For the ever-tense prospective college students (and their whacked-out parents), Lynn O’Shaughnessy wrote an informative piece about the UC system and seven facts future applicants may be interested to know.

Take special note of Fact #2 of you’re a California native. And maybe don’t bother applying to the coveted UC schools. Out-of-state students pay more tuition, so they’ll have a better shot at getting in. Which is inconsistent with the black-and-white rules of fair play. Somewhere, someone was just added to my s**t list.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(UC Santa Barbara)

Jay Mathews from the Washington Post gives this stellar advice to prospective college students and their hyper parents: Look for fun, not facts, on your campus visits.

That’s crazy talk! That Jay guy writes a whole damn column about education (he’s for it), and I write an education blog (I’m a big fan of the learning as well). So a big yes on college and the campuses they’re attached to. And still, I totally agree with him about not sucking every ounce of fun out of a campus visit. Parents: Release! Retract! Recoil! Unclench! Attend the tour, ask real questions, get some information, then just wander around for a while, with or without your child, and let it all flow over you both. It’s not life or death, people.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source)

This is what I’ve been saying! Although, Mr. Colbert does it ever so much better.

Previous Posts:

Testing Season Begins
An Excellent Argument for Abolishing the SAT
The SAT Is Not Good
The Newly Unfabulous SAT
Awesome Parent
College Admissions—Looking Good Only On Paper
Media Frenzy Around High Pressure College Admissions
Inequality in College Admissions
Getting Into College Without Taking the SAT
Acceptance
“Rethinking Admissions”
College Admissions Testing: For and Against
“College Panel Calls For Less Focus on SATs”
Wake Forest University Drops SAT Requirement

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(via AssortedStuff)

Prior to reading the article below, I had my own theory as to why it takes more than four years for students to earn a bachelor’s degree. It all comes down to money. I included a few more factors in my theory, but I was mostly right in line with the study. Basically, higher tuition, decreased school budgets, a depressed economy, an increased population of young adults hell bent on pursuing a college education (because they’ve been told since birth that only educated humans will ever make enough money) mean more time spent earning a degree.

I was scared like a little girl to look up tuition rates for 1972 and present day, so I don’t have that information for you. My cojones are a force to be reckoned with, but I do have my limits. Eviscerating tuition hikes are one of them. But I think it’s common knowledge that tuition rates have increased since 1972, the economy is less than healthy, more kids head for college these days, and school budgets have been cut many, many times.

The crappier the economy is, the more the school budgets are cut, which leads to increased tuition and fewer faculty and staff. Higher tuition means more working for students and a decreased course load, leading to a longer stay in college. Less budget money means fewer instructors, fewer courses offered, and a more difficult time for the students to get into the classes they need in order to graduate, leading again to more time spent earning that bachelor’s degree.

According to the study, the fact that bachelor’s degree acquisition takes longer than four years is due to the type of institution a student attends; higher tier state schools and private schools vs. community colleges and lower tier state schools. Institution type and how a given school is affected by, and subsequently deals with, decreased funding is what it all comes down to.

Top-level schools with better faculty-to-student ratios offer an improved learning experience for the students. This gets them in and out in a more four-year manner. Public schools, like community colleges and state schools, cram a few more kids into every classroom, which decreases the learning experience and mucks up the four-year works. Hence, four years to complete an undergraduate degree at a top-tier school and closer to six years at a lower-tier school.

Interesting. And I don’t totally buy it. I mean, I understand what the study is saying and how a decrease in funding can affect the learning experience. But I think there are more factors involved. A students-per-faculty ratio of 25.5 to 1 vs. 29.8 to 1 is enough to cause the learning experience to suffer so much that two more years are tacked onto the end of the original four-year bachelor’s degree plan? Really? Or, you know, maybe, the less-than top tier schools are more selective when choosing faculty, staff, and students, and have a lot more private financial backing than do the community colleges and state schools. Less crowding, supah-focused students, publish-or-perish faculty, and enough cash to be able to keep both the crowding and the lay-offs down to a minimum.

Any institution relying on public funding has historically been screwed when the economy hits the crapper. And may I remind everyone that in 1972, the helicopter parent insanity hadn’t quite begun. Although parents were starting to push the importance of a college education, it was nowhere near the life-or-death situation that it is today: College or sweatshop-work, kiddo. You pick!

These days, there are more college students in the system and no one has money to pay for all that education, not the parents, not the kids, and certainly not the schools. Loans and financial aid are harder to nail down as well. I really don’t think it has only to do with a few more students per classroom and whether or not a student hits the higher education jackpot and manages to attend a top-tier school.

Here’s the summary from the study:

Time to completion of the baccalaureate degree has increased markedly in the United States over the last three decades, even as the wage premium for college graduates has continued to rise. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972 and the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988, we show that the increase in time to degree is localized among those who begin their postsecondary education at public colleges outside the most selective universities. In addition, we find evidence that the increases in time to degree were more marked amongst low income students. We consider several potential explanations for these trends. First, we find no evidence that changes in the college preparedness or the demographic composition of degree recipients can account for the observed increases. Instead, our results suggest that declines in collegiate resources in the less-selective public sector increased time to degree. Furthermore, we present evidence of increased hours of employment among students, which is consistent with students working more to meet rising college costs and likely increases time to degree by crowding out time spent on academic pursuits.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source)

Colleges and universities cannot rely only upon their good name to continually rake in the higher-education-pursuing masses; schools have to back their rep up with solid output. Karlyn Morissette at .eduGuru likens institutions of higher education to companies like Nike, and explains why the schools must provide the education they claim to provide or kids will stop buying their product/showing up.

