Providing more students with a variety of college choices is a good thing. But I'm beginning to wonder about the unintended consequences of policies that try to accomplish it.
Take the case of Wisconsin, which shares a tuition reciprocity agreement with Minnesota. Many students, especially those living on the borders of the two states, and those who don't get a place in their flagship university, choose to attend college in the other state. That's very nice, of course, and very neighborly. And, according to the press, it helps the state attract "the best students." But every policy has its downsides, and in this case there may be several:
(1) It seems to nudge data reporting toward the uninformative. Since both Minnesota and Wisconsin are treated as residents for tuition purposes, the vast majority of official reporting from the state and the campuses combines the two groups. This makes it hard for the public to examine the characteristics of Wisconsin residents. For example, say in order to assess equality of educational opportunities you wanted to compare the % of Native Americans among Wisconsin residents statewide to the % of Native Americans among Wisconsin residents enrolled at UW-Madison. It's not in any publicly available report, since reports like these aggregate MN and WI students together. (Sure, this could be changed without altering the reciprocity agreement, but right now there seems no incentive to do it.)
(2) It confuses discussions about key enrollment issues such as the cap on the proportion of non-resident students. Presumably, this cap exists to protect spaces for Wisconsin residents. But the cap, which is now 27.5%, doesn't actually do this since in theory it could be met by enrolling 10% Wisconsin students and 67.5% MN students. It says nothing about the distribution between WI and MN within the resident category. It also makes UW-Madison look like it enrolls relatively few non-residents compared to its peers, when in fact the opposite is true. In fact, if MN students counted as the non-residents they really are, UW-Madison would have to ask itself whether having a large concentration (~12%) of MN students is the best way to diversify the student body.
(3) It may contribute to brain drain. This is typically defined at the out-of-state migration of bachelor's degree holders. But how many students migrate post-high school but before the bachelor's degree? How many students do we send to MN for college, because they are outcompeted by MN students for seats at Madison, for example? And how many of those return to pay taxes in WI? I have no idea, but it's worth exploring. If MN weren't an option, might those students still attend college -- but in Wisconsin, at one of our many universities facing declining enrollment? Of course, we should consider this in relation to how many MN students who attend college in WI choose to remain here, and pay taxes. To the best of my knowledge, this issue hasn't been examined in decades.
(4) It may reduce the incentive to invest more in UW-Milwaukee. Very few reciprocity students from Minnesota choose to attend Milwaukee, but many Wisconsin students who cannot get a seat at Madison seek Minneapolis instead. As Provost Paul DeLuca has said, "Those well-qualified kids who want a big-city experience are inclined to think about Minnesota." Frankly, that's a problem: we need to give them reason to think about Milwaukee, a research university in Wisconsin's major urban center. Maybe if Minneapolis wasn't such a cheap option, there'd be more pressure to enhance Milwaukee or grow UW-Madison.
(5) It seems to cost UW-Madison tuition revenue it can't afford to lose. Madison currently enrolls 3,305 Minnesota students. Each pays slightly more than resident tuition, but the surplus is returned to the state, to settle up with Minnesota. Madison keeps only the resident portion. If instead, all Minnesota students paid out-of-state tuition, or were replaced by out-of-state students who did, UW-Madison would have nearly $27 million more revenue from tuition. Some would be lost to financial aid, sure, but that's an enormous amount of money. Now, I know that the issue of net tuition loss is frequently considered, and assessed to ensure that neither the entire state of Wisconsin or Minnesota loses in the deal-- but the fact that there's no loss to either state as a whole, and the fact that more MN students come to WI than vice versa, doesn't mean that individual campuses don't lose. While overall, I think a system perspective on finance usually makes sense, if this revenue could be used to ensure Madison remains affordable, a change is worth considering. At River Falls and Superior, where enrollment depends heavily on attracting Minnesota students, reciprocity may be a financial win, but at Madison it may be a net loss. Since it clearly has different implications for college choices at each campus, a differentiated policy in this case could do little harm, and much good.
