of stirring trouble in an institution.

Teaching is intertwined with the economic realities of life--realities for the school and the faculty--they both need income to survive. Higher-ed schools are lowering their standards. It's a numbers game. I see that the marketing to attract students has changed too. College is now more about "a fun experience" with emphasis on non-curriculum activities and less on academics, or the value of knowledge and fostering a critical mind. It's increasingly more vocational training and less of a well-rounded education. This is attitude-forming too. Courses outside a major are considered a nuisance by students.

Again, as for dealing with the problem of cheating, proper class decorum, and maintaining high academic standards, things are getting worse. It seems that if an institution (or a person) doesn't want to hear unpleasantries, then it's no use pointing them out; it's not advisable to throw salt into a wound. Once a dynamic is created, it's hard to change, and looking the other way is standard practice. Kill the messenger is a safer practice in many places. Maybe the tenured senior faculty at the edge of retirement can do something about this problem by speaking out. You'd hope.

Yet, even these senior faculty don't want "to get dirty"as they feel such concerns are for the younger faculty to consider. These seniors exhibit a mindset like, I'm soon retiring so I'd rather not get too upset now; let the ..others worry about it. Except "the others" are either non-tenured or they've understood that advancement does not depend on pointing out endemic problems. Heck it's not even teaching that counts anymore. Being a recluse doing research and being published is where the institutional rewards come from.

Meanwhile, I'm witnessing the rapid increase in pages of my course syllabi. I'm adding stuff I didn't think as necessary before in order to guard myself against possible problems. For example, I now clarify that if a student doesn't use his/her own words to write an essay to answer an exam question, it won't be acceptable.  This is so, because if I don't catch a student cheating during an exam, at least the plagiarized material won't be demanded as an acceptable answer.

Some of my colleagues include warnings in the syllabus, like, no chewing gum, eating, sleeping, surfing, texting/talking on the phone in class. It seems that there's no common sense anymore. Maybe soon I'll have to include, no pissing in class, can't start a fire, etc....

PS> Let me clear: Except for the NYU case, which is now viral on the internet(s), the rest of the material here is fictional, as I'm practicing writing a sitcom script for life in the academia. It's for entertainment purposes only.

What Is Educational and Why Ideas Can't be Immune to Evaluation

"Respect my views," I often hear people saying. By now my reaction is, why ?

Let's not confuse the right of everyone to believe and say anything they want. It's called free expression. But, as much as people need rights, ideas don't. I don't think I have to respect any idea without examining it--including applying critical thinking. Of course, this makes people uncomfortable having to discuss something that they haven't really thought about or something that is part of their identity.


Yet, by discussion, inquiry, rational thinking, and the ability to revise, we can learn.

It's upsetting to hear that the superstitious, the invalid, and the fictitious are promoted by so many Americans nowadays. I have no patience for willful ignorance and for the peddlers of it.

Another Attempt of Government Takeover. When Will This Assault on Our Right to be Exploited Stop?

You'd think it would be a no-brainer that instead of the US government giving money and guarantees to the lenders of student loans it could give the money directly to students or to colleges. Of course, that's "government takeover" and we know how free we want to be. Right? That's the argument, like soup de jour, being used by the freedom-loving conservatives today. Don't get me wrong, I often order the soup of the day--which has a different substance and flavor from place to place.

Of course, I don't want the government to take over my civil liberties, but if, as we proudly claim, the government is of, by, and for the people, our government has to provide equal opportunities to the people to reach their own potential. Freedom is connected to action, but without any good choices freedom doesn't mean much. If I'm only free to read, say, do "whatever" I want while being locked up in the basement, then this is not true freedom.

Likewise, I'm not free to pursue higher education if the price of attendance is out of my reach. Being free to choose from lender A or lender B isn't a good option if it means that either choice will bankrupt me by graduation day.... Assuming I could get those burdensome loans to begin with.

Four months ago, it appeared that Obama's proposal to overhaul the student loan business would materialize, but, guess what, the lobbyists haven't given up. Now, how would they succeed in stopping a sensible proposal [yeah, I know, they've done it many times before, stopping good legislation from going forward] in Democratic-controlled Congress? Want a wild guess? Money is buying votes in a climate of failed Democratic leadership to get things done.

