Ron Paul Might Have a Point

There was great buzz yesterday when Ron Paul announced that as president, he would do away with student loans.  When asked why, he suggested that all they have done is drive up the costs of college and not shown, to any appreciable degree, to have helped those they intended to help.  He has since put out a note suggesting that he would not do away with the loans, but would instead drastically alter them.  As someone who has both greatly benefited from and is currently enslaved by student loans, I am both horrified and in full understand of his thinking here.

At my current institution, over 70% of the operational dollars making their way throughout the university are of governmental origin.  Your college or university is probably very similar.  That is frightening.  That means that if the spigot was shut off tomorrow, we would have to live with 30% of our operating capital in one fell swoop.  That would probably be doable since we would probably only have 30% of our students, but you get the idea.  Ouch.

I think that even if Ron Paul is just pulling the pin and tossing campaign grenades, his point is worth discussing.  Simply put, colleges have become more and more expensive because they have been allowed to get more expensive.  There are a million reasons as to why they have become more expensive but one of the chief reasons is that students have had almost free access to financial resources and have been able to borrow (and borrow and borrow and borrow) at will.  If a customer (a word that in an educational context still makes me cringe) can find money, the product (ugh) producer will also find a way to make it more expensive.  

In one of the most insightful articles I have read in some time, there are some fixes that will be challenging and transformative and most frighteningly - different - but certainly doable.

Over the next few days I would like to dissect the Washintgon Post article and provide context and insight on their 8 recommended suggestions.  Concurrently, I am working on a personal side project with a university partner (not of my own - an out of town friend) to recreate a university operational model from the ground up - using real (not modeled) dollars.

What does an institution look like that doesn't offer student loans or government aid?
That has a traditional residential population and robust intramural programs but no NCAA athletics?
That has partnership agreements for gyms and recreation areas and Arms Race agreements with other neighboring schools.
That leaves the realm of a glorified trade curriculum and more of a classical, liberal arts, thinking curriculum.
That teaches how to live and how to think and how to dream and how to vision and make things happen.
That is driven by mission and is willing to let students choose from a "marketplace" of missions as opposed to a market place of merit aid, amenities, price, and services.  
And that costs way, way less.
Surprisingly, I am very close to coming up with a model that works financially and missionally.    

Looking forward to the discussion.

Dizz
 ~~ Listening to Eluvium and Tori Amos     


      

Self-Efficacy and the GED

This really happened.  Last week.

As I've mentioned in earlier posts, my institution is going through some tough times, both philosophically and practically.  It's been a rough place to be as of late.

I recently told my wife, "I'm tired of this drama.  I'm going to resign my position and go get that PhD in Psychology that I've always wanted and be a psychologist."  I wanted to get my new name.

So I found a few of the premiere clinical psychology PhD programs in the country and I sent inquiry emails.  My main inquiry was that each of the programs required the GRE for admission.  Three important things about the GRE.  One, the GRE is an exam that is designed to gauge one's ability to do graduate level work.  I was hoping that by having a research PhD from a Research I institution, I would have already answered that question without some dumb exam.  Second,  I took the GRE around 10 years ago.  I didn't knock it out of the park, but I did enough to get into the program that I wanted.  Thus, I was hoping to bypass the 5-year requirement that states that only GRE scores taken within the past five-years are valid.  

Third, who remembers what in the world the Pythagorean Theorem is?  

In short, all of the programs said no.  I had to retake the GRE exam to be considered.

How lame, eh?

In talking through my dilemma with a colleague, he noted that he had taken it for fun a few years ago and received a score of 1400.  Naturally I believe that I was far smarter than he so I took a mini-practice exam.  As to be expected, I did very well on the verbal and tanked the math portion. In an effort to sharpen up my math skills, I googled "GRE math practice exam" and took the first exam that came up.

Ten questions.  I got 2 out of 10 correct and I guessed on one of them.  So for the sake of full disclosure, I received a 10%.

Crap.

All day that bugged me.  Could I really be so dumb as to only get one right?  It says right on the exam that the math is high school level.  This gnawed and gnawed at me.

So that night, I googled GRE math practice exam again, determined to do better.

This time, the exam had 25 questions and I received a score of 72%.

And while still not great, it was an improvement of more than 60% - not too bad!

And then I realized that when I googled "GRE math practice exam" I had not registered the "R" while typing.  I had googled "GE math practice exam."  Naturally, it had given me a GED math practice exam. GED as in "I dropped out of highschool and I want a diploma."

I got a 72% on a practice high school math exam designed for dropouts.

Let that wash over you and you might be able to register a sliver of the shame I currently feel.

So...Educationalist it is.

Dizz
~ Listening to silence.  

   

Christian Higher Education is Not...

Christian Higher Education is not:

• about hiding from the world.
• about escapism.
• the inability to have hard conversations and deep discussions that will clash with a traditional Christian view...and allowing folks to come up with contrarian views on a number of topics. 
• intellectually dishonest.  Or at least it shouldn't be.  
• protectionistic.
• inauthentic.
• a business that does not practice its core principles in its own business practices.
• philosophical to the point of forgetting that when a mission statement says that the institution is preparing to send folks into the world to be some kind of light / Christ-representative / etc., students will not learn this by osmosis...  They must see it lived out in daily interactions and be intentionally trained how to be a good person.  
• stupid...unless it is. 
• embarrassing...unless a group of folks in San Antonio Texas want to protest the celebration of Halloween with "Jesus-ween," a passive aggressive attempt to shame people for worshipping Satan through dressing up like Transformers and passing out candy.
• only for Christians. 
• for people who only believe the same way everyone else does. 
• for everyone except for students who are attracted to someone of the same gender. 
• stupid. 
• for everyone...though it should and could be be. 