Ok, if Madison weren't a reciprocity option for Minnesota students, maybe they would end the agreement entirely-- but this is short-sighted and will likely affect their border schools too. A recent report from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau notes that when the reciprocity agreement originated in 1965, it involved only border campuses, and "to be eligible, the student had to be an undergraduate whose legal residence or high school was no more than 40 miles from the institution attended in the other state." Is it time to return to this?
To be clear, I'm not saying anything about the quality of Minnesota students. I like them, I teach them, and I work with them. This is a question about policy and how it works in practice. It seems to me that the reciprocity agreement could be changed to exclude UW-Madison and still keep its positive features, while removing many of its potential negatives. Of course, the cap would have to be adjusted-- but not to admit more non-Wisconsin students--just to reflect actual reality. And that, in terms of data reporting, would be a good thing.
10th Annual EPS Conference
PRELIMINARY PROGRAM
A Nation at Risk? Reflections on the Past and Future of U.S. Public Education
10th Annual Educational Policy Studies Conference
Madison, Wisconsin
March 21-22, 2013
All events in Room 159 of the Education Building, 1000 Bascom Mall, UW-Madison
FREE and OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Thursday, March 21, 2013
8:30-10:00AM: Public Discourse on American Education
Michael Apple, Curriculum & Instruction & EPS, UW-Madison
Nancy Kendall, EPS, UW-Madison
Gloria Ladson-Billings, Curriculum & Instruction & EPS, UW-Madison
Chair: Bill Reese, EPS & History, UW-Madison
10:15-11:45 AM: Race/Ethnicity and the Evolution of U.S. Public Education
Jack Dougherty, Trinity College
Adrienne Dixon, University of Illinois-Chicago
Michael Fultz, EPS, UW-Madison
Chair: TBA
BREAK FOR LUNCH
1:00-2:30 PM: The Legacies and Future of Public Higher Education in the U.S.
Harry Brighouse, Philosophy & EPS, UW-Madison
Sara Goldrick-Rab, EPS & Sociology, UW-Madison
Daniel Kleinman, Sociology, UW-Madison
Chair: TBA
3:00-4:30 PM: From “A Nation at Risk” to “No Child Left Behind”
Maris Vinovskis, University of Michigan*
Chair: Adam Nelson, EPS & History, UW-Madison
BREAK FOR DINNER
7:00-8:30: The Chicago Teachers Strike: Reframing Education Reform and Teacher Unions
Pauline Lipman, University of Illinois-Chicago
Discussant: Chad Alan Goldberg, Sociology, UW-Madison
Friday, March 22, 2013
8:30-10:00 AM: Place, Space, and Public Education
Bianca Baldridge, EPS, UW-Madison
Linn Posey-Maddox, EPS, UW-Madison
Peter Miller, Education Leadership & Policy Analysis, UW-Madison
Chair: TBA
10:15-11:45 AM: Future Challenges, Roles, & Opportunities for Public Education
Robert Asen, Communication Arts, UW-Madison
Constance Flanagan, Interdisciplinary Studies, UW-Madison
Constance Steinkuehler, Curriculum & Instruction, UW-Madison
Chair: TBA
Say What About the Flex Degree?
On June 19, the University of Wisconsin System announced an initiative called the Flex Degree which was described as competency-based online instruction. That day, I blogged about it, noting that while I certainly had some concerns, there were enough potential positive effects of the program to withhold full judgment either way.
Friends on both sides were surprised. Colleagues who know and respect the priority I place on access and affordability for all potential students thought I should have been more strongly supportive of the "innovative" initiative that has the promise to drive down costs. Others, of the liberal activist persuasion, noted Governor Scott Walker's involvement, and the strong likelihood of negative repercussions for faculty job security and the quality of education delivered. Still, I demurred, deciding to wait to hear more.
