Some of the inherent biases in conversations about data

Posted on by

This is something I think about a lot. I’ve been working with with student-level data for 23 years now. And talking about stuff for longer. There is something uniquely frustrating about conversations in which the person I am talking with does two things: using terms casually and presuming they convey specific meanings.

It drives me crazy because I tend towards the specific when I talk data. Or most other things. Especially if I am talking to someone who I think is supposed to be equally knowledgeable.

Frustrating, and representative of a larger problem. Meaning and bias.

Without going into too much detail, it is kind of difficult to explain well, so bear with me.

When we collect data at the state level, the data are much removed from reality. Institutions collect data for the purpose of running the enterprise. Some pieces they collect because we require it, but there really very few examples of that. Since most data are collected for their purposes, they define the manner of collection that fits their needs best – or as best fits the design of their administrative system.

At this level, we are talking already of two or three levels of abstraction from the original students the data represent. Further, the data are biased according to the definitions used by the institution. Some of these are based on local standards, some on national standards, some simply represent standards implemented by the software vendor.

Since we collect from public and private institutions, two-year and four-year, we impose additional standards and abstractions on the data. This is necessary in order for us to use the data and assure some cleanliness to it (we have thousands of edits in the collection system). However, this adds additional abstraction to the data.

Don’t mistake me, the data are still quite usable. They are simply usable only within realistic limits and are best used for descriptive and trend analyses.

Additional abstraction comes into play in other ways when external taxonomies are applied, such as the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP). Just because something has the same name, that does mean it is the same thing. Sometimes differences are minor, but not always. And of course, sometimes it is just a dead horse being beaten.

Strangeness occurs when taxonomies are linked to taxonomies to taxonomies.

In a completely different dataset I have been working with very recently, I find that a column represents both a desired outcome and qualifying characteristic. Neat trick, huh? The values for that column are based on a crosswalk between two taxonomies (one of which is based on a third). Simply speaking, if there is a one-to-one correspondence, this should not be a problem. However, what if the relationship is one-to-many or, worse yet, many-to-many? Or even worser what if the original value crosswalked for the individual in question is one of multiple options? This provides multiple many-to-many outcomes, yet somehow  the file is produced with only one outcome.

This may be fine and perfectly correct….but how do I know? At this point I can’t even guess how much of this result is based solely on computing algorithm or individual choice in the selection.

It’s kind of crazy.

A week or so ago, someone tweeted the point that algorithms are not unbiased. I’m sorry I don’t remember who it was, or the exact words. The fact is though, algorithms are not unbiased. Some human or three wrote the algorithm and there is every possibility that their biases are reflected in the algorithm – or in how it is used.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is this. The data I work with are as limited as they are powerful. The most important thing they tell us is where to start investigating with less abstract data.

 

 

 

 

 

If I were the type to rate colleges…

Posted on by

The question has arisen a few times now. “Tod, if you were at USED and absolutely had to build a ratings system college with current data, what would you do?’

It’s a tough question since I don’t believe the existing IPEDS data are up the task. So, I would attempt to to use the National Student Loan Data System and develop a result set about Title IV recipients. But that may not be possible just yet.

First, I would start with three categories, as I have written before. These would be Title IV Eligible, Title IV Eligible – Conditional, Title IV Ineligible. The federal government’s implicit authority to rate colleges based on Title IV participation and success I think is a given. Rating colleges outside of Title IV performance I think is not. However, given the lack of data specific to Title IV participants, some standard IPEDS measures will have to be used.

It seems to me that what is really at stake is Title IV eligibility. So let’s start be establishing minimum standards for participating in Title IV and assume that institutions have five years to meet these standards initially.It is neither fair nor appropriate to establish standards and apply them immediately.

Title IV Eligibility Minimum Standards – Four-year Institutions

  • First-year Retention Rate Greater than or Equal to 60%
  • Six-year Graduation Rate Greater than or Equal to 30% (All Students)
  • Six-year Graduation Rate Greater than or Equal to 35% (Students with Pell grants at Entry)
  • Six-year Graduation Rate Greater than or Equal to 35% (Students with Stafford Loans (Subsidized and Unsubsidized) at Entry) (Requires use of NSLDS or adding the required institutional disclosures to IPEDS)
  • Six-year Graduation Rate Greater than or Equal to 40% (Students with PLUS Loans at Entry) (Requires use of NSLDS)
  • Cohort Default Rate Less than 10%
  • 80% of Graduates with Federal Loans in active repayment (including Income-based options) and in-school deferments.
  • And as data become available through NSLDS, minimum 60% graduation rates for Title IV students in graduate and professional programs.