Now that SCOTUS has ruled corporations have the same First Amendment rights the sky is the limit. Lots more corporate money will be available to educate the public now. It won't be long when corporations will obtain Second Amendment rights too.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that there's a critical mass of the American public that supports politicians who work against the public interest. Also, the phrase, "government takeover" apparently motivates millions of Americans to defend their freedom of choice to remain toothless!

Is the Future as Good as the Present?

Maybe New Models Are Needed

As students, we didn't think all that far ahead; of course we were concerned about the future but we firmly believed in the American dream--the world was there for us to take. It's been quite some time since I graduated college, and many things have changed, but also many haven't. The middle class hasn't advanced all that much, if at all. I went to a public university so I managed to get my degrees while accumulating little debt. However, most students today graduate with a huge amount of debt--a figure that's rising about 6% a year. Project Student Debt has the numbers for graduating seniors. [pdf] The most debt-laden students are in the Northeast!

The employment prospects for graduates reflect the overall state of the US economy. Yet, US workers' productivity has increased while wages haven't followed the trend. Since 1973, real wages have remained stagnant! Read Elizabeth Warren's America Without a Middle Class to find out more. The presence of a strong middle class is very important in a stable, progressive, and fair commonwealth. Unfortunately, most of the wealth is amassed and held by the very small elite that has been using the political system to its advantage. The corporate media hardly talks about the distribution of wealth and usually distracts the audience with cheap, mindless entertainment.

I don't know whether the American people have begun to re-evaluate the conditions in our country, but there's a sense at present that the "fix is in." They believe that Wall Street is more important that Main Street, and that the government primarily serves the wealthy and powerful. On the other hand, there are too many of us who prefer myths and distractions to reality. For the life of me, I don't understand how voters elect most of the Republicans in Congress today--such a conservative bunch that has no intention to do anything good for the common folk, from consumer protection to equality of opportunity conditions. Or, that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and so many others, have tens of millions of listeners! This does have a tremendous effect on our national dialogue and on public policy.

Now, on to education. Did you read Bob Herbert's editorial in the NY Times? He argues that the greatest national security issue in the US is the crisis in education. This isn't too far fetched, you know. Within the span of one or two generations, the effects of a largely uneducated public, the lack of real opportunities, and the lack of economic growth that matters to most people can be explosive. An empire that's losing power can also be a very dangerous thing. I could see how demagogues can convince the American public that our woes are not our fault by the fault of others, and that we must act unilaterally against our enemies! Always confusing the issues and transfer blame.

In the end, we'll collectively get what we deserve. What do you think we deserve in the near future?


Here's a popular American explaining American history and providing a solution for a better country:

Education is not for the Intellectually Timid

It doesn't happen that often--maybe because students don't care to say anything about it--but occasionally someone in class would argue that some comments/discussions about certain belief systems are offensive and disrespectful. The other day, a student said, "I don't pay thousands of dollars to have my beliefs insulted." Presumably she meant that certain topics should be off limits because she's uncomfortable with anything that may undermine her sacred beliefs. She pays thousands of dollars to get an education--in my opinion, education means more than vocational skills--but is she interested in paying for an education that sharpens critical skills? How about, the value of arriving at a conclusion after examining the facts and weighing the validity of the arguments?

The piece of paper a university awards should mean that the title holder has critical skills, can analyze, can amend, construct reasonable arguments, connect the relevant dots, and, yes, maintain a curious mind. How about learning something that may be outside one's comfort zone? Is this valuable?

Now, on the question of respect. As a principle it's a good one: respect every individual's human dignity; respect their rights; respect their claims to own conscience and opinion. But, why should their beliefs be granted automatic respect? Yet, denying automatic respect to a point of view does not mean people don't have the right to have whatever opinion they deem appropriate or their right to express it. Simply put, I do not recognize any right of de facto respect. Opinions, theories, belief systems should be evaluated on their merits. How can anyone demand that such be afforded sacred status? What's sacred for me may be laughable to you, and I'm OK with that! So, should you!