Unfortunately, information hasn't exactly been forthcoming. I keep up to speed, reading the papers and blogs, and talking with those "in the know" and yet, I still have no clear picture what this Flex Degree really is. Perhaps it's because where I spend most of my time, UW-Madison, isn't involved? Maybe faculty at Parkside and Milwaukee have a clearer picture of what's happening? Maybe this initiative doesn't involve us tenured faculty at all, leaving the process to the administrators? I've tried to check things out-- and am hoping this blog stirs discussion so I can learn more. All I've heard thus far is that the faculty at Parkside are seriously concerned about the effort, and had a disagreement about the program with their Chancellor, resulting in the displacement of their Provost.
The media's been the only source of information-- and the coverage alone is enough to raise concerns. (Also, there is not one investigative reporter covering higher education in Madison now.) It's undoubtedly bad press for UW System when the Wall Street Journal leads its coverage with a headline "College Degree, No Class Time," as it did this morning. Here is what we "learn" from that story:
Instead of concrete planning, it seems this process relies on a set of fairly broad, vague statements. Do what's good for the workforce. Do what the Governor asks. Do something "big" (According to UW System President Reilly-- the Flex Degree is a "big new idea"). Make it "fresh."
These are platitudes that have been circulating in the education reform crowd for years. The rhetoric is typically framed as colleges and professors are "behind" (engaged in "the monastery model") and need to catch up. Interestingly, Jeff Selingo of the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote in his blog yesterday about the perspective held by Aaron Brower, a professor of social work at UW-Madison and the lead administrator on the Flex Degree initiative. From Brower's point of view, "Our students have all the information that we have as professors, so there is no premium on access to information."
Hmm. Well, first, that sounds right-- and simple-- but it's not really. The people actually working to get online education right (and many are in the for-profit industry-- which doesn't mean their knowledge should be disregarded) know that "access to information" is far from sufficient for students and that professors really enhance that access by sifting, coordinating, distilling and analyzing that information for students. The best initiatives thus far do not rely on technology alone-- they involve technology and people. This is because, as UW Extension Chancellor Ray Cross puts it, "faculty are the guardians of quality."
Brower knows this, and knows it well. And I think, therefore, that the biggest problem with the Flex Degree at the moment lies in how it's being rolled out and messaged. There are far more details available about this initiative than what's reaching our ears, but one has to look to meeting minutes to find them. For example, reading the minutes from a UW LaCrosse meeting about the Flex Degree I learned that "Faculty are at the heart of the endeavor: they will determine the outcomes/competencies and the assessments that will provide the evidence of student learning—nobody else can do this...Without faculty and academic staff involvement, the program will not attain the quality we envision, programmatically or pedagogically." And I'm pleased that apparently Governor Walker has told Ray Cross that he'll provide new funding for this initiative, rather than grab at our base.
So maybe the Flex Degree is better than it appears, and its communications arm is simply failing to message it correctly. One powerpoint talks about the "First to Flex," a physical metaphor that doesn't work well when it comes to education. There is also this wordy, vague video on You Tube.
Bad media is a huge problem that could sink the whole ship. Let's see that turned around, fast, before the nation begins to associate the University of Wisconsin with degrees that stand for nothing.
Friends on both sides were surprised. Colleagues who know and respect the priority I place on access and affordability for all potential students thought I should have been more strongly supportive of the "innovative" initiative that has the promise to drive down costs. Others, of the liberal activist persuasion, noted Governor Scott Walker's involvement, and the strong likelihood of negative repercussions for faculty job security and the quality of education delivered. Still, I demurred, deciding to wait to hear more.
Unfortunately, information hasn't exactly been forthcoming. I keep up to speed, reading the papers and blogs, and talking with those "in the know" and yet, I still have no clear picture what this Flex Degree really is. Perhaps it's because where I spend most of my time, UW-Madison, isn't involved? Maybe faculty at Parkside and Milwaukee have a clearer picture of what's happening? Maybe this initiative doesn't involve us tenured faculty at all, leaving the process to the administrators? I've tried to check things out-- and am hoping this blog stirs discussion so I can learn more. All I've heard thus far is that the faculty at Parkside are seriously concerned about the effort, and had a disagreement about the program with their Chancellor, resulting in the displacement of their Provost.
