Week – Shaping the Future of New York

Non-profit or For-Profit. Necessary Evil?

Employers are more likely to hire non-profit college alumni than a person with a for-profit college degree. What exactly is the difference between the two? What is the stigma that comes along with for-profit college degrees?

Most colleges are non-profit. State and many private colleges are nonprofit which charges their students tuition but they spend that money on educating the students. The money is used to pay the salaries of professors and instructors. Brooklyn College would be an example of non-profit institution. On the other hand, a for-profit college charges on tuition but doesn’t always use all that money on the student’s education, but rather marketing and recruiting. This would lead to lower salaries of the professors and less quality of education for the students.

It is inevitable, therefore, that non-profit schools have better accreditation by the employers in the real world. For-profit schools are usually easier to get accepted to especially if one has the money. This is where the stigma play its role. Does their degree have a significant value? Is it worth it to go to a for-profit college? It isn’t uncommon that some of them can run out of business at anytime.

Striking News

On May 12, 2016, Professional Staff Congress (CUNY’s Faculty Union) voted to authorize a strike that has been anticipated for months. As most of us, if not all of us, are aware, CUNY faculty have been out of contract for five years and gone without pay raises in six years. This means that, though living costs in New York City have risen by 23%, professors are living with salary rates made for six years ago.

The strike, authorized by 92% of 10,000 faculty members, is designed to avoid the academic year, but the union’s president Barbara Bowen says it may extend into the fall.

The 2015-2016 school year has been a year of protests, and after a busy November, PSC decided to hold a strike-authorization vote, despite the fact that public-sector workers in New York are not legally allowed to strike. Now, several months later, there has been no talk of compromise and CUNY professors have finalized their decision to strike. It is unclear whether or not their off-season strike will qualify the union for a fine as of yet.

Though Cuomo has dropped his efforts to cut CUNY’s budget by a third, his lack of prioritizing CUNY employees is not only worrisome and disrespectful, it is harmful to the city and the state. CUNY has not been prioritized for some time, and this situation begs us to ask the question how much longer can the system be sustained without funding? How can a university run effectively when its best professors are considering jumping ship, or have already done so, for higher pay? If the city and state were not acknowledging the fact that CUNY’s lack of contracts are a problem before, I certainly hope they will now.

In short, this development does not shock me, but it does leave me with many questions. If CUNY faculty members are still on strike come the fall semester, what will this mean for CUNY’s students? What will it mean for professors unwilling to return to work before negotiations?

Ballesteros, Carlos. “CUNY Faculty Authorizes a Strike Vote.” The Nation, 30 November 2015. Web. 13 May 2016.

Brown, Sarah. “CUNY’s Faculty Union Votes to Authorize Strike.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 May 2016. Web. 13 May 2016.

Feminism and Greek Life

Something that we didn’t really get to in class is the social atmosphere on campus, primarily because (I think) we’ve been emphasizing that the average college student is no longer the 4-year residential student in Harvard-esque dorms and leafy green fields. And while we at a commuter campus may not feel the same atmosphere of “college” as some residential schools do, I think it’s an interesting topic nonetheless and speaks to the students of this generation.

This Times article from a few weeks ago, entitled “When a Feminist Pledges a Sorority,” talks about the seemingly contradictory values of feminism and Greek life. For some reason, over the last few years, sorority pledging has spiked significantly, much to the dismay of the feminists of the 70s and 80s. While many feminists (especially of generations past) see the sorority structure as an expression of white male dominance–many sororities have strict standards for dress and makeup, and national chapters still prohibit alcohol in their houses, for instance–today’s undergraduate feminists aim to redefine the role of the sorority. Many sororities have coordinated networking events for their members, held discussion forums on gender and sexuality, and act as a support system for young, ambitious women. And while the desire to be part of Greek life may seem like playing into male supremacy, many of these young women speak about today’s sororities as a way of destroying the patriarchy “from the inside.” After all, fraternity alumni make up a huge part of Fortune 500 CEOs, and many Silicon Valley success stories (Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram) had their base in a frat house. Undergraduate women see today’s sororities as their opportunity to build up lasting connections and advance their professional careers.

Before I read this article, I think I had a negative view of the whole pledging system and Greek life–who would want to stand in front of a bunch of judgmental women in heels and makeup, waiting for an evaluation? It feels so demeaning. But reading about these young feminists and the potential they view in sororities, I feel more inspired. Of course, sororities still have what to improve on, like broadening their inclusiveness and removing the ban on alcohol (which would give sororities control over parties, likely diminishing cases of sexual assault), but they could be heading there. Maybe there’s still a way to go until a college startup run by sorority women turns into the next Facebook, but I’d be very excited when it happens.

Defining Academic Freedom

As I was reading this Inside Higher Ed article titled “Defining Academic Freedom”, I began to realize a critical yet unfortunate fact. I realized that the majority of my educational experience in a classroom mirrored the list of what academic freedom does not entail. Looking back to freshman year of undergrad I’ve seen professors intentionally impose their political, religious, or social ideologies on the students. I can think back to high school experiences where there were questions on tests where the “correct” answer would go against their beliefs. There are moments now in college where I feel that students who are in the minority regarding political views, feel the need to keep their ideologies to themselves with the fear of being harassed, embarrassed, or shamed by other students.

