Good afternoon. I apologize for not posting in a month and a half. Things have been very busy for me at work and are only now starting to slow down somewhat. It is indeed dusty in my little corner of the internets. Today I want to present a thought-provoking link.
The following article from Inside Higher Ed is the choice du jour. It seems that UC Berkeley researchers have been looking at how high school grades and SAT/ACT scores correlate with student success in college. What they found was that high school grades correlated most closely to college success and retention - not standardized test scores. This is interesting because much of the logic behind standardized testing is that no matter who you are or what school you attend you can be measured equally using the same standards. The argument was that high schools grade differently and what is hard at one school is not so hard at another. Standardized testing leveled the field and told admissions officials who the best students were and supposedly, who was therefore likely to succeed in college.
Importantly, the researchers found that all of the criteria that are currently used by admissions offices only explained 30% of the variance in grades achieved in college, and hence, success. This means that 70% of how well one will do in college cannot be explained by any of the measures currently used to admit students (extra-curricular activities, standardized testing, grades, letters of recommendation, etc...). Isn't that interesting?
Have a wonderful weekend!
Showing posts with label interesting links. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interesting links. Show all posts
Friday, July 06, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Life After College
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.
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.
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!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
A Thought-Provoking Article
A couple of Sunday's ago, one of the more thoughtful articles (subscription required) I have seen in a long time about the business of college admissions came out. The author, Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology, makes a number of points in the piece which are worth devoting some time to:
1. The nature of admissions to highly selective institutions has encouraged students to expend more energy on high school resume-padding than engaging their minds and spirits on risk-taking and intellectual curiosity.
2. So much is built into just "getting in" to Name Brand University, that once they get there, students can coast. They no longer have as much motivation to continue the life-long process of learning.
3. It is impossible to predict the fit of an institution to a student, and vice-versa. Differences between the "top" students and "top" institutions are so minute, that one cannot reliably evaluate those differences.
4. As a student, the most accurate time to determine whether or not a college is right for you is after you are actually enrolled at a college and have spent some time there, not before.
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.
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.
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.
Schwartz acknowledges that his proposal for a new admissions environment has flaws (how to deal with historically underrepresented populations of students, for example) and that people will not like the random aspect of admissions. There is much to discuss here. I wanted to get Schwartz' salient points out in the open. The next few blog posts will deal with the various issues he raises. I encourage readers to respond if they are interested, as always. I would love to get a discussion going.
1. The nature of admissions to highly selective institutions has encouraged students to expend more energy on high school resume-padding than engaging their minds and spirits on risk-taking and intellectual curiosity.
2. So much is built into just "getting in" to Name Brand University, that once they get there, students can coast. They no longer have as much motivation to continue the life-long process of learning.
3. It is impossible to predict the fit of an institution to a student, and vice-versa. Differences between the "top" students and "top" institutions are so minute, that one cannot reliably evaluate those differences.
4. As a student, the most accurate time to determine whether or not a college is right for you is after you are actually enrolled at a college and have spent some time there, not before.
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.
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.
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.
Schwartz acknowledges that his proposal for a new admissions environment has flaws (how to deal with historically underrepresented populations of students, for example) and that people will not like the random aspect of admissions. There is much to discuss here. I wanted to get Schwartz' salient points out in the open. The next few blog posts will deal with the various issues he raises. I encourage readers to respond if they are interested, as always. I would love to get a discussion going.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Interesting Writing Elsewhere on Education
I like the idea of providing some links to compelling reading about education. Though I wouldn't want this blog to become a link dump, I think it is appropriate to link to outside work from time to time. Thus, without further ado:
1. A Los Angeles Times (free subscription required) opinion piece on the soaring costs associated with attending some private institutions. The target of this particular screed is George Washington University, which recently became the first college in the United States to charge over $50,000 a year for tuition ($39,000/year) plus assorted fees, housing included. Though the first university to hit the $50K barrier, it will not be the last. What I like about the article is that it explicates the dirty reasons as to why the price of an education has risen so dramatically over the past decade.