To take it a step further, if you claim sanctity for your beliefs, it may be an indication of weakness. Instead of having the force of arguments to defend your views, you rely on censorship for protection. I realize that many people don't want to be challenged so they seek supporting views only. Of course, this is their right. Of course, it's their right to feel any way they want. They can create filters and avoid places that present challenges. However, they should be prepared to have their views tested when they enter an institution where intellectual pursuits involve critical examination of ideas and beliefs.

How do we know things? Seriously, how do we know if something is true & valid? Maybe I should ask instead, do we care to know?

If we do, then the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand and accumulate precious knowledge! This involves open discussion, challenges, reason, evidence, review, and a way to amend.

I'm naturally suspicious of claims of divine revelation. I don't think profound knowledge or truths should be revealed only in secret and to a very few people. Especially when such statements can't be put to a test or subject it to an intellectual challenge. As someone claims the right not to be offended, I claim the right to free speech and rational thought. Above all, I claim the right to be human!

And, that's my theory!

Opinions Based on Reason and Evidence Must be Shared

What do you think a teacher should do when confronted by a controversial issue? There are those who say that we have to be objective and not "impose our own bias" on the students. But, I think such an approach misses the point of education.

We're paid to have a professional opinion. We've spent lots of time & energy thinking, researching, formulating theories and views. Yes, we don't always agree--and that's good. But, we do exchange our ideas in the currency of reason. An intellectually honest person has to accept the evidence and the rhyme of reason.

There are several issues that divide our society, namely on matters of politics and religion, and, in the US, science! Take the latter, for example. There's a consensus in the scientific community on most important subjects, like evolution--one of the strongest scientific theories we've got. Should we, as educator, shy away from offering an opinion? The earth is not a few thousand years old as many Americans (and sadly several leaders) believe. Should we say, "well, there are two sides to this story"?!!!

Personally I think we've given too much respect to views and people who don't deserve any. There's widespread ignorance, so by often avoiding controversy or challenging false ideas we allow ignorance to persist. The academia should be a place for free discussion and learning. Often you learn by revising, amending, and accepting the reasonable. Some of our great successes as a human species came because some brave persons challenged the status quo and the "wisdom" of the "tried & true."

Being objective doesn't mean we can't have a strong opinion or that we shouldn't express it for the fear of offending others. The earth isn't flat; it's old and wasn't created in 7 days. This is a scientific fact and until someone with a better argument and evidence to back it up comes along, this view is a fact!

A New Academic Year is Upon Us. Education, Anyone?

If you want to understand the physical world, logic is imperative. But, I think, you have to have some courage to face reality even it is unpleasant. You develop courage by having confidence in yourself and your ability to think & analyze.

I believe good thinkers are leaders too. Hopefully, we teachers and the schools can facilitate such rational, creative thinking and by doing so to develop leaders. Those who don't know (either by choice or not) tend to be followers and more likely to be manipulated by the simplistic arguments of demagogues who want to be leaders of a flock of sheep.

Richard Dawkins

When someone doesn't know something, it's not the end of the world, because there's a way to fix that. Well, as long as there's free information available and the will to learn. What I find truly disheartening is the widespread lack of ignorance in advanced, modern societies like ours. It gets worse when I see young adults not having a thirst for knowledge. Critical thinking is rather abysmal. It's hard to find college classes where open discussion takes place that requires connecting the dots, you know, rational thinking.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard students say, "it's just a theory," meaning "it's an opinion," when they refer to scientific theories. Take, for example, the theory of evolution--one of the strongest body of knowledge we have--that is supported by tons of evidence from across several disciplines. This scientific theory competes for acceptance with creationism or intelligent design! I think it's losing right now!

I don't know if anti-intellectualism is winning in America, but Susan Jacoby--Age of American Unreason--thinks so. It's close-mindedness that impedes progress. And, don't tell me that our politics don't reflect this. How else can you explain a president who believes that "the jury on evolution is still out"? Or, serious presidential candidates accept superstition to science? Or, why worry about the environment & our planet when Jesus has saved us all (only if..) or will save us when Armageddon! [yes, the majority of Americans believe that Jesus will return sometime in their lifetime!]