The media's been the only source of information-- and the coverage alone is enough to raise concerns. (Also, there is not one investigative reporter covering higher education in Madison now.) It's undoubtedly bad press for UW System when the Wall Street Journal leads its coverage with a headline "College Degree, No Class Time," as it did this morning. Here is what we "learn" from that story:
- A degree obtained online will carry the same name on it that degrees earned on campus do. You won't be able to tell if the degree was earned at Parkside, Madison, or Flex.
- UW System official encourage students to obtain their learning from MOOCS like "Coursera, edX and Udacity."
- The charges for the tests and related online courses haven't been set but it will be cheaper than attendance on a campus.
Instead of concrete planning, it seems this process relies on a set of fairly broad, vague statements. Do what's good for the workforce. Do what the Governor asks. Do something "big" (According to UW System President Reilly-- the Flex Degree is a "big new idea"). Make it "fresh."
These are platitudes that have been circulating in the education reform crowd for years. The rhetoric is typically framed as colleges and professors are "behind" (engaged in "the monastery model") and need to catch up. Interestingly, Jeff Selingo of the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote in his blog yesterday about the perspective held by Aaron Brower, a professor of social work at UW-Madison and the lead administrator on the Flex Degree initiative. From Brower's point of view, "Our students have all the information that we have as professors, so there is no premium on access to information."
Hmm. Well, first, that sounds right-- and simple-- but it's not really. The people actually working to get online education right (and many are in the for-profit industry-- which doesn't mean their knowledge should be disregarded) know that "access to information" is far from sufficient for students and that professors really enhance that access by sifting, coordinating, distilling and analyzing that information for students. The best initiatives thus far do not rely on technology alone-- they involve technology and people. This is because, as UW Extension Chancellor Ray Cross puts it, "faculty are the guardians of quality."
Brower knows this, and knows it well. And I think, therefore, that the biggest problem with the Flex Degree at the moment lies in how it's being rolled out and messaged. There are far more details available about this initiative than what's reaching our ears, but one has to look to meeting minutes to find them. For example, reading the minutes from a UW LaCrosse meeting about the Flex Degree I learned that "Faculty are at the heart of the endeavor: they will determine the outcomes/competencies and the assessments that will provide the evidence of student learning—nobody else can do this...Without faculty and academic staff involvement, the program will not attain the quality we envision, programmatically or pedagogically." And I'm pleased that apparently Governor Walker has told Ray Cross that he'll provide new funding for this initiative, rather than grab at our base.
So maybe the Flex Degree is better than it appears, and its communications arm is simply failing to message it correctly. One powerpoint talks about the "First to Flex," a physical metaphor that doesn't work well when it comes to education. There is also this wordy, vague video on You Tube.
Bad media is a huge problem that could sink the whole ship. Let's see that turned around, fast, before the nation begins to associate the University of Wisconsin with degrees that stand for nothing.
Do Academic Incentives Appear to Augment Financial Aid Effectiveness, Particularly after Enrollment?
The field of financial aid research is rapidly growing and expanding, which is a really good thing since the reliability and validity of evidence on effects pales in comparison to the magnitude of the national investment in aid. Policymakers shoot me emails almost daily, asking "how can this be?"
Well, it's expensive and difficult to rigorously examine the impacts of expensive, complicated programs. Financial support for aid research is often difficult to come by; seemingly because at least to some foundations and other funders, "we know it all" about aid already and need to move on.
Expert researchers like Sue Dynarski and Judith Scott-Clayton know better than this, and bother to continue studying financial aid and write comprehensive reviews of existing studies on the topic for the rest of us. I've relied on Dynarski's work continuously since my career began, and continue to be amazed at her ability to conduct incisive, beautifully executed work year after year. This morning, she issued not one but two new papers from NBER, both on financial aid. For that, we owe her and her co-authors quite a big thanks.
