As I work on putting together the graduation ceremony for the College where I am presently employed, I have been thinking about life after college. For many seniors, the time to look for a job actually starts during their final year. Others choose to wait until after graduating. Whatever the case, it seems that many of the demons that haunted students in getting into college are reappearing in their job searches. According to a New York Times article, employers of recent or soon-to-be graduates are increasingly looking at an applicant's GPA. Some even go so far as to look at SAT scores. Deja vu.
While this practice of examining GPAs and SATs is not universal, it seems to be a growing trend. I am not sure that either of these measures provide any sort of reliable indicators of how good an applicant will be as an employee. Of course, much of modern college admissions are based on these same figures. Employers may figure that if it is good enough for Harvard or UCLA, then it must be good enough for them. The NYT article rightly points out the fact that some students, who would otherwise be excellent employees, do not have stellar GPAs. For students in these instances, it is suggested that you emphasize your GPA in only your major courses, or your GPA in your last two years of college. Likewise, if one's forte is extracurricular activities, then you would do well to emphasize your activity in those over GPA.
The bad news, or good depending on your perspective, is that high school doesn't signal the end of the importance of grades. While GPA is not the singular best indicator of future performance, many people (and institutions) believe it is better than most. Many of those people are in positions to admit you to their college or hire you into their organization. Just as in college admissions, GPA is not the final arbiter of whether you will be offered a job. It is one of many factors that can be considered. Unlike in most college admissions decisions, employers actually have the ability to talk to you, through face to face interviews, before they decide if you and your 2.85 GPA are worthy of their company.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
Links to Interesting Education Articles
There is so much information posted to the Web that it is often difficult to get a handle on even a fraction of it. As this information relates to education, there is more to be found than a humble worker bee (read: me) has the time to explore. With that in mind, let me provide some links to interesting articles I have read in the recent past.
- First up is a New York Times article (registration may be required) on an institutional focus at Harvard University on teaching in the classroom. It is not well known among many propsective college students that not all teaching at colleges and universities is created equal. In fact, teaching at many of the largest research universities (e.g. University of California, Harvard, University of Texas) can be spotty. Professors at these institutions are rewarded for doing research and publishing their findings, not necessarily for teaching. There are many wonderful and dedicated teachers at these institutions. However, it is important to note the orientation of the insitution, which can be different than what one might find at what are seen as traditionally teaching insitutions (e.g. California State University. Amherst, and other small liberal arts institutions).
- A recent article at Inside Higher Ed examines the way in which ranking systems, specifically, US News and World Report, may be miscategorizing colleges and universities. These miscategorized instutitions then get compared to their peer institutions. For example, certain universities get categorized as National Doctoral institutions, but in fact, draw most of thier students from a regional or local area. Is it fair or even informative to students and parents to compare such a regional doctoral institution to one that draws its students from throughout the US, or one that is twice as large?
If readers run across an interesting story related to education, college admissions, or any of the other topics covered in this blog, please post it to the comments section.
Have a great weekend!
- First up is a New York Times article (registration may be required) on an institutional focus at Harvard University on teaching in the classroom. It is not well known among many propsective college students that not all teaching at colleges and universities is created equal. In fact, teaching at many of the largest research universities (e.g. University of California, Harvard, University of Texas) can be spotty. Professors at these institutions are rewarded for doing research and publishing their findings, not necessarily for teaching. There are many wonderful and dedicated teachers at these institutions. However, it is important to note the orientation of the insitution, which can be different than what one might find at what are seen as traditionally teaching insitutions (e.g. California State University. Amherst, and other small liberal arts institutions).
- A recent article at Inside Higher Ed examines the way in which ranking systems, specifically, US News and World Report, may be miscategorizing colleges and universities. These miscategorized instutitions then get compared to their peer institutions. For example, certain universities get categorized as National Doctoral institutions, but in fact, draw most of thier students from a regional or local area. Is it fair or even informative to students and parents to compare such a regional doctoral institution to one that draws its students from throughout the US, or one that is twice as large?
If readers run across an interesting story related to education, college admissions, or any of the other topics covered in this blog, please post it to the comments section.
Have a great weekend!
Friday, May 04, 2007
How to Account for the Randomness of It All
I apologize that I have not posted as much lately. I would like to wrap up Barry Schwartz' opinion article that I have been going through for a month or so. Let us jump in!
5. Because there is so little measurable difference between students at the top of the statistical heap (a group that grows larger seemingly every year), colleges could lump all of the "acceptable" students together and then randomly pick the names of those who will be admitted.
Randomized selection of admits could potentially make the admissions process more fair. Today, a student whose parent(s) graduated from the college the student has applied to is given a slight preference over those whose parents did not attend the college. So-called legacy students get bonus points because they happened to be lucky enough to be born to a former graduate. I don't think this is particularly fair. If two students have the exact same GPAs, SATs, and extra-curricular activities, why would the legacy student be a better fit for the college? Wouldn't a flip of the coin be a more fair alternative?