2. An article from Inside Higher Ed on the upcoming novel, Acceptance, about the ridiculous nature of admissions to highly competitive colleges and universities. The novel is a satire of the entire process, from selecting the right preschool, to the hiring of consultants to help an applicant flush out their profile. In an admissions world that puts so much pressure on students to get into the "best" colleges, it is not surprising the measures people are resorting to.
3. A National Public Radio series on "The College Admissions Game." This is an examination of the issues surrounding how college admissions became so nutty, alternatives to following the herd, and tips for surviving the process with some integrity.
Enjoy!
1. A Los Angeles Times (free subscription required) opinion piece on the soaring costs associated with attending some private institutions. The target of this particular screed is George Washington University, which recently became the first college in the United States to charge over $50,000 a year for tuition ($39,000/year) plus assorted fees, housing included. Though the first university to hit the $50K barrier, it will not be the last. What I like about the article is that it explicates the dirty reasons as to why the price of an education has risen so dramatically over the past decade.
2. An article from Inside Higher Ed on the upcoming novel, Acceptance, about the ridiculous nature of admissions to highly competitive colleges and universities. The novel is a satire of the entire process, from selecting the right preschool, to the hiring of consultants to help an applicant flush out their profile. In an admissions world that puts so much pressure on students to get into the "best" colleges, it is not surprising the measures people are resorting to.
3. A National Public Radio series on "The College Admissions Game." This is an examination of the issues surrounding how college admissions became so nutty, alternatives to following the herd, and tips for surviving the process with some integrity.
Enjoy!
Friday, February 16, 2007
The Long Wait for an Admission Decision
It may seem like a lifetime has passed since you submitted your applications for admission. In many instances, the wait is not over. If it has seemed like a lifetime up until this point, then figure on at least another lifetime or two until you officially hear. In the meantime, I have posted some notes on what you should be focusing on until the decisions start rolling in. In this post, I want to point you to some interesting articles I have been reading lately about higher education.
1. A fascinating story on the state of diversity at UC Berkeley from the New York Times (NYT). The demographics, in California at least, of higher education are changing rapidly. How is this affecting traditional minority students? What do students think about issues of diversity?
2. Another NYT piece on rural colleges and universities. As students become accustomed to more modern luxuries, e.g. Starbucks, massive cineplexes, and ethnic cuisine, how do rural colleges compete with their urban and suburban contemporaries?
3. College Rankings, courtesy of the Washington Monthly Magazine. Why should you care about another ranking system? Start with their premises for what make a college or university excellent, "how well it performs as an engine of social mobility (ideally helping the poor to get rich rather than the very rich to get very, very rich), how well it does in fostering scientific and humanistic research, and how well it promotes an ethic of service to country." It is a compelling way to think about education. I would like to explore this ranking system more in depth in a future post.
4. Wired article on an education program designed to teach students the art of making video games that have meaning. Think world peace over world domination, or swords to plowshares.
Have a great weekend!
1. A fascinating story on the state of diversity at UC Berkeley from the New York Times (NYT). The demographics, in California at least, of higher education are changing rapidly. How is this affecting traditional minority students? What do students think about issues of diversity?
2. Another NYT piece on rural colleges and universities. As students become accustomed to more modern luxuries, e.g. Starbucks, massive cineplexes, and ethnic cuisine, how do rural colleges compete with their urban and suburban contemporaries?
3. College Rankings, courtesy of the Washington Monthly Magazine. Why should you care about another ranking system? Start with their premises for what make a college or university excellent, "how well it performs as an engine of social mobility (ideally helping the poor to get rich rather than the very rich to get very, very rich), how well it does in fostering scientific and humanistic research, and how well it promotes an ethic of service to country." It is a compelling way to think about education. I would like to explore this ranking system more in depth in a future post.
4. Wired article on an education program designed to teach students the art of making video games that have meaning. Think world peace over world domination, or swords to plowshares.
Have a great weekend!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)