2 Kinds of Part-Time Students

Original Article

Summary goes here!

The data shows that family support do count - those that like typical full-time students.

This is my thoughts of reading comments from hard working needed students:
In general, I support the idea that capable students should obtained support from society to help them complete their degree in an efficient fashion. On the other hand, these people should provide feedback to the society. The basic idea behind this is that, for the interest of the public, we optimized our investment in capable people. The capable people should also recognized that their success is an effort of society and is to contribute back to the society.

There are, of cause, a lot of thing to think about how this can be achieved. Things like how to define capable and how to make contribution an obligation. How this whole idea fitting in the current culture. A wealthy talent people may not want to be held down by the obligation and prefer to pay the education their way.

Debate: Top Critic vs. ‘U.S. News’ Editor

Original Article

Summary goes here!

Personally, I don't really care about ranking. The more important thing is to provide consumer good product information. Consumer is more interested in things that fit their need.

What If Higher Ed Funds Don’t Help Economy?

Original Article

Summary goes here!

Of cause there are a lot of factors in economy development. For those that criticize of the report, I wonder if they criticize those presidents when they made that kind of claims?

The report does made it clear that the simple factor of investing money in higher ed will not bring up the local economy. To bring up the local economy, it call for a coordinated efforts and objective analysis like what I pointed out earlier in my 2003 article.

For a state to prosper, it need to evaluate its strength and taking available resource into consideration. At the same time, it need set its eye in the future and asking a lot of ifs. For example, Alaska is rich in crude oil. It maybe fine to rely on the resource for now. But a responsible government should think about the future and try to answer the question what if the resource run out? The plan should, therefore, includes stretegy build up of other industries using its crude oil as the foundation.

Campus Accountability Proposals Evolve

Original Article

... systems should be build so that the responsibility is not an option (a.k.a voluntary, self-governing)

It's very interesting. I guess when there is a pressure they will response - in a not bonding way. I guess, the question is, then, will public satisfied with this kind of response and procedure.

Personally, I am not satisfied. My personal believe is that systems should be build so that the responsibility is not an option (a.k.a voluntary, self-governing). I wonder what will happen if a criminal justice system is build on such a ground. Say, let's allow criminals to set the sentence for themselves. Do you think this is like going back in history, where law is the tools of the powerful.

Questioning College-Wide Assessments

Original Article - see comment by Bob at State U

Summary goes here!

I am in the opinion that the testing service companies should work harder to have employers back them up in using their tests. After all, it is employers that fulfill the value bill - in a realistic way.

Industries had complained the quality of institution graduates with vague (a.k.a critical thinking) specifications without following through with specific skill requirement in terms of how they think it can be evaluated. The reason, of cause, can well be that evaluation of these high level skills is not their expertise. On the other hand, evaluating skill is what testing companies do.

I think if industries is really serious about their concern, they should work with testing companies to further define their needs. Without well defined goals, no one can efficiently reach the goal.

*If industries don't really know what they mean by 'critical thinking', I think all these are just FUD.

============== drafts
Testing industry should work with employers to create tests that employers will use to hire. The testing industry at this point is trying to sell it to education sectors in the view that people involved in education are more care about education. But the truth is that test created this way may not directly serve the employers' need.

My vision on this is for testing industry to work with employers in creating test that will be used by employers to hire. If this do happen than it's really not matter what it is measuring. Just imaging that the high score on those test do get hired in high proportion, institutions/departments that turn out high score will get parents/students' attention.

All organizations are serving the public. Institutions is of no differences. They serve publics' need. Parents and students is a big part of the public that institution serve. There are others that institutions serve. The basic idea, however, is that institutions will get their share of the revenue for the part they serve. Institutions can teach what ever they want but if what they teach is of no value to students (a.k.a the job), I doubt they should derive their revenue from students. This does not force professors to give up their researches, it simply means that they should derive their revenue from research grant.

All organizations exist to serve the public. Higher Ed institutions is of no difference. They serve publics' need. Parents and students is a big part of the public that institution serves. There are others that institutions serve too. The basic idea, however, is that institutions will get their share of the revenue for the part they serve. For example, researcher could and should derive their revenue from grant which can be sponsored by federal, institution or state legislature.