6. Instead of students working to be the "best" applicant to Name Brand University, they could work to be good enough. Once you have reached the point of "good enough," you have as good of a chance of being admitted as all the other "good enoughs." According to Schwartz, this would allow students to pursue activities because they want to, not because they want to pad their application.
I like the train of thought here. We should be encouraging students to pursue their interests and passions rather than the things they think will look good on a college application. Colleges have a fairly good idea of the pool of applicants that they would be perfectly happy admitting. When you look at that pool, there may be some variation in background, but overall, an entering freshman class composed of a randomized group of these individuals would be acceptable. Admissions officers like to talk about shaping their incoming class, but mostly this is a crapshoot anyway. Colleges offer spots of admissions to many more students than they will enroll. The shaping is minimal at best.
In his origninal opinion piece, Schwartz makes note of dealing with special populations of students, like the above mentioned legacies, athletes, and students who come from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented at colleges and universities. I have already talked about my view of the fairness in specially valuing legacies. Athletes are a different class. Many, though not all, colleges treat athletes differently. Hint: Athletes aren't always held to the same academic expectations as their non-athletic classmates. The last group, however, is of special concern. If we hold the belief that college is about equalling or levelling the playing field, then we need to take care in not diminishing the opportunities for students who, because of their background, have historically been underrepresented and under-supported.
7. Such a system would have the effect of teaching students about the randomness of life. We all like to think of the American system as a meritocracy (those who work hard and are smart are rewarded), but in actuality, success and failure have a lot to do with luck and chance. Schwartz argues that this would imbue students with a newfound level of sympathy and empathy for the less fortunate around them.
Randomness does play an important role in life. Think about your parents. Then think about the parents of your other friends. How would your or your friends' lives been affected if you had the others' parents? You have no control over who you are born to, what happens to you when you are a baby, where you grow up, and a myriad of other factors. Now think about the homeless family that is struggling just to live. How easily that could have been any one of us. Most of us are closer to homelessness than we care to imagine. How would a lost job, mental illness, little or no familial support, or the a death of a parent affect your family. If you have not had to deal with these things, then consider yourself lucky. But, what if? We could all stand to gain a sense of compassion for the other. College is as good of a place to start as any.
Happy weekend!
5. Because there is so little measurable difference between students at the top of the statistical heap (a group that grows larger seemingly every year), colleges could lump all of the "acceptable" students together and then randomly pick the names of those who will be admitted.
Randomized selection of admits could potentially make the admissions process more fair. Today, a student whose parent(s) graduated from the college the student has applied to is given a slight preference over those whose parents did not attend the college. So-called legacy students get bonus points because they happened to be lucky enough to be born to a former graduate. I don't think this is particularly fair. If two students have the exact same GPAs, SATs, and extra-curricular activities, why would the legacy student be a better fit for the college? Wouldn't a flip of the coin be a more fair alternative?
6. Instead of students working to be the "best" applicant to Name Brand University, they could work to be good enough. Once you have reached the point of "good enough," you have as good of a chance of being admitted as all the other "good enoughs." According to Schwartz, this would allow students to pursue activities because they want to, not because they want to pad their application.
I like the train of thought here. We should be encouraging students to pursue their interests and passions rather than the things they think will look good on a college application. Colleges have a fairly good idea of the pool of applicants that they would be perfectly happy admitting. When you look at that pool, there may be some variation in background, but overall, an entering freshman class composed of a randomized group of these individuals would be acceptable. Admissions officers like to talk about shaping their incoming class, but mostly this is a crapshoot anyway. Colleges offer spots of admissions to many more students than they will enroll. The shaping is minimal at best.
In his origninal opinion piece, Schwartz makes note of dealing with special populations of students, like the above mentioned legacies, athletes, and students who come from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented at colleges and universities. I have already talked about my view of the fairness in specially valuing legacies. Athletes are a different class. Many, though not all, colleges treat athletes differently. Hint: Athletes aren't always held to the same academic expectations as their non-athletic classmates. The last group, however, is of special concern. If we hold the belief that college is about equalling or levelling the playing field, then we need to take care in not diminishing the opportunities for students who, because of their background, have historically been underrepresented and under-supported.
7. Such a system would have the effect of teaching students about the randomness of life. We all like to think of the American system as a meritocracy (those who work hard and are smart are rewarded), but in actuality, success and failure have a lot to do with luck and chance. Schwartz argues that this would imbue students with a newfound level of sympathy and empathy for the less fortunate around them.
Randomness does play an important role in life. Think about your parents. Then think about the parents of your other friends. How would your or your friends' lives been affected if you had the others' parents? You have no control over who you are born to, what happens to you when you are a baby, where you grow up, and a myriad of other factors. Now think about the homeless family that is struggling just to live. How easily that could have been any one of us. Most of us are closer to homelessness than we care to imagine. How would a lost job, mental illness, little or no familial support, or the a death of a parent affect your family. If you have not had to deal with these things, then consider yourself lucky. But, what if? We could all stand to gain a sense of compassion for the other. College is as good of a place to start as any.