Education is more than memorizing stuff. It's not indoctrination. It's the developed ability to be a learned person who can think critically, connect the dots, and ultimately accept reality.

"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

Barack Obama

Education Means Critical Thinking. Knowledge is Power.

The Millenial Generation May Produce a New Realignment in the US

It's been an interesting semester with lots of work in the end, as per usual, but now it's over. I had a good experience over all. I like teaching, and, I dare say, most of my students seem to enjoy my classes. I encourage critical thinking and thoughtful discussion--something of a rarity in colleges today. Accumulating information without putting it into proper context is good for passing exams but it doesn't necessarily promote an understanding. Connecting the dots is often a skill that's lacking among Americans but also among too many college students.

Of course, it's the subject matter that allows for such a conversation. My subject is Political Science so I talk about political theories, ideologies, the information (?!) media, American political institutions, etc. But, I'm a science fan too. I'm a scientist in that I accept the scientific way as the most powerful tool we have for knowledge! The scientific method is a specific process, a methodology, of analyzing evidence, forming theories that explain & predict, and always keeping the door open to revision--when better data or a theory are available.

The process is very important and much is invested in it. The process of finding and analyzing evidence and then puting it in order. The conclusion comes later. It is not the other way around it as many people seem to be doing. That is, they first form a "conclusion" which is something they like, and then they try to find any piece of supporting evidence to their thesis. Any contradictory evidence that falls outside their narrow frame (of mind) is discarded! Obviously, this is not an appropriate for knowing stuff; it may be good for escaping reality and/or feeling better for a while, but it is not a tool for learning.

I can't tell you how many times I had to explain--which is good, because at least we are talking about it--what a scientific theory is about. Such a theory is not a hunch, a guess, an opinion! The theory of evolution is perhaps controversial in the minds of the ignorant, but it is one of the strongest scientific theories we have. Modern genetics and technology have confirmed its tenets and have piled on more supporting data upon the tons of evidence we have from fossils, and other observations. Unfortunately, more Americans (US) believe in creation than evolution! In other words, more people believe that human beings were made in their present form rather recently than humanoids having evolved over hundreds of thousands of years! And, this in a society that has been at the forefront of technology, science, and freedom of information!

I like Richard Dawkins's explanation:
"We have two theories, A and B, both trying to explain the same phenomenon. Theory A fails in some particular. Theory B must be right, even if theory A is supported by loads of evidence and theory B is supported by no evidence at all...

Nevertheless, if you can find one phenomenon, call it X, for which, as far as you can see, theory A cannot provide an explanation, you therefore conclude theory B must be right....

What kind of logic is that?"

If you want to understand the physical world, logic is imperative. But, I think, you have to have some courage to face reality even it is unpleasant. You develop courage by having confidence in yourself and your ability to think & analyze. I believe good thinkers are leaders too. Hopefully, we teachers and the schools can facilitate such rational, creative thinking and by doing so to develop leaders. Those who don't know (either by choice or not) tend to be followers and more likely to be manipulated by the simplistic arguments of demagogues who want to be leaders of a flock of sheep.

Tax-free Hedge Funds... But Only for the Big Schools Like Harvard

This is a very interesting article posted on the American Scene blog. It raises some important questions about the non-for-profit organizations, that, even though the don't give dividents to shareholders, they do provide excellent benefits to those involved. As we all know, many not-for-profit institutions are money makers. But, if we are to re-examine the taxation policies, we shouldn't just limit ourselves only to secular institutions.... (if you catch my drift)

Is Harvard Just a Tax-Free Hedge Fund?
According to the Wall Street Journal, Massachusetts legislators are studying a plan to levy a 2.5% annual tax on the portion of college endowments that exceed $1 billion. The high-wage union workforce with lifetime employment contracts and restrictive work rules tenured faculty is not amused.

Harvard’s official response is pretty funny:
Kevin Casey, a spokesman for Harvard, said the proposal would hurt Massachusetts and colleges because it would damage “stable bedrock institutions” that have helped shield the region from the worst of the economic slowdown.

