Academic Fraud in the NCAA

A recent Inside higher ed article explained how one Division I basketball coach instructed his staff to complete some of his players’ and potential recruits’ academic assignments. The article even describes one case where a student, who was “as far away from graduating as any kid [the coach] ever had,” managed to earn a GPA of 3.75 in three online courses (which needed to be passed for this student to attend the college). I know many of the articles we read about college sports had to do with the issue of paying student athletes, but I think this issue is just as important. Why should these college athletes get a free academic ride when most of us work tirelessly to achieve satisfactory grades? Why should they get the privilege of training in high line athletic facilities and receiving special treatment while not having to do any actual school work? Being more athletically gifted doesn’t make them any better than their fellow students!

However, I do recognize that not all these athletes receive this help by choice. I imagine many student-athletes (who weren’t able to receive a decent education in the past) would love to expand their in minds in college. Unfortunately for them, their coaches want to ensure they don’t fail off the team and therefore may come to give some extra “assistance” even if the student athlete doesn’t agree to it. An attitude like this is very selfish. Since most student athletes don’t make it to the professional leagues they’ll need to get a good education in order to land a decent job after graduation. Coaches are robbing some of their athletes from such an opportunity and it’s despicable. I had never been such a big fan of college sports so I therefore wasn’t aware of how bad the NCAA can be, but our seminar has opened my eyes to some of th ebig issues.One thing is for sure, some major change is definitely needed in college sports.

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

Being the Model “Research Institution”: Helping or Hurting Our Students?

Universities are seen as the forefront of advancing research. Institutions that have a good reputation for research are usually seen as the “best.” History has instilled that in us. In my other class, we are currently discussing physicists who worked on discoveries leading up to the creation of the atomic bomb. Almost every great discovery was accompanied by “discovered in *some* university’s lab” or “research conducted at *insert name* University.”

Research is truly a great thing and universities have shown us (and continue to) some of the most advanced science we’ve ever seen. Although this is fine and dandy, when most common folk think of a university, they don’t see RESEARCH, they see EDUCATION: an opportunity to learn more so that in the future, you may be able to use your knowledge and skills to make a decent living (of course this definition of a college education may garner some argument, but for the most part, I think I cover it okay). Lately, I have been getting a feeling that this isn’t really the case for most institutions.

In one of our first classes, a student mentioned something about his Organic Chemistry professor that irked me. He relayed to us that the only reason this professor is here, is so that he can get support for research. Is it me or is that just messed up? Students go to a college and take classes so that they can learn the material and move further into their field of study. For Pre-Meds especially, Orgo is a really important class for a student to understand. When you put a professor that doesn’t really seem to love teaching in a difficult class, how could you expect him/her to teach well? His/her ulterior motives cause students to lose out.

I feel like there’s an issue with the hiring process at colleges. Most professors require doctoral degrees (usually very research-heavy) to teach at a university. These professors are experts in their fields, no doubt, but are they experts at teaching? Potentially not. High school and elementary school teachers must follow strict DOE rules affecting how they teach their classes. College professors, in some cases, don’t have to answer to anyone. Shouldn’t we hold them to a similar kind of standard, even something less strict?

Before going on, I have to clarify that there are some incredible professors who have their PhDs and other doctoral degrees. They’re AMAZING. BUT, there are also some who “aren’t the best” (please excuse my euphemism). Maybe it’s not that they “aren’t the best” in their field, but they certainly “aren’t the best” at teaching or perhaps it’s caring (about the students that is).

I propose that the system change. Do all of our professors really need doctoral degrees? For more advanced and specialized classes, yes. But for lower level classes, perhaps not. My Calculus II professor certainly didn’t need a PhD – he made it easy to ace Calculus with a strong understanding of it too. It’s an important, lower-level Math course that can be taught beautifully by a person who might not have their doctoral-level degree. What I am saying to colleges is: Please hire professors based primarily on how well they can teach, not how well they can research (make that a secondary consideration).

I write this based off of my own personal experiences. Ultimately, I have had many more great professors than I have had “bad” professors, but for the few times that I had those “bad” professors, it made college more difficult than it had to be.

Of course there are some issues with what I propose and discuss here. There always are. There can be a fundamental difference between professors which fall into this group of “bad”: Case 1- They have a secured job (tenure) or Case 2- They’re just not trained to teach well. This one example shows just how dynamic the situation could be and it’s hard to capture it all in a blog post.

This issue of hiring brings to light even bigger issues with the Higher Education system at large. Must universities always flaunt their research status? And if they don’t have that status, do they really need it? Maybe institutions should focus on flaunting their extraordinary teaching. 

