The College Degree Scam

Read.

When Your Qualifications Are Suspect...

Presidential Scholars: Obama Is Our 15th Best President -- Bush Is In The Bottom Five

...You can expect no other results.

From Hot Air:

The One came eighth overall in intelligence, right ahead of Billy Jeff, and sixth overall in the category of, ummm, “imagination.” Reagan finished fifth overall in terms of communication abilities (two spots ahead of Obama) and third in “luck,” which I can only take to be a thinly veiled judgment that the demise of the U.S.S.R. after he left office is more coincidence than cause and effect. He also gets the “amiable dunce” treatment, placing 36 out of 43 in intelligence. But don’t take it to heart. This is obviously a poll of lefty academics, with only one Republican from the 20th century (Eisenhower) appearing in the top 15. How ridiculous is it? Number one in the category of “handling the economy” is … FDR. Somewhere, Amity Shlaes is smiling.

From Jules Crittenden:

Is there nothing he can’t do? Less than 2 years in, the Nobel peace laureate is now the 15th best president, according to historians, who like the Norwegian Nobel Committee apparently haven’t noticed that aside from getting elected, he hasn’t exactly committed much peace or history or anything else yet. Unless you count the record deficit, the haphazard politically driven Rube Goldberg re-ordering of the economy with as-yet unknown consequences, the blithe alienating of key allies and the yawning at Islamic terrorism … and I do. They forgot to note that among the things he inherited was George W. Bush’s war strategy and George W. Bush’s victorious general, with hopes of inheriting some of his success in that department.

I would argue that George W. Bush was the compromiser-in-chief, giving Democrats No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold and an amnesty bill. Teh One has given Republicans...nothing. But let's not fool ourselves what this poll was about. There just hasn't been enough Bush-bashing lately.

SCOTUS: Free Association Less Important than Homosexuality

That's the gist of the high court's decision in the Christian Legal Society's case against the University of California. The case pitted the idea of freedom of religion versus a school's right to allow such organizations on campus.

The court bizarrely came down on the side of the school, saying that your First Amendment right of free association is less important than someone who doesn't adhere to your beliefs joining your organization.

But the high court ruled, 5-4, that the policy is a "reasonable and viewpoint-neutral" condition placed on becoming a recognized group, which entitles organizations to certain funding and access to campus facilities. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the religious group is free to exclude nonadherents if it forgoes recognized status. "Hastings ... is dangling the carrot of subsidy, not wielding the stick of prohibition," Ginsburg wrote. She dismissed concerns voiced by the society that the policy would encourage "hostile takeovers" of groups like theirs by nonadherents whose aim is sabotage. "This supposition strikes us as more hypothetical than real," she wrote. "Students tend to self-sort."

If this interpretation is correct, we can expect the University of California to allow skinheads to take over college black and Hispanic student groups with impunity.

Whose Fault Is a Student's $97k of Debt?

According to the story, not the borrower's.

Like many middle-class families, Cortney Munna and her mother began the college selection process with a grim determination. They would do whatever they could to get Cortney into the best possible college, and they maintained a blind faith that the investment would be worth it.

Today, however, Ms. Munna, a 26-year-old graduate of New York University, has nearly $100,000 in student loan debt from her four years in college, and affording the full monthly payments would be a struggle. For much of the time since her 2005 graduation, she's been enrolled in night school, which allows her to defer loan payments.

OK, so this woman went to a college she couldn't afford and got a bunch of loans. Whose fault is it that she amassed the debt? Why, the college, of course.

It is utterly depressing that there are so many people like her facing decades of payments, limited capacity to buy a home and a debt burden that can repel potential life partners. For starters, it's a shared failure of parenting and loan underwriting.

But perhaps the biggest share lies with colleges and universities because they have the most knowledge of the financial aid process. And I would argue that they had an obligation to counsel students like Ms. Munna, who got in too far over their heads.

Sorry, Charlie. The biggest share of the blame goes to...the student who decided to go to a college she couldn't affod. Yes, yes, big pricey college can mean a great job from the get-go, but there are plenty of people with B.A.'s from less prestigious state colleges who have managed to live just fine.

I can identify with the student, but not at the undergraduate level. I went to a low-cost state school and lived at home during college, minimizing the costs. Unlike most of my friends, I graduted debt-free, having paid my own way through college by working. My parents were big believers in living within your means and borrowing only what you could afford to pay back.

But when I decided to go to law school, I took out student loans. Lots of them. And I had two kids in school and decided that I didn't really want an au pair raising them. But that left me with a gigantic student loan to repay and no way out of the debt except to die (which I wasn't planning on doing any time soon). I made a lot of the foolish choices this young woman is likely to make, such as deferment on top of deferment.