But why isn’t this statement true of, say, Akamai, Biogen and Raytheon?
I’ve purposely picked companies with close ties to MIT and Harvard, because one could argue that universities create spin-offs that ultimately create corporate profits to be taxed. But large tech companies do the same; many successful companies are in the fourth or fifth generation of this process. Should Fairchild Semiconductor be free of paying corporate income tax because employees left to create Intel, or should this tax benefit revert to AT&T because a group of employees left Bell Labs to start Fairchild?

Which brings to mind another obvious question: why do endowed universities get tax breaks that other corporations don’t get in the first place?

Consider Harvard.
It claims to be in the business of serving humanity through the creation and dissemination of knowledge, but Biogen claims to “transform scientific discoveries into advances in human healthcare”. That sounds pretty good, too. If you think of Harvard as a corporation, it had an income statement in FY 2007 with about $2.2 billion of revenues (tuition, sponsored research contracts, and so on) and about $3.2 billion of expenses, and therefore had to move about $1 billion from the endowment to make up the difference in order to run at basically break-even. In other words, it’s a big institution, but hey, it doesn’t make any money and has to survive on the kindness of donors, even if these donations are channeled through an endowment.
But this isn’t quite the whole picture.

The overall Harvard corporation gets to make money through investment returns on its endowment (or, more precisely, the General Investment Account, which currently includes about $6 billion of investable assets in operational accounts in addition to the $34 billion endowment) that doesn’t get reported as revenue. Last year, Harvard made more than $7 billion of tax-free investment income.

So if you just think about how much cash went into the shoebox and how much came out of it, a more accurate accounting for Harvard for FY 2007 would, in rough numbers, be a lot more like the following:

Receipts = $2 billion of operating revenue + $7.3 billion of investment income + $0.6 billion of gifts to the endowment = ~$10 billion.
Operating costs = ~$3 billion.
Profit = $10 billion – $3 billion = ~$7 billion.

This explains why Harvard’s net assets increased about $7 billion in 2007, from about $35 billion to about $42 billion.Viewed purely in terms of economics, Harvard is really a $40 billion tax-free hedge fund with a very large marketing and PR arm called Harvard University that has the job of raising the investment capital and protecting the fund’s preferential tax treatment.
The trick is that this hedge fund can’t remit earnings to investors, and has to keep them in the company’s account, renaming these retained earnings as an “endowment”. So how do the insiders extract value from this business? One way is by giving themselves cushy jobs that pay a ton of dough. Those who manage Harvard’s money are well-paid.

The prior investment head, Jack Meyer, left after criticism of a compensation plan that paid some investment management professionals more than $35 million each in a single year. In spite of this, investment professionals often leave the Harvard Management Company because they can make yet more money as partners in private equity groups or hedge funds. Of course, the qualification of running Harvard’s pool of assets can be leveraged to get exactly such jobs – those who do this are called “Crimson Puppies” – while in the meantime enjoying a somewhat more relaxed work-life balance, and not having to do the hard work of actually raising the fund.

The worker bees in the marketing department (i.e., the faculty) are also quite well-paid. The average Harvard professor now has a salary of about $185,000 per year. Professors in the right disciplines, such as business, can reportedly double their salaries through outside consulting and other income sources. In 1980, the salary of a Harvard professor was about 5.5 times the average US per capita income; today, $185,000 is about 7 times the average national per capita income, and can often be leveraged into much higher actual annual compensation.

When tax-advantaged non-profits start to accumulate billions of dollars of cash through investment gains, and the insiders seem to be doing very well, it creates legitimate pressure for some legal changes. There is a broad range of alternatives: capital gains taxes on investment income, directly taxing the endowment, placing limitations on employee compensation, and forcing the distribution of a fixed percentage of the endowment are all obvious choices. Sanctimonious talk about “the mission of the university” is not likely to stop this; unfortunately, giving lots of money to Democratic politicians very well might.

Tell me again: why don't we pay teachers well?