With that sincere respect for her work in mind, I want to submit one point of disagreement with one of the new papers. It regards a particularly difficult and controversial issue: whether financial aid ought to be reformed to include academic incentives tied to college persistence, to increase its effectiveness. The abstract for Dynarski and Scott-Clayton's paper reads "for students who have already decided to enroll, grants that link financial aid to academic achievement appear to boost college outcomes more than do grants with no strings attached." This is not a new statement from these researchers, but the paper reiterates it, reviving the debate in the midst of the Gates Foundation's efforts to rethink aid.
A close look at the evidence presented in this new paper leads me to believe that while this is a reasonable hypothesis, it has just as little empirical support today-- or perhaps even less-- than it did a few years ago when the debate over this issue was especially hot. Let's review.
On the question of the impacts of strictly need-based grants on college persistence, the authors point to two quasi-experimental studies (one by Eric Bettinger, one by Dynarski) with "suggestive but inconclusive evidence that pure grant aid improves college persistence and completion" as well as one study of a program targeting very high achieving students (Gates Millenium Scholars, studied by Steve DesJardins) that found no effects (unsurprising since their high outcomes were hard to improve upon).
In addition, they point to an early working paper (issued in 2011) from my ongoing experimental study in Wisconsin, which at the time, using one cohort of students, found null effects for a private grant program. This is the extent of the evidence they display about the impacts of grants with no strings attached. So it's important to note that our paper was updated and re-released last fall 2012 (not uncommon for working papers, and it did get press coverage) to incorporate findings from four cohorts of students and take into consideration that some students saw real increases in financial aid from the grant program while others did not. The results suggest that grants with no strings attached increased college persistence by about 3 percentage points per $1,000 -- consistent with Dynarski and Bettinger's estimates of aid's impacts from other programs. Sure, those estimates are derived from a quasi-experimental analysis within our experimental study (not dissimilar to the approaches highlighted in the other studies cited), but if you want to be a purist about it, look at the experimental evidence only. That evidence suggests positive impacts as well, and raises the possibility that program complexity is moderating the impacts (another key theme in Dynarski and Scott-Clayton's research from 2006).
On the questions of the impacts of grants with academic incentives, the authors highlight several studies, with two figuring most prominently. First, the MDRC performance-based scholarship demonstration. They point to evidence from the first, small experiment in New Orleans, which showed positive impacts. Then, they suggest that the ongoing replication studies of those scholarships "appear to reinforce the findings of the initial study." Unfortunately, that comment is outdated. The latest reports on effects are showing null results. The What Works Clearinghouse issued a Quick Review on the New York City results (published in December 2012) last week, indicating the experimental test of performance-based scholarships in that city produced no detectable effects on college retention (the title of the study is "Can Scholarships Alone Help Student Succeed?" but please note that the study is of performance scholarships-- not scholarships alone). (Full disclosure: I am Project Director on that WWC contract.) Recent conference presentations from the project reveal similar trends-- very little improvement, if any, resulting from the additional of performance based scholarships. Project director LaShawn Richburg-Hayes has been commendably careful to also point out that these scholarships are delivered on top of aid without strings, and also noting that it's unclear why Louisiana's results haven't been reproduced elsewhere.
Next, Dynarski and Scott-Clayton highlight Scott-Clayton's rigorous dissertation study of a West Virginia program. Her quasi-experimental analysis suggests that in West Virginia, effects of tying aid to performance had positive effects. However, the most important claim for the argument here-- that effects were stronger when academic incentives operated than when they did not--does not tell us that incentives performed better than "no strings attached" for these students. The two treatments occurred at different points in college for these West Virginia students, with academic performance required early in college, and no performance required later in college. In other words, there is a key confound (year in college) compromising the results.