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.

Online Learning Done Badly?

Discussing all these great online courses and programs in class and from my peers who have experience with them really gave me a good outlook at the opportunities they provide. Reading this article in Inside Higher Education about a George Washington University online program reminds me that not everything is perfect. I mean, I am in an online course now in Brooklyn College and I dont necessarily enjoy it but it’s not because of the way it is offered.

I am wondering what other graduates who have used this program have to say because at the end of the article there was a quote from Vice President of media relations, Candace Smith. She said, “Since the security and safety leadership program began in 2009, 341 students have graduated, and many have gone onto successful careers…” They didnt mention how many students are a part of the program each year and how many graduate. It seems like the number of students that are complaining is small (11 signed a letter complaining about the program). So maybe it’s just these few students…? But the way they described the program (blurry photocopies of the textbook and unresponsive teachers) made it sound bad.

Another thing that I thought was interesting was that the program costs a lot. It costs about $33,300, $4000 more than the in person program would cost. I thought these online courses and programs were supposed to be more affordable!

Those are just some thoughts of mine that I had as I was reading the article.

Here’s the article: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/15/george-washington-u-alumni-sue-university-over-quality-online-program

 

Diversity or Discrimination?

The content discussed below will be based on this article:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/11/tweet-political-science-group-angers-many-women-field

When I saw that the title of this article involved a political science group, it automatically grabbed my attention (since I’m a political science major). The article is about the American Political Association’s advertising mechanisms for published articles. They use Twitter to promote others to read certain articles.

However, one of their tweets were controversial.  There was a tweet promoting an article about international NGOs. There is nothing wrong with that or with the wording of the tweet: “INGOs challenge existing social and political order on human rights. In this here article…” This information alone would be fine, but the problem is there was a photo of a smiling Asian woman attached to this tweet. While one of the co-authors was an Asian woman, Wendy Wong, it was not her photo attached to the tweet. Furthermore, the tweet and article was not about Asia. The picture had no relevance.

When speaking out against this to APSA, the response Wong was given was that “diverse stock images” are often used in conjunction with tweets and that this particular case was merely a mistake. However, Wong found that their other tweets tended to have images that actually did correspond with the topic of the article, so using diversity as an excuse was not justified. The tweet was deleted and an apology with an updated version was given, but there is a message that should be found here.

In class, we discussed the importance of diversity in college and how universities and colleges should have student distributions that represent the proportions of the population as a whole. We learned how many schools make diversity a priority, and we discussed how successful it can be based on our perspective of being students in Brooklyn College. Then, we debated about whether it would be fair for minorities to be able to get into schools with lower grades than the majority, and we concluded that it would be, because they have had less opportunities than the majority so it creates a balance of sorts.

It is sad to see how even though so much emphasis is being put on diversity, people can still use it as a way to justify discrimination. Wendy Wong is within the scope of higher education, being a political science associate professor, and unfortunately had to deal with this mistreatment. I just hope that people can learn to stop generalizing others as abstract entities and can start focusing on their depth and what they actually have to offer.

 

College Athletics and Academic Fraud

This article from Inside Higher Ed titled, NCAA Finds Southern Mississippi Basketball Staff Committed Academic Fraud, discusses a very serious issue that higher education faces with Division 1 institutions. “Division 1” is the highest level of intercollegiate athletics sanctioned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Unfortunately, academic dishonesty is not foreign to higher education. I often hear stories about students getting into prestigious colleges because they simply cheated their way through high school. With this case, however, it’s not just the students being dishonest. Division 1 universities are where they are clearly because they strive to be the best of the best, but former coach of Southern Mississippi, Donnie Tyndall, went about achieving that the wrong way. Tyndall had his eyes on select students at two year institutions and did what he could to get them on his team. He and his basketball staff completed over 100 assignments in online classes for future recruits that needed academic help to transfer to Southern Mississippi. This scandal wasn’t limited to just those who needed academic help. Tyndall even went as far to recruit those who needed financial help. He went to a pharmacy, purchased 4 prepaid $500 credit cards and had his graduate students use them to pay for a recruits online classes and registration fees.

I was absolutely shocked reading this article. I never really understood the pressures education institutions face when it comes to athletics until I learned that there are coaches who are willing to commit academic fraud to deal with them. Thankfully for the past two years, the NCAA has been working on this issue and investigating Division 1 institutions for any other cases of academic fraud. The NCAA definitely has to be more aggressive in exposing the corrupt ways of college athletics.

Link to Article: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/11/ncaa-finds-southern-mississippi-basketball-staff-committed-academic-fraud