I read this article in the Times. I think it was also on Digg. I have heard no less than 3 co-workers discussing the same New York Times article about a charter school in New York. The basic premise of the newly approved charter school is that the best teachers turn out the most well educated students, and the way to attract the best teachers is to pay them well. “Well” meaning, well paid--in absolute terms--not relatively “well paid for teachers.” The starting salary is $125,000. The implications of this are far more significant than what is covered in the short article.

I say it is brilliant. Schools with the highest needs, which are usually in areas with the smallest tax base, are bleeding young, quality teachers. Teachers fresh out of school, inexperienced, head to these schools for a couple years and then look for a position in a higher paying district. Once they are equipped to best teach, they leave.

The profession of teaching struggles to attract smart, edgy career seekers because it is seen as a life of self-punishing service, in constant financial struggle. There is no way, regardless of talent and performance, for a teacher to make a salary that allows for a comfortable life in a major city. There is just no way to make a life in New York (or San Francisco or L.A. or Chicago, etc.) on $40,000. How could I ever buy a house on that? Granted, experienced teachers in my district make $70-80,000--which makes home-ownership more realistic. But going into teaching, while requiring a master’s degree, will never produce the salary that pursuing a career in i-banking, or engineering, or law will.

Teachers rely on a union to protect them from the district (government) and the administration. So by diminishing the administration, there is one less force attacking them. Then, in theory, if they are doing a good job (which is significantly easier with adequate compensation, for a variety of reasons, need I list them?) good teachers shouldn’t need the protection of a union. After all shouldn’t the students and parents protect them? And the bad teachers… well they will be fired. They will not be worth $125,000 a year to tax payers. But the good teachers can let their art in a classroom speak for itself.

There are more problems in the education system in this country than passengers on the Titanic. But paying teachers well is perhaps one step towards fixing at least one or two of the existing problems.

A Man Makes $4 Billion, as Much as All NYC Teachers. Should he be taxed less than them?

Yes, this is a capitalist country whereas people can risk, apply their efforts, and reap huge rewards. Unless, of course, you don't have access to opportunity. Unless, you are already at the top...

But, besides this, if we are all patriots and want to support this country called the United States of America, then the question is: how much everyone should chip into to pot? According to earnings and ability to pay? Is that fair? Whatever you think, this is not how it's done here.

This investor who gambled made $4 billion a year, just as much as all teachers in the NY City public schools made collectively! But, the super-rich have their capital gains taxed at 15% whereas teachers (and other workers) are taxed at twice or more this rate!

Here's an article by Alternet that makes the case. You may disagree with the author's conclusion and suggestions, but the facts remain the facts.

"The United States has the highest inequality rate in the developed world. 28 million Americans -- almost 1 in 10 -- are using food stamps. The average worker has seen virtually no real increase in wages since 1970.

Some hedge fund managers made over a billion dollars last year. Hedge fund manager John Paulson, who made a clever bet against subprime mortgages, made close to $4 billion.
How much is 4 billion dollars? If you work as a sales clerk in a retail store, you'd have to work 200,000 YEARS to make 4 billion dollars.

If you have a steady $50,000 a year job as a laborer and work for 50 years, in all that time you'd make as much as the hedge fund manager gets in one hour at the office."

Governor Spitzer Wants to Endow State's Public Colleges

The New York governor just delivered his annual speech to the state legislature, saying that he wants to raise the funding and the quality of public higher education and make the two public universities--CUNY and SUNY--even better. The problem is that New York has a budget deficit of $4 billion, and if the country's financial woes continue, there will be less tax revenue ahead. Spitzer didn't provide many specifics as to how he's going to pay for this, but his own-appointed commission did recommend hiring more faculty.

The faculty-student ratio is very important as well as the time faculty spends teaching & advising students. All too often, faculty have no real insentive to teach or spend most of their time in the classroom & designing their courses. Their professional rewards come from publishing and from public relations, not from teaching.

The state’s public higher education system includes the State University of New York, with more than 400,000 students on 64 campuses, and the City University of New York, with more than 200,000 students on 23 campuses. Undergraduates at SUNY colleges who are state residents now pay $4,350 a year in tuition and $4,000 at CUNY.