The truth is that the experimental work needed to test the hypothesis that academic incentives tied to grant aid outperform grant aid without strings attached hasn't been conducted. It's clear that the effects of aid are very likely heterogeneous, and there are numerous variations in how aid is designed and delivered. For this reason, across-study comparisons are very hard to make. We need to set up a horse race between aid and aid+incentives for a sample of students much like those whom we'd hope to reform aid for-- Pell Grant recipients, most likely. Only then will we know if academic incentives really add value. And even then, we won't know why-- without rigorous mixed methods research.
For now, the jury is out, and policymakers who pair academic incentives with need-based aid are flying blind. They may have other rationales for doing wanting to do this-- some people feel better about distributing money when it comes with strings-- but they shouldn't pretend it's an evidence-based decision. And like merit aid, it emphasizes the "reward" rather than "compensatory" rationales for distributing financial aid; a political norm-laden shift that probably isn't without consequence.
Well, it's expensive and difficult to rigorously examine the impacts of expensive, complicated programs. Financial support for aid research is often difficult to come by; seemingly because at least to some foundations and other funders, "we know it all" about aid already and need to move on.
Expert researchers like Sue Dynarski and Judith Scott-Clayton know better than this, and bother to continue studying financial aid and write comprehensive reviews of existing studies on the topic for the rest of us. I've relied on Dynarski's work continuously since my career began, and continue to be amazed at her ability to conduct incisive, beautifully executed work year after year. This morning, she issued not one but two new papers from NBER, both on financial aid. For that, we owe her and her co-authors quite a big thanks.
With that sincere respect for her work in mind, I want to submit one point of disagreement with one of the new papers. It regards a particularly difficult and controversial issue: whether financial aid ought to be reformed to include academic incentives tied to college persistence, to increase its effectiveness. The abstract for Dynarski and Scott-Clayton's paper reads "for students who have already decided to enroll, grants that link financial aid to academic achievement appear to boost college outcomes more than do grants with no strings attached." This is not a new statement from these researchers, but the paper reiterates it, reviving the debate in the midst of the Gates Foundation's efforts to rethink aid.
A close look at the evidence presented in this new paper leads me to believe that while this is a reasonable hypothesis, it has just as little empirical support today-- or perhaps even less-- than it did a few years ago when the debate over this issue was especially hot. Let's review.
On the question of the impacts of strictly need-based grants on college persistence, the authors point to two quasi-experimental studies (one by Eric Bettinger, one by Dynarski) with "suggestive but inconclusive evidence that pure grant aid improves college persistence and completion" as well as one study of a program targeting very high achieving students (Gates Millenium Scholars, studied by Steve DesJardins) that found no effects (unsurprising since their high outcomes were hard to improve upon).
In addition, they point to an early working paper (issued in 2011) from my ongoing experimental study in Wisconsin, which at the time, using one cohort of students, found null effects for a private grant program. This is the extent of the evidence they display about the impacts of grants with no strings attached. So it's important to note that our paper was updated and re-released last fall 2012 (not uncommon for working papers, and it did get press coverage) to incorporate findings from four cohorts of students and take into consideration that some students saw real increases in financial aid from the grant program while others did not. The results suggest that grants with no strings attached increased college persistence by about 3 percentage points per $1,000 -- consistent with Dynarski and Bettinger's estimates of aid's impacts from other programs. Sure, those estimates are derived from a quasi-experimental analysis within our experimental study (not dissimilar to the approaches highlighted in the other studies cited), but if you want to be a purist about it, look at the experimental evidence only. That evidence suggests positive impacts as well, and raises the possibility that program complexity is moderating the impacts (another key theme in Dynarski and Scott-Clayton's research from 2006).
On the questions of the impacts of grants with academic incentives, the authors highlight several studies, with two figuring most prominently. First, the MDRC performance-based scholarship demonstration. They point to evidence from the first, small experiment in New Orleans, which showed positive impacts. Then, they suggest that the ongoing replication studies of those scholarships "appear to reinforce the findings of the initial study." Unfortunately, that comment is outdated. The latest reports on effects are showing null results. The What Works Clearinghouse issued a Quick Review on the New York City results (published in December 2012) last week, indicating the experimental test of performance-based scholarships in that city produced no detectable effects on college retention (the title of the study is "Can Scholarships Alone Help Student Succeed?" but please note that the study is of performance scholarships-- not scholarships alone). (Full disclosure: I am Project Director on that WWC contract.) Recent conference presentations from the project reveal similar trends-- very little improvement, if any, resulting from the additional of performance based scholarships. Project director LaShawn Richburg-Hayes has been commendably careful to also point out that these scholarships are delivered on top of aid without strings, and also noting that it's unclear why Louisiana's results haven't been reproduced elsewhere.