At some point, you gotta say, "STOP!" and realize you have to repay the debt. It may be slow and painful, but it must be done. Like this woman, I borrowed the money and didn't worry about how to repay it. But unlike this woman, I recognize that the problem isn't the school or the bank or the credit card. The problem was me. And the problem is her.

As most people reading this know, I'm a huge Dave Ramsey fan. But to be honest, had I remained a huge fan of my father, I would never have needed Dave Ramsey to lead me back to the same financial strategies my parents spent my formative years trying to teach me. The problem was, like so many in my generation, I accepted easy credit as a way of life and didn't want to miss out on the "fun" of spending more than I earned.

I didn't start out that way, mind you; as I said, I was debt-free at the end of college and lived a fairly miserly life throughout my 20's. But after a divorce, remarriage and the death of my mother, I really wasn't too concerned about the debt, and it took me nearly 15 years to realize that about 90% of the stress in my life (and that of my husband) was related to bills and paying them. My husband makes damn good money, but you wouldn't have known that a year ago. We've been slowly digging our way out for about 6-9 months now and things are getting better.

But being a grownup and living well below your earnings is tough, even for a middle-aged mom like me. I guess what I'm saying is that this young woman needs to knuckle down and make the hard choices now, while she's young and single, rather than waiting until she's 40-something with a spouse, kids and a mortgage to support. Those money lessons are painful, but everybody has to learn them eventually, and blaming everybody but yourself for your stupid money decisions only delays you discovering the truth about debt.

Whose Been Indoctrinating the Children?

If you only read leftwing sites for coverage of the Texas Textbook controversy, you'd come away believing education was going to hell in a handbasket and that there was a sudden attempt to indoctrinate the kids in eeeevil ways. Take this from MSNBC:

Among the recommendations facing a final vote: adding language saying the country's Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles and including positive references to the Moral Majority, the National Rifle Association and the GOP’s Contract with America.

Other amendments to the state's curriculum standards for kindergarten through 12th grade would minimize Thomas Jefferson's role in world and U.S. history because he advocated the separation of church and state; require that students learn about "the unintended consequences" of affirmative action; assert that "the right to keep and bear arms" is an important element of a democratic society; and rename the slave trade to the "Atlantic triangular trade.”

Oh, noes. We certainly don't want or need children to have any positive references to the Second Amendment or conservatives. That might halt the slow march to hell liberals have been leading us on forever. From (laughably titled) Teaching Tolerance:

But even if Diskey is right, what’s happening in Texas has national implications. The board’s decisions affect 4.7 million Texas school kids—4.7 million potential future voters who will be acting on biased information.

(Emphasis mine)
Biased information? As opposed to the completely unbiased propaganda information available from groups like Teaching Tolerance? If Teaching Tolerance were actually about informing as opposed to indoctrinating, the argument against the Texas educators might be stronger. But because of groups like Teaching Tolerance, the New York Collective of Radical Educators (CORE) and Rethinking Schools, normal people actually do have to take the educational reins and rench them back to something closer to the center.

The truth is that Teaching Tolerance and other liberal organizations are afraid that students won't be lapping up social justice lessons or twisted views of American history bent to show the United States as racist, sexist, homophobic, greedy and generally a terrible force in the world. If I thought this way, I'd be scared that children might learn nice things about America, too.

The Sugar Police: Riding In to a Town Near You

Student Gets Detention for Possessing Piece of Candy

Ten-year-old Leighann Adair came home in tears, terrified to tell her parents she'd been slapped with a week's worth of detention for possessing a contraband substance:

The forbidden fruit: a piece of Jolly Rancher candy.

When I was in sixth grade, our music teacher informed us at the beginning of the year that she would give any student caught with candy a "U" (for "unacceptable," the worst you could get) in citizenship for that six weeks. The challenge was too great for me, and I was determined to eat candy in her class every. single. day. My candy of choice was Hot Tamales, since I could suck on those and they weren't quite so obvious. Alas, eventually I was caught and received the first (and only) "U" of my school career. My parents were furious, but there was no other punishment. The idea that I would have gotten a week's detention is absurd.

Liberal Utopia in Academia Creates Worst Work Conditions?

Megan McArdle has a piece up about the terrible treatment of adjunct professors and graduate students at universities. The truth is, as anyone taking an English 101 or Algebra course knows, the vast majority of classes at universities these days are not taught by actual tenured professors but by the slave labor of the university system: those who haven't a prayer of gaining tenure.