For more information on the governor's initiative, read this New York Times article.

Philanthopist Helps Future College Students in Maine

Assuming it's good for the country to have as many educated people, then what are we doing to provide equality of opportunity? OK, money and social status provide more access, and opportunities. But, should it come down to these qualities? Or, should we give chances to those who cannot afford to go to college to do so? Shouldn't commitment and skills take precedent over money?

I don't think every high school student is ready or willing to pursue their studies further, but there are many who just can't because the cost is so high. Not only tuition has risen greatly but--let's not forget--during the years attending college a student cannot earn as much as someone who doesn't have the burden of a full academic load.

A couple presidential candidates have floated the idea that every American upon birth should get a bond in their name, say, $1,000, which will accrue interest for 18 years, or until the person goes to school, usually with a cut-off limit by age 30. This can only be used to help defray the costs of attending higher ed schools. Obviously this is not a solution to the problem, but it helps. It's an investment that the country should make, something like the GI Bill for WW2 veterans.

It makes economic sense too, because educated people tend to earn more money, pay less taxes, and are less likely to be a public charge. It's estimated that for every dollar our government spent for the GI Bill, it got three in return. But, as it is the case for many things, it's hard to spend up front in order to save later. Our health care system is a prime example of this. We don't have universal health care coverage, people don't get preventive care, no early detection, and the result is more expensive (and often futile) treatments later.

Anyway, in the spirit of endowment for the future, a benefactor in Maine is giving $500 towards a college education to every child born in Maine! Harold Alfond, who died recently, founded the Dexter Shoe Company in Maine, and later his foundation that will manage the grants. This tax-free savings account will be available to Maine newborns--about 14,000 in 2006--starting in 2009. It's estimated that, with current numbers, the foundation will spend some $7 million per year. There are plans for raising the contributions and grants levels to cover increased college costs in the future.

Philanthropist Alfond never went to college.

Some Lessons are Learned very Early in a Person's Life. Yet, Education Should be an Ongoing Experience.

A Commencement is a new beginning. Luck favors the prepared mind.

As another semester draws to a close, some 50% of American students, who began their studies four to six years ago, are participating in commencement ceremonies. Far too many students aren't graduating, and far too many never enter a higher education institution. The cost of tuition and student loans have become more expensive. As a country we have to re-evaluate whether access to health care and education should be a privilege or a right.

Conversely, I've seen many students squander their opportunities to attend and graduate college. There are many reasons for this--from not being able to afford the financial burden, to balancing work & school, to improper attitude. What pains me is that the latter is something within the control of the student and, thus, it's a self-imposed limitation. I've seen far too many bright kids who fail, because they are not serious enough about undertaking a long project and see it to its completion. They are often resistant to accepting direction and help from faculty. Obviously, these are young people and are entitled to making mistakes, and deserve second chances, but any young adult has to be able to be a quick learner, to adopt to the circumstances, and prevail. The so-called real world often is much harsher and doesn't offer repeated chances to success.

I attended a college of the City University of New York (CUNY) and I was very grateful that I was able to attend, learn, and earn a couple degrees. It was also a commuter college where most of the students had jobs and many did take more than four years to complete their degrees. But, the attitude was different than the attitude I've observed at two colleges [one for profit and one non profit] for several years; I've seen too many students having a rather casual attitude today that I had never seen when I was a student. High school contributes to shaping the character of many students; yet, it prepares them poorly to tackle academic subjects.

There's another issue besides what someone learns by reading and absorbing in the classroom. Proper habits and proper attitude are perhaps more important. Unfortunately, too many young people who enter college lack those skills, and are not quick to revise bad habits. Every time I walk into a classroom, I know that half of my students will not graduate! I tell them so--hoping that they would do whatever they can not to fall into this category. I see it as my mission as well. I spend class time talking about the need for proper attitude: meeting deadlines, being serious, doing more than the bare minimum, being creative, demonstrating that they can work well within a group, elevate the quality of their group by being good contributors, taking a long project and complete it, being able to accept instruction, and see this experience as a good & fun event in their lives. Skills a person develops in college are great skills to take to the professional world out there.