Next, Dynarski and Scott-Clayton highlight Scott-Clayton's rigorous dissertation study of a West Virginia program. Her quasi-experimental analysis suggests that in West Virginia, effects of tying aid to performance had positive effects. However, the most important claim for the argument here-- that effects were stronger when academic incentives operated than when they did not--does not tell us that incentives performed better than "no strings attached" for these students. The two treatments occurred at different points in college for these West Virginia students, with academic performance required early in college, and no performance required later in college. In other words, there is a key confound (year in college) compromising the results.
The truth is that the experimental work needed to test the hypothesis that academic incentives tied to grant aid outperform grant aid without strings attached hasn't been conducted. It's clear that the effects of aid are very likely heterogeneous, and there are numerous variations in how aid is designed and delivered. For this reason, across-study comparisons are very hard to make. We need to set up a horse race between aid and aid+incentives for a sample of students much like those whom we'd hope to reform aid for-- Pell Grant recipients, most likely. Only then will we know if academic incentives really add value. And even then, we won't know why-- without rigorous mixed methods research.
For now, the jury is out, and policymakers who pair academic incentives with need-based aid are flying blind. They may have other rationales for doing wanting to do this-- some people feel better about distributing money when it comes with strings-- but they shouldn't pretend it's an evidence-based decision. And like merit aid, it emphasizes the "reward" rather than "compensatory" rationales for distributing financial aid; a political norm-laden shift that probably isn't without consequence.
Questions for the UW-Madison Chancellor Search
The search for another chancellor of UW-Madison is well underway. According to news reports, the search committee is vetting 60 candidates, sifting and winnowing these to a shorter list of people who will be interviewed off-campus, before a small group of about four comes to campus for interviews.
This is a critical point in Madison's history, as we face key decisions about how we are funded, who we enroll, and how we teach. Formulating the questions we want to ask the candidates as they go through the process is one way to think through these hard issues. With this post, I'm hoping to spur thinking on this -- providing a few ideas to get started, and encouraging you to write in with more questions. With any luck, the people who get to actually ask the questions will find some good ideas here.
A starting point:
1. There has recently been much discussion about the polarization of the academy and concerns expressed about the impacts that a lack of political diversity might have on the welfare of public universities in particular. How do you conceive of the term "political diversity" and how would you address the need to build it on the UW-Madison campus?
2. What do the terms "innovation" and "disruption" mean to you, and how are they best produced on a campus like Madison's where shared governance is a central value?
3. Many universities, including Madison, are feeling pressure to increase "productivity." How do you define productivity when it comes to teaching? Research? What are ways in which you think the productivity of administrators should be measured? What about productivity among faculty?
Help us find the right person-- what questions should be added to this list?
This is a critical point in Madison's history, as we face key decisions about how we are funded, who we enroll, and how we teach. Formulating the questions we want to ask the candidates as they go through the process is one way to think through these hard issues. With this post, I'm hoping to spur thinking on this -- providing a few ideas to get started, and encouraging you to write in with more questions. With any luck, the people who get to actually ask the questions will find some good ideas here.
A starting point:
1. There has recently been much discussion about the polarization of the academy and concerns expressed about the impacts that a lack of political diversity might have on the welfare of public universities in particular. How do you conceive of the term "political diversity" and how would you address the need to build it on the UW-Madison campus?
2. What do the terms "innovation" and "disruption" mean to you, and how are they best produced on a campus like Madison's where shared governance is a central value?
