Month: June 2014

by

Rating the Worst

Rating universities based on non-academic measures seems wrong.  Rating schools on academic measures appears invalid, given the differing missions of universities. So what kind of ratings would be legitimate to determine the efficacy of federal aid? After all, $180 billion ought to be spent wisely, no matter what bureaucrats say.

A host of public universities have made it their mission to educate first-generation college students from working class families. I can not think of a more worthy mission, and I am proud to teach at one such public university in Michigan.  In spite of entrance requirements, this is an at-risk population, both for financial and academic reasons. Even while receiving Pell grants, students must hold jobs and the jobs compete with their studies. The four-year graduation is an anomaly in such universities.

In today’s New York Times (June 25, 2014) a study by the Education Trust is cited which study which lays a ground level minimum for success in these unversities:

  • 17 per cent enrollment of poor and working class students
  • a six-year graduation rate of 15%
  • a three-year default rate on student loans of no more than 28%

These are not high standards for success, but they attempt to target universities which are simply processing students to cull their tuition and send them on their way, the so-called “drop-out” factories.  I would not be proud to teach at such an exploitive university.

University ratings are generally a farce, but targeting abusive academic institutions can only reflect well on those that are faithfully serving the working poor. It can also disarm the critics of higher education who use deceptive statistics to destroy their credibility.  Ultimately it can prevent students from beginning their careers in deep debt, but no diploma.  This can’t be bad.

So while we know that statistics can lie, the egregiously poor performers usually have earned their distinction. So let’s not be protecting them on the principle that ratings are often flawed or arbitrary.  There’s evidence enough to expose the marginal universities that are not ethically serving their students.

 

 

by

Showing Up

Woody Allen is credited with the statement “80 per cent of success is showing up.” If you teach public school or engage in voter registration, you get this. Your job is to get the unwilling to be minimally willing and move on from there. If the students or voters don’t “show up,” your work is futile.

Public schooling and voting for public officials are considered the great institutions of American society. Both have fallen into disrepute because of modern inventions that confound them, standardized testing and voter suppression laws.  Both regulations rationalize against “showing up,” but rather that you must show up at the right time and meet certain qualifications. Those who advocate for such regulation believe that the processes of learning and voting need strict quality controls. As much as this makes sense, the regulations of standardized testing and voter id/ voting hours are not affecting quality, but participation.

If you are not directly involved in teaching or voter registration you may not understand that both learning and voting require engagement. Without it the rest of the process is defunct. It’s like another popular American institution, the lottery. If you don’t play, how can you win? As one who never plays the lottery, I can attest my interest in numbers chosen on TV or in the newspaper is nil. I am a nonparticipant.  I don’t even get why people throw their money away on such things.  Supposed you believed this about education or voting?  You don’t show up.

I have taught high school and listened to people explain what they vote for, and I know that people do not always show up for the right reasons. I know that there were days when I breathed a sigh of relief when Barry or Linda did not show up for class. But then Barry or Linda show up a week later and say, “What did I miss?” I’m thinking: a week of education. I’m wishing they had been there to know what was going on even if they didn’t do it.

You can say I’m suffering from low expectations, but I also know that these students can suddenly become engaged with the novel we’re reading for no particular reason and take off. Or someone will get through to them, and they will see the point of learning. And I think the same is true of voter registration.

I suspect those who disdain the “showing up” philosophy are thinking, No one begged me to show up, I just did. And why can’t everyone else do what I did? Take initiative, accept responsibility, do what’s right. But if you teach public school or attempt to get the vote out, you can see how thin the margin is between doing what’s right and doing nothing.  There is a redemptive moment in many lives that happens just because they showed up.

And if you want to get down to redemption, you have to believe, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”  If you don’t accept that grace or luck or connections have something to do with success, then you probably don’t believe in “showing up.”  You probably think it all comes of trying harder and having the right attitude. Good luck with that.

For my part, I begin this day asking for mercy not to screw up, and God takes it from there. And I will screw up, but I know that God will remember I showed up that morning. I will learn something, and I will remember to vote.