Dizz
~listening to Eluvium

So easy yet so hard.

I am now month three into a workout program.  This is the most committed I have been to consistent and strategic exercise in over 4 years.

And annoyingly, I feel better than I have in years.  My head is clearer, my sleep is better, and I am a better husband/father/boss.

It's so annoying that at times, it is that easy.

~ Dizz
-- Listening to: Social D 

Bentham and Paying For College

I am currently teaching a seminar course using Thomas Sandel’s Justice as one of the main texts.  It is an excellent book that concurrently digs and prods but that remains grounded in how peripheral and exercise-laden much of moral philosophy can be.  Having never waded through many of these tenants of philosophy, I have had a good time wrestling alongside the students.

We recently explored Bentham’s Utilitarianism and his idea of pain and pleasure as sovereign masters and the guiding principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.  He works out an example of this through his Pauper Management Plan where he suggests that beggars on the streets do not maximize happiness because when working folks see beggars, they become less happy because 1) they are disgusted or 2) they feel guilty.  Thus, in order to maximize happiness for all, he suggested that all homeless folks be locked into a home out of sight.  They would have to work everyday to support their stay in this house (i.e. lodging, meals, utilities, etc.), thereby costing the society virtually nothing.  Workers would be incentivized to turn in homeless people with a cash reward that would in turn be tacked on to the homeless person’s bill.  Thus, most folks who work would now be happy because they would no longer have to look at homeless people while walking throughout their day.  Greatest good for the greatest number.   

There are several responses to his plan.  Some may find it undemocratic and a violation of individual rights to lock people in a home to work off some sort of imposed bill.  An alternative indentured servanthood.  Ideally, if a person wants to not work and live on the street, he should be able to do just that.  Others my find this plan somewhat enlightened.  They might suggest that if we could get folks off the street, they would be more likely to spend time on those streets – spending money, attending shows, etc.  To a degree, several cities across the US have outlawed homelessness or some variation thereof.

Regardless of one’s personal feelings on the idea of greatest good for the greatest number, we must acknowledge that it is often a senior guiding principle of our time. Wars, taxes, social security, etc. are based on the greatest good for the great number principle.  

My university is located in the bible belt and serves a highly republican/tea party student base.  As would be expected, our discussion on the greatest good generally took a very Libertarian rebuff until we approached the current higher education system in the United States (and our very institution).  The discussion took a very interesting turn.  

Collectively we explored the idea of scholarships, grants, and student loans.  I asked the class how they felt about agreeing to subsidize the education of a fellow student because he could jump higher and/or because she could swim faster because the university felt that it was in our general best interest to have these students representing us in athletic competition.  Interestingly, they all agreed.    

I asked the class about the university arrangement that allows for un-athletic students (and students who can’t debate, play an instrument, sing, etc.), who score lower on standardized tests to pay more to sit in class next to students who scored higher on the same exams in order to partake in the institutional prestige brought on my enrolling students with higher test scores.  Students felt that it made sense for lower-scoring students to pay more in order to mutually reap the benefits of the university’s name on the degree certificate.  They felt it very fair to charge certain people more money in order to subsidize the education of those students who scored higher, who were poorer, who were underrepresented, and so forth.  This conversation was getting further and further away from where I expected it to go.  The closeted liberal that I hide deep inside my psyche was growing more and more excited - could it really be?

Further, they fully agreed that the government should take money from each of our paychecks in order to redistribute the money in the form of grants and loans to folks who could not afford to pay for college tuition.   They felt that an educated citizenry was critical to the function of our society and that we should help those who can’t afford tuition, bills, and housing. 

At this point I became ecstatic.  Thrilled. 

Feeling lucky, I decided to go one step further. 

I asked the class that since they felt that way about redistribution of income to support the education of the whole, would they support taking tax payer dollars and cents to help pay electric bills of those who were struggling to pay. 

That question was followed by a chorus of boos, shouts of rebuttal, and a general disdain for poor people who don't want to pay their bills.    

And…now were back.     

-- Dizz


- Listening to Johnny Cash & Social D          

I Am Expendable and We Will Be Great

As I mentioned in a previous post, there has been a lot of angst, frustration, tension, anxiety, and uncertainty surrounding the financial situation and proposed personnel and infrastructure cuts at my university.  Emotions are running high, conspiracy theories running deep, and common sense and ecumenical beliefs are giving way to childish reactions and devilish schemes.  Grown-ups forgetting they are Christians and acting like children.

I have been guilty of acting like a middle schooler during this time as well.

My wife, who has been feeling the same level of anxiety as the rest of campus, said something profound last night that has been a powerful reframing moment in our household.

She said that we were both expendable.

We could both lose our positions or voluntarily give up our positions and someone would follow us and do a good job.  The institution would carry on - students would still be taught, things would still be administered, and the university would press onward.

But...

We're the only husband and wife each other have.

We're the only parents our child has.

When I get my son out of bed each morning, I am cashing in on a finite amount of dark, sleepy, early morning hugs.  Those will go away.  Soon, he will be too big for me to pick up.  Soon, he will get out of bed on his own.  Dress himself.  Feed himself.  And press onward.  These moments aren't expendable.  My relationship with my wife is not expendable.  There is not someone who will come in after me and do a good job loving her, supporting her, and building a life with her.

I am it.  And she for me.  

It was a moment of priority shift for me.  A significant priority shift.

And it feels right.

The university will be fine.

We will be great.

Dizz
-- Listening to Eluvium 

From The Vault of Richard Beck...

One of my favorite writings of Dr. Beck.  Good fodder heading into the weekend.

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/09/shipwrecked-and-catchers.html#more

Dizz