3. Many universities, including Madison, are feeling pressure to increase "productivity." How do you define productivity when it comes to teaching? Research? What are ways in which you think the productivity of administrators should be measured? What about productivity among faculty?
Help us find the right person-- what questions should be added to this list?
Barack Obama's Most Important Move: As a Dad
There is a reason he is our president. Barack Obama regained my faith in him tonight. Here are some of his most important words.
Here in Newtown, I come to offer the love and prayers of a nation. I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts.
I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief, that our world, too, has been torn apart, that all across this land of ours, we have wept with you. We’ve pulled our children tight....
....We bear responsibility for every child, because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours, that we’re all parents, that they are all our children.
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we’re meeting our obligations?
Dear Charlotte, Daniel, Olivia, Josephine, Ana, Dylan, Madeline, Catherine, Chase, Jesse, James, Grace, Emilie, Jack, Noah, Caroline, Jessica, Benjamin, Avielle, and Allison:
Children all over America will remember what you did for us. Finally moving our leaders to positions of strength. We will back them. We will push them. We will not forget.
Much love,
Sara, Liam, Annie, and Conor
I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief, that our world, too, has been torn apart, that all across this land of ours, we have wept with you. We’ve pulled our children tight....
....We bear responsibility for every child, because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours, that we’re all parents, that they are all our children.
This is our first task, caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.
Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?
Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know they are loved and teaching them to love in return?
Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?
I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change....
We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this....
We can’t accept events like this as routine.
Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?
Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?...
There’s only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have for our children, for our families, for each other. The warmth of a small child’s embrace, that is true.
The memories we have of them, the joy that they bring, the wonder we see through their eyes, that fierce and boundless love we feel for them, a love that takes us out of ourselves and binds us to something larger, we know that’s what matters.
We know we’re always doing right when we’re taking care of them, when we’re teaching them well, when we’re showing acts of kindness. We don’t go wrong when we do that...."
**************
Children all over America will remember what you did for us. Finally moving our leaders to positions of strength. We will back them. We will push them. We will not forget.
Much love,
Sara, Liam, Annie, and Conor
You Are Killing Our Kids
Wherever there's a powerful lobby there are powerful wealthy backers. The strength of the NRA lies not in the many average fools who think that having guns in their homes makes them safer (tell that to the gun-toting mama whose boy killed her before shooting those 20 children in Connecticut), but in the obscene wealth possessed by the gun manufacturers. Who are these people, and how have they managed to twist the 2nd amendment into some rationale for the right for regular people to bear assault rifles?
I'm far from an expert on this topic, but what I do know is that social movements require individuals that get informed enough to be smart, inspired actors. And since I can't stomach sending my kids off to school even one more day without knowing that I DID SOMETHING to try and make them even a little bit safer, well, I'll take this one on. And I hope you will too.
The tiniest bit of research tonight led me to learn a few things I had no idea about:
(1) Gun stocks are on the rise. Smith & Wesson, among other gun manufacturers, is more profitable than ever. At a growth rate of 10% per year on average, and much higher for the top sellers, business is booming.
(2) The industry is promoting gun use successfully among women and children. Just like cigarette manufacturers, this mature industry is constantly seeking to expand its market and thus has encouraged an explosion of so-called shooting shows, including for audiences at the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. The number of "shotgun" and "rifle" badges given to the Boy Scouts of America is up nearly 30 percent in the last decade, and the participation of women in shooting shows has experienced similar growth.
(3) Manufacturers of "high-capacity clips" -- which should remind you of extra-nicotine added cigarettes times 10 -- are major donors to the NRA and hold two board seats. Why these high volume clips are considered requisite for self-defense is beyond me. What I do know is that each of the 20 six and seven-year-old children in Connecticut was riddled by between 3 and 10 bullets.
Guns and cigarettes go hand in hand. It took America nearly a century to stand up to tobacco, but it happened. The time is now for guns. Call it what it is-- profitting on the backs of dead children. And put a stop to it. Join us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)