Showing posts with label U.S. News and World Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. News and World Report. Show all posts

Saturday, August 15, 2009

BREAKING NEWS PART I: My debate with Patricia Steele and Sandra Baum


Education Matters sent word out to movement supporters and leaders about Kim Clark's August 12th 2009 article, "Is Student Debt Really a Problem?" This article details a recent report from the College Board. In the report, the findings conclude that student debt really isn't as troubling as people would think.

A particular comment sparked outrage (understandably), and a fury of posts, which continue to be added today (SATURDAY), ensued. First off, who wrote this report and what was the remark that caused all this justified anger?

a) The report was drafted by Patricia Steele and Sandra Baum.

b) Steele claimed that the College Board put out the report in order to "take down a notch the sensationalist stories about students drowning in debt [my emphasis]."

The College Board is described by Klark as an "organization made up of colleges." In truth, there's more behind their involvement with this sticky, nasty lending industry, but I'll save that treat for later.

To describe the obvious systemic problems that the media has finally begun to discuss as "sensationalist" was a poor choice of words for Ms. Steele.

Here's what I wrote to them in an email on August 13, 2009:

Dear Authors of Recent (Highly Problematic) Study Regarding Student Loan Debt:

I am a blogger and my blog is about education. I am getting a lot of traffic and also am a supporter and volunteer for Robert Applebaum's Forgive Student Loan Movement.
You recently stated that you published your report about student loan debt to "take down a notch the sensationalist stories about students drowning in debt." (You said that, Patricia). I find that remark to be offensive at best and condescending at worst. Your findings are highly questionable and do not take many factors into account. The stories I read on a daily basis about the crushing debt that middle class families have acquired as a result of sky-rocketing college tuition costs are heartbreaking. I am glad I'm on the right side of this argument. It is clear that lenders and higher education institutions are very nervous. They're actually responding. That means this movement is growing and proving to be more than just an irritating itch! We are talking about working- and middle-class families who are trying to better themselves, and you say something like that? Have you even bothered to read their stories? As social scientists who do an excellent job of crunching numbers for the College Board, I can only presume you lack the ability to synthesize these accounts. Thankfully we have historians who can tell richer stories and don't just look at the "numbers." That's a bad way to understand the complexity of modern society. I will be blogging about this piece soon. I will not be the only you will hear from.

Respectfully,
Ms. C. Cryn Johannsen

This email got the authors' attention. Patricia was the first to write to me. Most of these emails were essentially "public," because I had cc-ed Robert Applebaum, Alan Collinge (if you're not familiar with his name, Collinge is the founder of Student Loan Justice, and others). Patricia and I argued back and forth for an entire afternoon. I understand why we weren't making much headway. It was cordial but heated. I appreciated that response from Patricia. She reacted quite strongly at first, but then she cooled down. Later that evening I received an email from Sandra Baum. To say it was condescending is putting it lightly.

On several occasions I let them know that I would be writing about our exchange and including their remarks (the ones that were public). But after re-reading the correspondence, and what I've recently learned about the College Board, I've decided that an exercise in providing my readers with a detail by detail account of our conversation is superfluous.

After my final exchanges with Sandra and Patricia, I investigated the College Board and its past. Suffice to say, their relationship with lenders is MUCH bigger than I had originally understood. I realized that the debate was disingenuous . . .

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Higher Ed Cop Out #4

Today's topic: Defining a college's "popularity" by its admissions yield.

I know, it's fun to try and assign schools and colleges a status according to how cool and popular they are-- it's just like the little social games we play in grade school.

But a common method for assessing the popularity of colleges-- by using the admissions yield (% of accepted applicants who enroll), is just plain stupid.

This is practice employed not only by popular publications like the U.S. News and World Report but also by many academic researchers. Take this list of the most popular national universities:

1. Harvard
2. Brigham Young
3. University of Nebraska-Lincoln
4. Stanford
5. MIT
6. Yale
7. Princeton
8. U. Pennsylvania
9. Yeshiva
10. U. Florida

This is silly. Here are just a sample of the myriad reasons why a college can have a high yield, for reasons having nothing to do with popularity:

1. A pool of applicants that didn't apply to lots of colleges. Applications are expensive-- each application carries a fee, and while waivers are available, many students don't know about them.

2. A pool of less-qualified applicants-- those that manage to get in have fewer options at other places.

3. Location. Is the college located near lots of other colleges, or in an area where a place-bound applicant pool would have few alternatives? (notice the presence of University of Nebraska, Lincoln for example)

4. Admissions criteria. Desire to attend a college, a sense of "match", if used in deciding who to admit, will maximize yield. This doesn't mean the school is more popular, only that it admits students who like it more. (this is probably contributing to the ranking of the Ivies- above-- these schools are inclined to admit those students who express a preference for their school over others- maybe because their parents are alums?)

5. Specialties of the college. If the college is among the only that offers a certain mission, it automatically makes it the school of choice for those that want that mission. That's not popularity, it's a niche. (witness Brigham Young and Yeshiva)

Instead of yield, how about considering the use of "revealed preference rankings" such as those proposed by Carolyn Hoxby and Christopher Avery?

Or, better yet-- how about simply deciding that "popularity" isn't a good reason to choose a college? Stop drinking the KoolAid folks....

Sunday, December 7, 2008

When Only the Best Will Do....

I suppose my mom knew something about education after all (not that you'd have known it from how GWU treated her as a lecturer way back when)....

Apparently, I graduated from "the very best high school" in the whole darn country.

100% of the kids are said to be "college ready"? Well then how come lil ol' me, with my 1400+ SAT, and 4 AP classes, was counseled to attend Northern VA Community College, as I was pretty much Josie-average at that school? I was told that was the best fit for me. They were a little confused when I got into William & Mary....

That place was hard. Hard hard hard. Harder than grad school at U. Penn, and wayyyy harder than GWU. Sure, I work longer hours now-- but I'm also paid. In high school I woke at 6 am, stayed up past 1 or 2 doing homework, and studied constantly. Very little partying, play, and such.

I don't know-- it was a special place, for sure. It probably helped me 'get where I am today' (for more on where that is, see tomorrow's press release from UW-Madison). But wouldn't I have done the same with or without TJ? I wish someone would do a good study and get me the answer to that one....