Unfortunately, bad habits sometimes prevail, setting the tone from day one. Why a student can have an adversarial attitude toward the teacher is beyond me--and I know it is not a winning strategy. We faculty are not there to make students miserable or to make them fail. On the contrary. In places I've taught, the vast majority of faculty do take an active interest in the progress of their students. There are other higher education institutions--mostly research universities--where undergrad students rarely see their professors, and many courses are taught by TAs, grad students, or adjuncts. I think this is not right. I have certain views on what being a teacher is about that run contrary to practices in several learning institutions. I believe that contributing to knowledge and expanding the horizons of a particular field is not uni-directional. Both research and transmission of knowledge (including the excitement of learning new things) to students are necessary, and there should be a distinction between a scholar and a teacher. The problem is that many colleges confuse the two.

But, learning how to swim also requires attention, following the instructions, and practicing. I'm happy to see that many students do grab this opportunity to learn, develop the necessary skills, and to elevate themselves into the leaders of tomorrow. We need more of them. We need to re-think our strategy and the mission of what a higher education should be. Harvard University, among many, is now trying to change the way it educates its students, because a great school should not be primarily judged by the number of bright minds on its faculty (who do research but are otherwise inaccessible to the students); nor should it be judged for its ability to find jobs for the students.

It's good for America to produce smarter, truly educated people; it's good for our economy, for our politics, and for the whole world, since the US is a global leader. The earlier we begin to educate our children the better. It begins at home, with the development of proper attitude towards learning, with good study habits, and with parents being true mentors not just disciplinarians! Education--which is more than reading books--should not be an adversarial exercise but a good and desirable objective for every person.

The Democratic Ideal as Taught and Practiced Locally

It Feels Good (Doesn't it?) to be Protected from the Troublemakers

We teach about the democratic ideal, how much better we are as a society because we allow diversity of people, preferences, views, etc; that we like the marketplace of ideas and keeping the dialogue going benefits our society and makes it stronger! Well, that's in the classroom, because when it comes to practicing a little democracy--you know, a peaceful protest--on campus, the imperial palace doesn't tolerate dissent. Caesar and his cohorts like the language of democracy, just as many rulers do; they use Newspeak to say one thing but mean another. Of course, they ..listen to your suggestions, and they "appreciate all constructive criticism." But, hey, if the rules say you must get a permit to speak up, then get in line buddy and wait for the stamp of approval. It may speed up the process if you ask permission for the specific language you'll use in your protest... And, you have to give your name to those who you intent to criticize!


Now, if a handful of students decide to peacefully let the powers that be hear their concerns the rulers take this opportunity to ..teach a civics lesson! Oh, yeah, we have rules here! You can't demonstrate without a permit! And, for good measure, you must register your ..party with the bureaucracy; this way it'll be easier to know who's speaking up!


The other lesson those perps received was to learn, first hand, how an arrest is made, and what happens when a citizen is put in a jail cell for the night. Hey, what's a little discomfort in learning more about the system? Now, comes the next lesson: being a student you have certain rights (like where to eat your lunch and what music you listen to in your dorm), but you also have responsibilities! What's a better way to teach you that your actions have consequences than by having those arrested brought up for further punishment (including expulsion) by the university?..

OK, those of you who are bleeding heart-liberals should wake up and leave your dreamworld. These are grave times, and we can't allow willy-nilly any form of dissent, because if we don't stick together we'll hang separately! Rules exist for a reason--so what if, on occasion, a little too much force is used to quell the troublemakers... If we don't nip the problem in its infancy, it'll get out of control. So, control we must have. Of course, it's obvious that this control better be left with the experts who know how to use it!

I wonder who said that it's those who are insecure in their beliefs and ideas that want to stiffle dissent by any means necessary....


Editor's Note: This post was inspired after reading of the recent developments at a local university [click here to learn more].The author only teaches Poli.Sci. in the classroom and had nothing to do with whatever lessons the students learn outside the classroom. After all, he's not paid to teach outside the classroom.