I'd feel sorrier for them if the bizarre system that allows professors to use arbitrary grading systems and subject students to leftwing rants on unrelated topics weren't so damn cushy for them, or if those not in that system didn't so closely resemble the real world, but, alas, I do not feel sorry for them at all. Welcome to the real world, champ!

I have long theorized that at least some of the leftward drift in academia can be explained by the fact that it has one of the most abusive labor markets in the world. I theorize this because in interacting with many professors, I am bewildered by their beliefs about labor markets more generally; many seem to think of private labor markets as an endless well of exploitation where employees are virtual prisoners with no recourse in the face of horrific abuses. Yet this does not describe the low wage jobs in which I've worked--there were of course individuals who had to hold onto that particular job for idiosyncratic reasons, but as a class, low wage workers do not face the kind of monolithic employer power that a surprising number of academics seem to believe is common.

A recent debate among friends brought forth similar arguments from lefties about the poor and middle class being mistreated by employers (for giving them jobs, I suppose) while the mean ol' CEO and stockholders make billions. It's not fair! How can anybody shop at Wal-Mart in good conscience knowing they buy food from Brazil, for crying out loud? Aren't those clerks and stock boys miserable?

The answer, of course, is that some are miserable but probably not because of their employment. Like most people who work for their income, there are aspects of their jobs they like and others they don't. And most employees are perfectly aware of the tenuousness of their positions, particularly if you live in an at-will employment state.

But such knowledge doesn't make workers more miserable or less productive. In fact, given the behavior of most tenured professors on college campuses, it probably makes those without tenure more responsive to those they teach. But that's just my theory.

Teaching Tolerance: Free Speech Is OK, But You Need to Embrace Empathy More!

The Southern Poverty Law Center's Teaching Tolerance website typically offers up all kinds of goodies for this Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels to comment on, but I was particularly interested in this post, which, if left in the comments of a rightwing blog would be known as concern trolling.
The post is about the five (not four) students at a Live Oak High School who were suspended for wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo (see here for my take). The author begrudgingly acknowledges the totally outrageous idea that students have the right to free speech, even when it offends some, but then launches into the real point of the post: we should curtail our speech if it offends someone, and by someone, she means those celebrating another country's Independence Day.

Public school students have rights, and at a minimum their administrators need to ensure that those rights are protected. But the primary mission of educators in public schools is to teach children how to use those rights, and how to be a member of a diverse society. Students need to learn that rights come with responsibilities. And in a pluralistic society, we need to understand and respect the people who live alongside us.

I haven't looked, but I'm sure the author endorses respecting the rights of, say, those protesting government spending or parents wanting the best education for their children. Well, probably not.

If students want to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, I have no problem with that. But when American students want to wear T-shirts with American flags on them anyday--including Cinco de Mayo--that's not intolerant and it's not insensitive. That's freedom of expression, something those celebrating Cinco de Mayo should learn to embrace. And that's the teachable moment the author should have embraced.

Gay Teen Goes to Prom Then Complains She Wasn't Invited to Other Party

Well, that's what should be the headline. Instead, Constance McMillen is complaining that she went to a "fake prom" while the "real" one was held elsewhere.

To avoid Constance McMillen bringing a female date to her prom, the teen was sent to a "fake prom" while the rest of her class partied at a secret location at an event organized by parents.

McMillen tells The Advocate that a parent-organized prom happened behind her back — she and her date were sent to a Friday night event at a country club in Fulton, Miss., that attracted only five other students. Her school principal and teachers served as chaperones, but clearly there wasn't much to keep an eye on.

"They had two proms and I was only invited to one of them," McMillen says. "The one that I went to had seven people there, and everyone went to the other one I wasn’t invited to."

McMillen was invited to the prom--that's the school sponsored event. The other party was just a party, regardless of what they called it. It's understandable that McMillen should feel hurt and angry that she was left out of the other event, but obviously a lot of people were uncomfortable with her political statement about lesbianism. And, unfortunately, the more vocal and in-your-face homosexuals get about their sexuality, the more they will be subjected to such passive-aggressive tactics.

Mean Girls?

Recently, a friend of mine became aware of the suicide of a teenage girl in Massachusetts, ostensibly because of bullying by "mean girls." The girl, Phoebe Prince, had moved to the United States from Ireland, and evidently, she had been the vicitm of bullying before "because she was pretty and other students were jealous of her."

The case has become something of a sensation, with columns and opinion pieces both here and across the pond, most tut-tutting that administrators and teachers should have "done" something. But what, precisely? Followed Phoebe from class to class, to and from home, on every date (it seems she had a few)? Should they have read every text, every comment on MySpace and Facebook? And is this, as some are saying, an epidemic.

Sorry, ladies, but the answer is no.