I’ve had professors who’ve flaunted their tenure with the intent to make a clear authoritative distinction between their status as tenured faculty members and us, the young and ignorant students. This dynamic is most evident on the first few days of class as it is used as a way to set the tone for how the class will be conducted. As the class progresses, the students are waist deep in information that only reinforces the strong ideologies presented by the professor.

This article clearly illustrates academic freedom and its potential to allow students to have a holistic educational experience. Have you experienced academic freedom in your college experience? Has there been an instance in college where you felt stifled in a classroom as a result of the students classroom etiquette or the professors ideologies?

Breaking away from the 4 year college structure into something more promising

I’m back with another blog but I just had to share this article by Selingo (not posted on this week’s Higher Ed or readings) with everyone, curtesy of professor Hainline. During our earlier class discussions, we questioned the college model and why students have to attend for four years, straight out of highschool. Well, apparently it doesn’t always have to be this way. In this article, Selingo introduces Stanford’s new “open loop university” model which basically allows for a personalized and ultimately more effective education for students. Under the model, students would be able to chose when they are ready to attend college, whether it be at age 18 or even 26. Miriam posted a blog about the three types of students (the sprinter, wanderer and strangler) and I agreed that one of the issue is that some college students aren’t ready to go attend college straight out of high school. Though college does provide the time for them to discover their passions and interests and mature into adults, in some cases such as with the stranglers, it may not be the best idea. Going back onto the Open Loop system, students could rearrange the 6 year program time frame however they want so that they could break in between to work in Silicon Valley startup jobs for a year or so and if they want to “loop” back in and explore something new, students could do seamlessly.

The new model would also incorporate enriching changes to the traditional classroom (like we discussed in class) such as free open online courses and other outside-the-classroom skill building courses to supplement lessons taught (like how we wanted some of the general education requirements to be focused more on “useful” applications like financial literacy and developing excel/Microsoft skills etc). Students would no longer be fixated to a strict immobile structure of traditional higher education but instead be free to personalize their college experience to be just the right pace for them. The open loop university model is definitely very promising and really brightens the future of higher ed. What do you guys think?

Article link: http://www.ecampusnews.com/mcclatchy/beyond-4-degree/

Should colleges make changes to their athletes program?

I am reacting to one of this week’s Higher Ed readings because as a former softball player in high school, I felt a compelling response towards this article, which basically argues for the “mistreatment” of college athletes. I found the college athletes’ problem to be very similar to our class discussion about students who are full time but have to manage multiple jobs and working hours. The article argues it is simply impractical and “exploitative” to have the athletes dedicate every waking hour to the team because it deprives them from their academia and other college opportunities that they have a right to participate in as students. I agree that colleges should scale back on the intensity of the athletic programs but at the same time, I don’t understand what the big issue really is… Don’t the college athletes know what they are getting themselves into when they signed up for the scholarship and the program? And by doing so, isn’t at least safe to assume that these students actually want to spend their time and full dedication to the college sport and eventually pursuing a future career in as a professional athlete player in their sport? I mean, if not, then the program isn’t really for these students, no?

Plus, I definitely don’t think it is impossible to be both a great athlete and have good grades–I know a very dedicated basketball superstar and biology major who has a 4.0 GPA, right on our campus–that’s right…go Brooklyn College! Anyways, though I agree that some schools may be expecting too much from their athlete students, I think that students also play an important part in making the decision. I feel like it ultimately boils down to the student’s motivation. If athletics are becoming unmanageable, they should consider focusing on what matters to them the most, instead of trying to juggle both academia and sports. During my time on the softball team in high school, I had the exact same dilemma. But then again, I had no one to “blame” but myself because I chose to take on the challenge. What do you guys think?

Article link: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/03/22/college-athletes-must-spend-unreasonable-amount-time-their-sports-essay#.Vw935yzcYmA.mailto

Are You a Sprinter, Wanderer, or Straggler?

An article in last week’s New York Times by none other than our favorite–Jeff Selingo–spoke of the three types of college graduate: the Sprinter, the Wanderer, and the Straggler. While doing so, Selingo highlighted many of the challenges facing this generation of college graduates: student debt, job hopping (as a recent post discussed), unemployment, delay of financial independence, and more. He also emphasized the failure of the “one size fits all” approach to higher education, which is something we’ve been toying with the last many weeks in our seminar.

Selingo pointed out early that the journey to adulthood is steadily increasing, and termed the age group of 18 to 25-year olds “emerging adults,” after the term coined by a psychology professor in the 90s. This age group is grappling with feeling simultaneously grown up and not so grown up at the same time, hence the “emerging.” During this age group, not only is the college degree the biggest determinant of their future professional success, but how they navigate their college years is also fundamental.