Instructors should derive their revenues from the things they teach which is valued by students and eventually valued by employers.

Institutions can teach what ever they want but if what they teach is of no value to students (a.k.a the job), I doubt they should derive their revenue from students. This does not force professors to give up their researches, it simply means that they should derive their revenue from research grant.

Institutions have claimed that they provided valuable 'critical thinking' training for their students. But like pointed out by ... the real value haven't been very convincing yet. As we all know the claimed value isn't as real as a proved value. If industries willing to bet their money on those claim, it will really show the value of it.

The Senate’s Higher Ed Act Renewal

Original Article

Summary goes here!

I just can’t see why traditional institutions have trouble with the requirement that they should “not deny the transfer of a student’s credit based SOLELY on the accreditation status of the institution from which the student is transferring.".

Without checking into a student’s ability how can you decide what that student’s ability. If you do check into a student’s ability, why can’t you deny the transfer based on your evaluation. What this seems to me is that institutions simply don’t bother to check a student’s ability just like they don’t want to check the ability of their graduates.

These are strong words and it may not apply to all institutions. But I really think this gives public a really bad impression about the mind set of our traditional institutions.

=====

Personally, I have no trouble in admitting that the level of rigorous of for-profit institution can be questionable. On the other hand, the level of rigorous, claimed but not proved, by traditional institutions can be questionable too.

The main point is that the change of the language basically gives traditional institutions free ticket to waive the evaluation. Beside discrimination, I can find a better word for it.

Personally, I taught community college before and I know most of my students aren't in par with 4 year colleges even if we use the same textbook - I did not grade them with 4 year college standard - will you? Gave most of them C or D?

If community college students are entitled to have their credit evaluated by receiving institutions why shouldn't students from nationally credited institutions, since both of them are under par.

For those that claim the superiority of regionally credited institutions, why is it so difficult for these superior institutions to prove that for-profits are under par?

Questioning the Admissions Assumptions

Original Article
Check Gary Hanson and Cal's comments
Ask Tony Broh the detail of the 'admissions index

Summary goes here!

Of cause not all tests are measuring the right thing. But a test is remote from subjective influences. Haven't we learn enough in the dark age where science is dictated by subjective directions instead of objective observations?

The article did not disqualify objective measurement but the one SAT test.

A persistent grades indicates a person's consistent attitude and his work ethic which does have a lot to say about his success. However, an A in one school isn't the same as that of another school. How would you be able to equalize that?

Congressional Timeout for Spellings

Original Article

US Department of Education may not handle the situation correctly, but the need for leveling the playground remains.

Yes. I agree with Fred's observation on the 'tradition' role of higher ed institutions. However, that does not mean tradition is all good.

For one thing, all organizations are part of the society and should response to the society and this is the basic idea why governments do control private organizations through law and regulations. But in essense, all organizations are lived to serve the society's need. The consumer model may not describe the relationship between students and institutions properly. But it does put it in prospective. The argument that higher ed should be exempt from federal requlation is simply not sustainable especially when what accreditation agencies hold on to is the federal recognition.

In society, capitalism is simply a proved way of offering services in an effecient way. At the core of the capitalism is the idea of leveling the playing ground. Law and regulation are introduced to level the playing ground if necessary. The best way level the playground is to set the objective rules and set institutions free to explore they options.

In recent years, higher ed had become hot items in the society. Society began to pay attention to how to make it more efficient.
Like all industries, the idea of leveling the playground come to mind. Currently, accreditation agencies are membership based and are self regulated. This creates the environment that set those traditional institutions in a prestige status and prevent the leveling of playground.

So. US Department of Education may not handle the situation correctly, but the need for leveling the playground remains.

My second post:
The client model do shift most of the responsibility of learning to the students but it does not shield institutions or professors, for that matter, from respond to the need of the society. (I do not reject that model as was shown in my post First on the Docket: Accreditation.

But, that is really not the main point of the accreditation. All professional are still compete on the same ground. When I looking for professionals I will check their references and I would not necessary buy a package. I will negotiate my deliverable. Even though not all records are readily available, it does possible to check Doctors' malpractice.