From the post:

There aren’t many brands I’m completely loyal to, but Nike would definitely be one of them. Almost every sports related thing I own is Nike. I could spend hundreds of dollars on clothes, shoes and stuff I don’t even need online or at a store and still want to go back for more next week.

Why? It’s not because of the brand, or the brilliant marketing they do…and goodness knows it’s not the price.

It’s because, for me, Nike puts out a better product than any other company I’ve tried. Their clothes and shoes fit my body and work the way they say they are going to. They are consistent and I feel confident that, even if I order something online without having seen it in person, it will be OK.

Yes, I do actually have a point here that applies back to colleges: Are you putting out the best product you can for your audience? Because if you’re not, no amount of brilliant marketing will be enough to get people to enroll and [remain] at your school. More…

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(Nike image)

For Prospective Undergrads:

Rejected by a school that you know, in your heart of hearts, you’re destined to attend? Allen Grove has superb advice on appealing a rejection letter. Does the school ever take heed of appeals? If so, what are the criteria they require in order to consider reversing your current rejected status? What does a sample appeal letter look like? Mr. Grove has you covered.

For Grad Student Hopefuls:

If you’ve asked one too many departments to spend their time and energy on smoothing your entry into their graduate program and are now faced with one too many acceptance letters, Female Science Professor has advice for gracefully declining. And apologizing, thanking those who helped you, etc.

Academia can be a dark and hopeless place should you ever find yourself without allies. Take my advice: Don’t screw over anyone who has ever been kind to you. You’ll only end up screwing your future self over several times over. Be a person, not an inhuman ass#@$%.

Be aware enough to realize how small academia really is: there are not enough spots for everyone. This means anyone who helps you to move up and forward in your academic education/career is potentially assisting someone who may become their direct competition someday. Do not take for granted their willingness to put themselves on the line for you.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image)

Too late for high school seniors who’ve already chosen their institution of higher learning, but perfectly timed for anyone who hasn’t made their final matriculation decision. And excellent for high school juniors who will be joining the anguished ranks next year (“Which school will accept me? Gaaak! They all did! Too many choices! I’m gonna lose it, people. Everyone: Just back. The hell. Off.”)

International Counselor has three lists of colleges and universities ranked as to the number of Fulbright Scholars who have attended those particular schools. The point being, these schools can be categorized as the places where “the smart people go.” It does follow a certain logic. And I like it that there are three different lists based on the institution type.

List #1: Research Institutions

Northwestern University
University of Chicago
Brown University
Stanford University
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
Yale University
Columbia University
George Washington University
Harvard University
Boston College
More…

List #2: Master’s Institutions

Rollins College
Drake University
Hunter College of City University of New York
Saint Joseph’s University (Pa.)
University of Portland
University of Redlands
University of Scranton
Valparaiso University
Augsburg College
California State University at Sacramento
More…

List #3: Bachelor’s Institutions

Pomona College
Smith College
Pitzer College
Kenyon College
Oberlin College
Swarthmore College
Vassar College
Scripps College
Wellesley College
New College of Florida
More…

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source)

The crazy surge in med school applicants has finally triggered several new medical schools to come into being. Apparently there was a dry spell during the 80s and the 90s. Now is the time for every new and terrified college grad to take a good look around, figure out which professionals manage to avoid being laid off (garbage collectors and doctors), and decide whether to get a job now (not the best plan, I heard even 7-Eleven isn’t hiring) or kill some time in medical school while the economy works itself out.

It seems there is an actual shortage of physicians in this country, as well as a shortage of medical school spots. Starting up a few more medical schools seems like a viable option. But let’s not go overboard. Printing more money doesn’t save anyone from an economic crisis (have we learned nothing from all this higher education?).

I’m all for more doctors, especially if it means more people to help who are worth a lot less money (we can’t pay all the doctors six figures…I hope). But my spidey senses are tingling about the less-than established medical schools letting everyone in and churning out Twinkie-shaped doctors. Oh, well. I’m sure America’s lawsuit fettish will finally pay off and the physicians educated at MD mills will soon be weeded out.

Wait! Here comes the optimism (better late than never). The new medical schools will be less fraught with tradition, status, and red tape and they will work hard to teach their med students well. These new and excellent doctors will go on to stellar residencies and splendiferous careers in medicine. Babies will smile and Baby Boomers will be cured of their age-related ills. The soundtrack will rock and the montage will be poetic.

Further Reading:

Expecting a Surge in U.S. Medical Schools
Three New Medical Schools Join AAMC Membership, USA
How to Fix The Doctor Shortage
The Commonwealth Medical College
Starting a New Medical School

Posted by Alexa Harrington

Stanford just received the highest number of admission applications ever. And they have an outstanding pneumatic tubing system under their hospital. Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source)

Prospective college students who have remained unaware of the fact that January 23rd’s SAT results are up at CollegeBoard.org are waaaaaay too relaxed. Or possibly relaxed just enough…

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source)