That’s where the categories come in. You’re a Sprinter if you’ve known what you wanted to major in since entering college; you’ve been lining up increasingly impressive internships summer after summer; you have a job set after college with little or no student debt. Sprinters are the most able to job-hop, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since it allows important exploration. They can do this because of the lack of student debt weighing them down, which forces college grads to choose money over interest, happiness, location, or the like. Sprinters, therefore, are more likely to take chances with business–you’ll likely see a Sprinter working in an incubator housing fresh start-ups soon after graduation, feeling good about themselves (I assume).

As a Wanderer, you may have had great grades in high school and a stellar GPA in college, but you’re on an uncertain path. You’ve applied for countless jobs in many different fields, to no avail. You’re likely underemployed, meaning overqualified for the job you’re working at, like nearly half of all undergraduates. Or you’ve resorted to graduate school to help you “figure it out”; after all, 30 percent of college graduates are back in school within 2 years. Wanderers may have benefited from a gap year to explore interests and career options before college instead of being thrown into something they didn’t know how to navigate. The longer you wander, Selingo notes ominously, the harder it is to catch up.

If none of the above describe you, you may be a Straggler. This is you if you’re drifting through your twenties, in and out of school, putting academic performance last on your list of “important things to do in college.” You may stay at home after high school and get a job, or join the military. Maybe you’ve found your calling at age 30 while in your parents’ garage. After all, there are 12.5 million 20-somethings with some college credit but no degree out there, virtually no better off than if they’d never gone to college at all.

Point is, there’s a lot more to the “emerging adult” years than just graduating college, like navigating life outside of the classroom and building relationships. These are the things that can determine whether you become a Sprinter, Wanderer or Straggler. Which do you envision yourself as?

Online Classes On the Line

In an Inside Higher Ed article titled “Equal Promises, Unequal Experiences,” author Carl Straumsheim brings the class action lawsuit now facing George Washington University to light. The article reveals that students who have taken online courses through GWU’s online degree program feel they have not received the quality of education promised them. Students claim that the materials posted were often cut off or blurry scans of textbooks and lecture slides without the commentary. They also say the faculty members assigned to advise students and teach through the online program were “consistently unresponsive.”

This article brings the discussions we have been having in our class to the front page. Are online programs working? Can they possibly be the future of higher education when they are having such a hard time becoming a part of the present? These classes have so much potential, yet from the experiences our own students have discussed to this article, online classes are falling short. The format seems to be the biggest issue. In both the article and our in-class discussions, students complain that course material is disconnected from knowledge. If the teaching methods of these courses improved beyond online texts and unresponsive professors, programs would likely have a much higher success rate.

The article reports that “a scheduling conference for the case is set for July 8.” It will be interesting to see what standards for online classes develop from court cases like this one.

Information Preservation for the Future

Miriam recently told me that she thinks she will never stop paying for Spotify. I said that we never know what might pop up to replace it; just look at iTunes! We never thought of Spotify as an alternative until it was made possible. That got me to think that somehow, one day, it is possible I wont be able to listen to the music that I have on iTunes.

The article from Inside Higher Ed titled, Preventing a Digital Dark Age, discusses this problem in regard to digital documents, research, photos, etc. This is a problem especially since most of the world, including higher education institutions, is moving towards digital technology for production and preservation. However, unforeseen future technology may not be compatible with the digital research that we have now. That would mean that the research and documents that were worked in and created from our present could be lost. Or even something disastrous could happen, which would cause us to lose all our information!

The DPN organization was created to help solve this problem if anything would go wrong. DPN allocates five terabytes to universities (annually) in order to store and preserve the information that the university decides to secure. This information will be stored in three different locations and in many different ways in order to insure access in the future. All the information that is a part of this preservation membership is in a “preservation ecosystem.”

One problem with this ecosystem is that there is a lack of diversity. Most of the members of DPN are large to mid-sized universities. Part of the reason is because smaller universities may not have the budget to pay for the preservation. For larger universities who are not members have the problem of wanting more storage. For example, the amount of digital information that the largest universities would like to store is worth a petabyte, which is 1,000 terabytes. DPN is not even able to store that much information.

There are other organizations like DPN that are working to avoid the loss of all the information and research that is being generated. I never thought of this problem on such a wide scale. Universities today are not just places for people to go for education, they are places for research and innovation. Many universities are hiring experts to work to preserve and decide what to preserve. Not only is there so much research to still be done and information to gather and build on in the future, we now need a way to insure that all this information is accessible to the future generations. They can’t move forward without previous information!

Chapter 1 Questions

How does society and the industry decide what major/degree is more acceptable/professional/certified over other majors?
How can we stop the diminishing value of the bachelor’s and master’s degree? Is there a possibility of a new degree being created that is better than a doctorate degree?
Higher education seems to be focusing on making money and prioritizing that over actual student education, how can this be changed? Prioritizing actual student education would help society in the long run.
It is stated that building a law school saves a lot of costs over building a medical school, therefore creating a subtle bias between the two. Is there a way to remove this bias?
How can the issue of “over-qualification” with multiple majors be fixed?