The National Crime Victimization Survey, a detailed annual survey of more than 40,000 Americans by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, is considered the most reliable measure of crime because it includes offenses not reported to the police. From 1993 through 2007, the survey reported significant declines in rates of victimization of girls, including all violent crime (down 57 percent), serious and misdemeanor assaults (down 53 percent), robbery (down 83 percent) and sex offenses (down 67 percent).

Girls aren't more violent. They just aren't. Why do girls like Phoebe Prince commit suicide? It's probably a mixture of the bullying and Phoebe's reaction to the bullying. Personally, I blame the 24/7 contact that modern teens have. When I was a teenager back in the Stone Age, the problem with bullies at school stayed at school. When you went home, you didn't have to deal with them anymore because they weren't likely to be calling you to harass you (unless it was a prank phone call, of course).

There have always been bullies. The way children are expected to deal with them has changed. Perhaps some of the problem is based on the way we expect children to handle taunting and teasing. Perhaps we don't prepare our children as well to deal with such things. Or maybe the teasing and taunting is just meaner. Regardless of the reason, mean girls aren't more violent than they were in previous generations. But don't expect the myth of the mean girl to go away any time soon.

Where Diversity Leads

Students want ‘Our Lord' phrase off diplomas

A group of students at Trinity University is lobbying trustees to drop a reference to “Our Lord” on their diplomas, arguing it does not respect the diversity of religions on campus.

“A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to proudly display it in their offices and homes,” said Sidra Qureshi, president of Trinity Diversity Connection. “By having the phrase ‘In the Year of Our Lord,' it is directly referencing Jesus Christ, and not everyone believes in Jesus Christ.”

Qureshi, who is Muslim, has led the charge to tweak the wording, winning support from student government and a campus commencement committee. Trustees are expected to consider the students' request at a May board meeting.

Trinity University was founded by the Presbyterians in 1869. Maybe "Our Lord" can come off the diplomas when the Saudis accept plurality.

Unintentional Humor in the Texas Textbook Debate

Liberals are appoplectic that the Texas Board of Education has made changes to the textbooks the state will purchase. But it would probably help if their organizations hired a few copy editors.

The unintended humor came in a couple of posts on the Southern Poverty Law Center's Teaching Tolerance site (see here and here):

Democratic board member Mary Helen Berlanga made the common sense observation that these men died at the Alamo just the same (sic) Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett, yet they are almost completely ignored in Texas classrooms.

Then there was this:

The Texas State Board of Education has made nationwide headlines in recent weeks by rewriting the curriculum standards for its k-12 textbooks. Texas is the 500-pound guerilla (sic) in textbook publishing.

Maybe if the Southern Poverty Law Center was as concerned with teaching students spelling and grammar as they are about including Cesar Chavez in history books, their ideas might be met with less ridicule.

Diversity Is More Important Than Your Child

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a website called Teaching Tolerance which is anything but. Specifically, the site is designed to give educators propaganda to promote a variety of ideas, including homosexuality, "diversity," unionization and other politically correct ideas.

Don't get me wrong; teaching children to be kind to those not in "their" groups is great. Jesus told us to be kind to each other. But do publicized pep rallies do as much good as simply teaching children to be nice to each other every day? I expect teachers to emphasize this concept daily, not needing banners to encourage kindness or showing astonishment that young children can and will play with others easily with a little encouragement. It's really not bizarre for elementary school children, for example, to easily adapt to playing with different children.

Unfortunately, Teaching Tolerance is more interested in pushing PC ideas than actually helping children learn and graduate. Take this article on single sex education.

The trend toward single-sex classes began in 2006 as part of the No Child Left Behind reforms. The Department of Education issued new rules making it easier for school districts to create them. Seven years ago, only 11 public schools offered single-sex classes. Now, the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education reports that at least 445 classrooms nationwide are segregated by gender.

Why the rush to segregate? Some educators see it as an answer to the “boy crisis.” They believe that boys struggle in school more than girls and point to lower test scores and higher dropout rates as proof. Critics of this viewpoint say the “crisis” tends to rest with boys at inner city and rural schools – areas where public schools are weak in general.

Beyond this debate, many educators simply feel that single-sex education is best for some – though not all – students. They believe parents should have the choice of putting their children in all-boy or all-girl classes.

The author goes on to declare that only "anecdotal evidence" exists in support of single sex education. But several studies give single sex education positive scores. And women's colleges have been touted for their academic excellence and opportunities for decades.

But the article links to no evidence supporting either single sex education or co-ed education. In fact, all we're left with is this:

Count me as one of the skeptics about single-sex education. I have a hunch that in ten years this we’ll look back on this as one of those “What were we thinking?” moments in school reform. But I’m willing to see where this experiment is going. And for the sake of the kids involved, I sure hope I’m wrong.