Happy weekend!
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Wisely Choosing a Financial Aid Lender
Editor's Note: Samantha Kahn, a financial aid expert who has worked in a variety of institutional settings, has written today's post.
If you're thinking about attending college in the fall, you're probably also thinking about how to pay for it. In the midst of those decisions, it has recently been discovered that some colleges and financial aid officers have had improper links with certain lenders, which has resulted in a lack of choice for students. Unfortunately the coverage has been presented in such a way that all colleges and all financial aid officers are under suspicion.
There are two federal loan programs, the Stafford Loan Program and the Direct Loan Program. The simple difference is that the funds come from different sources. Loan limits and deferment benefits are the same with repayment options differing slightly. If a college is in the Stafford Loan program, you choose your lender. Many schools have used lender lists for informational purposes, and these lists are not intended to limit your choice.
All of the colleges I've worked for used the Stafford loan program and had lender lists, with seven to 22 lenders on it. The list at each of these schools was actually a chart, with the name and contact information of each lender, the loan servicing company (sometimes but not usually the same company that originates the loans) and their contact information, the interest rate and origination fee (set by the US Dept. of Education and the same across the board), and the borrower benefits and conditions. I have never worked in a school that insisted students use a lender on the list.
Borrowers should examine the borrower benefits and conditions, though I've always thought that it was good to know if the originating company would also service the loan. The borrower benefits generally have included an X% reduction on the interest rate you pay if you make Y number of on-time payments, or a refund of all or part of the origination fee. For example, one lender may offer a bigger reduction than another, but the on-time payment period is 48 months instead of 36.
I've worked with students and parents who have reviewed the terms offered by each lender; people who have chosen a lender because a friend chose that lender; people who borrowed from the bank at which they have a checking account or other loans (like mortgages or car loans - be aware that a branch employee will most likely refer you to an 800 number if you have questions about a student or PLUS loan); and even students who have chosen a lender by figuratively throwing a dart at the list.
Obviously, I think it is best to do the research and determine which lender offers the best terms for your needs (or what you think may be your needs when you finish school). In the unlikely event that the college you are attending has been involved in improper conduct with lenders, you'll be protecting yourself from that as well as from signing papers you haven't read, which you know you should never do. Understanding the terms is difficult, particularly if you've never borrowed a loan before, and any financial aid officer should be willing to explain what certain terms mean. Be an informed borrower - it's the best way to protect yourself from any surprises.
If you're thinking about attending college in the fall, you're probably also thinking about how to pay for it. In the midst of those decisions, it has recently been discovered that some colleges and financial aid officers have had improper links with certain lenders, which has resulted in a lack of choice for students. Unfortunately the coverage has been presented in such a way that all colleges and all financial aid officers are under suspicion.
There are two federal loan programs, the Stafford Loan Program and the Direct Loan Program. The simple difference is that the funds come from different sources. Loan limits and deferment benefits are the same with repayment options differing slightly. If a college is in the Stafford Loan program, you choose your lender. Many schools have used lender lists for informational purposes, and these lists are not intended to limit your choice.
All of the colleges I've worked for used the Stafford loan program and had lender lists, with seven to 22 lenders on it. The list at each of these schools was actually a chart, with the name and contact information of each lender, the loan servicing company (sometimes but not usually the same company that originates the loans) and their contact information, the interest rate and origination fee (set by the US Dept. of Education and the same across the board), and the borrower benefits and conditions. I have never worked in a school that insisted students use a lender on the list.
Borrowers should examine the borrower benefits and conditions, though I've always thought that it was good to know if the originating company would also service the loan. The borrower benefits generally have included an X% reduction on the interest rate you pay if you make Y number of on-time payments, or a refund of all or part of the origination fee. For example, one lender may offer a bigger reduction than another, but the on-time payment period is 48 months instead of 36.
I've worked with students and parents who have reviewed the terms offered by each lender; people who have chosen a lender because a friend chose that lender; people who borrowed from the bank at which they have a checking account or other loans (like mortgages or car loans - be aware that a branch employee will most likely refer you to an 800 number if you have questions about a student or PLUS loan); and even students who have chosen a lender by figuratively throwing a dart at the list.
Obviously, I think it is best to do the research and determine which lender offers the best terms for your needs (or what you think may be your needs when you finish school). In the unlikely event that the college you are attending has been involved in improper conduct with lenders, you'll be protecting yourself from that as well as from signing papers you haven't read, which you know you should never do. Understanding the terms is difficult, particularly if you've never borrowed a loan before, and any financial aid officer should be willing to explain what certain terms mean. Be an informed borrower - it's the best way to protect yourself from any surprises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)