As a conservative, I champion a variety of educational approaches, knowing that children learn different ways. If one person's child excels in a co-ed environment, then, by all means, support that. But if another person's child does poorly in that environment, why should he/she be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness? Unlike the author, I think in 10 years, there will still be many supporters of single sex education because it works very well for some people. Women's colleges serve a purpose for women. Why should any child be treated differently because he/she is in elementary school?

What the Safe School Czar Wants Your 7th Grader Reading

Pretty disgusting. Not because of the homosexuality but because of the sexuality. Not sure this is appropriate for 16-year-olds to read, let alone 12-year-olds.

Propaganda for Your Schools

President Obama's Address to Schoolchildren

President Obama's planned address to schoolchildren is getting quite a bit of coverage today, which is probably good for Democrats, since it takes the focus off their failed Obamacare plans.

But that doesn't mean this is good for Americans. For the record, I don't have a problem with the POTUS giving a televised speech to schoolchildren on the importance of getting a good education. But I do have a problem with the curriculum that is meant to accompany the speech.

Obama will challenge American students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their educational success, according to a letter sent last week to school principals by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

"He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens," Duncan wrote.

The letter encourages teachers to use the speech as a classroom tool, asking students to discuss such things as "Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?" and "What is President Obama inspiring you to do?"

Michelle Malkin posts on alternatives to Obama's speech.

TAKS Rap

It's TAKS week here in Texas, so, here's the TAKS rap:


Thanks to Lone Star Times.

The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills is our very own standardized test (gasp!) designed to figure out what the hell teachers are pouring into the minds of our children. Most years, there's a panic among the faculty when the students have to take the test. I suppose if you've been watching films for three weeks and doing word searches for a month, you might be concerned about how your students will do on a test.

Homosexuality 101

Wisconsin high school features homosexuality course.

I guess it was bound to happen.

11-th grade English teacher Sarah Arnold says she was inspired to create the curriculum, entitled "Exposing Hidden Homophobia," when she heard an "anti-gay undertone" in students' conversations, which included making fun of "anything that defied gender stereotype," according to an article printed in the pro-homosexual publication by the Southern Poverty Law Center "Teaching Tolerance."

"Some people would say we don't have a wide demographic variety here," Arnold said of the mostly white Elkhorn Area High School. "It's more accurate to say that we have demographics that aren't acknowledged."

The program Arnold developed included "in-depth exploration of depictions" of homosexuality in mass media; several homosexual-themed films, documentaries, books and novels; internet research on "the nature of homophobia"; and a "homophobia questionnaire" coupled with a "heterosexual questionnaire" designed to take questions "commonly asked of homosexuals and ask them of heterosexuals" - e.g., "When did you decide to become heterosexual?'"

Although students were reluctant and parents "balked," particularly Christian parents, Arnold would argue that the project supported "higher-order thinking skills" because students were asked to perform such tasks as assembling and presenting portfolios of their research into homosexual culture and media.

The article claims that, thanks to the program, students began to adopt a more favorable view of homosexuality, as evidenced by portfolio essays and an increased membership in the school's Gay-Straight Alliance.

At a time when we're told it is not the proper place for schools to teach morals, is it right for schools to teach this?

The Real George W. Bush

Interesting column on a bunch of Texas reporters interviewing President Bush and seeing the guy we knew as governor shine through. Most particularly, I liked the list of Bush's accomplishments, the ones liberals don't want to acknowledge:

Keeping America safe from a post-9/11 terrorist attack. Measuring school results through No Child Left Behind. Giving seniors access to prescription drugs through Medicare. Creating a record number of community health centers. Presiding over 52 consecutive months of job growth. Pressuring Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction. Tackling AIDS in Africa. Responding to China and India's engineering prowess through expanding math and science research. Responding with the surge in Iraq.

President Bush gets little credit for the important things he did right, but plenty of blame for things that went wrong. It's pathetic, actually, that so little attention has been paid to the compassionate part of his conservatism and too much time has been spent castigating him for not being nice to terrorists.

Taking the Civics Test

The test is here. I scored 93.94%.

Evidently, most people--including, I assume those unfortunate Obama voters who didn't know who controls Congress--didn't do so well.

Kevin Drum notes that everyone did badly, but Baby Boomers did somewhat better.

Other ISI findings, by the way, include these: the more education you have, the better you do; it doesn't matter much what kind of university you went to, whether you go to church, or what your politics are; watching lots of TV is bad for your score; and reading lots of history is good for your score.