However, since the administration has made it clear that part of the desire is to increase the enrollment of Pell students at high-performing institutions, I might add a fourth category of Title IV Eligible – Unconditional for institutions that meet or exceed all the standards above and enroll a number of undergraduates receiving Pell grants at entry equaling or exceeding 25% of the traditional on-campus population. (In other words, lesser respected branch campuses or distance students that rarely, if ever, step on campus would not count.)

Title IV Eligibility Minimum Standards for Conditional Status  – Four-year Institutions

 

  • First-year Retention Rate Greater than or Equal to 50%
  • Six-year Graduation Rate Greater than or Equal to 20% (All Students)
  • Six-year Graduation Rate Greater than or Equal to 20% (Students with Pell grants at Entry)
  • Six-year Graduation Rate Greater than or Equal to 20% (Students with Stafford Loans (Subsidized and Unsubsidized) at Entry) (Requires use of NSLDS or adding the required institutional disclosures to IPEDS)
  • Six-year Graduation Rate Greater than or Equal to 20% (Students with PLUS Loans at Entry) (Requires use of NSLDS)
  • Cohort Default Rate Less than 15%
  • 60% of Graduates with Federal Loans in active repayment (including Income-based options) and in-school deferments.
  • And as data become available through NSLDS, minimum 60% graduation rates for Title IV students in graduate and professional programs.
  • Requires ten-year improvement plan. If unable to move into full-eligibility status after that point, loses 50% of available Title IV funds.

Title IV Ineligible – Four-year Institutions

  • Failure to meet any one of these standards constitutes an ineligible institution. Institutions failing no more than two standards would be able to appeal and be placed on a five-year remediation plan – after posting a bond equal to the Title IV funding at risk of loss for the numbers of students it would take to move into a passing score.

So, these standards are incredibly arbitrary. They would negatively affect a significant number of institutions. Further, with the addition of an “Unconditional” rating, some of the highest performing institutions in the nation (and Virginia) would not be in that highest status.

In one way though, they are not arbitrary. I have dealt with enough policymakers over the years to know how they react to graduation rates below 30% (shucks, many get outraged at rates below 50%). These are rates I feel that *I* could generally defend for about a decade. After that, I foresee necessary increases.

I have not suggested standards for community colleges. I’ll save for that another time, but they would be differently constructed.

Oh, I would also use the rating report to link each college to any state profile data and require that each college link to both federal and state reporting websites specific to that college.

 

 

In praise of the anomalies

Posted on by

“Hi, my name’s Tod, and I am an anomaly.”

I am not a Millennial, so I can’t really say that I am special, or that we are all special. I am from near the end of the Boomer generation and so I don’t think I ever got a trophy for just showing up. I did learn (in high school) that the easiest way to win awards, was to submit applications in categories no one else was interested in. That is the story of my multiple FFA awards.

Being an anomaly does not make me special. (My eyes do that.) I am an anomaly for a number of reasons. I want to focus on the aspect of being a failed physics/math double major, with an intervening education in military. I doubt that I am the only one with a background like this, but I suspect it is relatively rare. In any event, I think it provides a distinctive way in which to look at the world. You can get some idea of what other people are doing a studio art degree (at lease those on LinkedIn) here.

Part of the brilliance of American education is that it can create people like me for the possibility of useful, happy accidents. Yesterday, John Warner’s post at Just Visiting inspired an extensive Twitter conversation which I have Storified here. Some of the Tweets are missing, but as you will see, it was an extensive discussion about the intersection between institutional research and Big Data. It starts from Warner’s perspective of overuse of automated systems and Big Data to obscure the need to solve the tough problems of access, affordability, and human interaction to create learning (I’m seriously paraphrasing here) in the pursuit of efficiencies and education-widget results. Both John Hetts and Jeffery Alan Johnson make very thoughtful comments about what these can be, what they shouldn’t be, and how they reflect what has always been happening.

I tend to be torn on these issues. I live in a work life where I am surrounded by folks who want to spend less on education while making it better. Those folks surrounding me are themselves surrounded by folks arguing that we should spend more. I think data-based decision-making is hugely important and holds great promise for improving human outcomes. On the other hand, I think accidents and unforced pathways hold great promise for individuals and society. Certainly there is risk and cost associated with these accidents, but the rewards are potentially unlimited.

Educationally and career-wise, I am not sure I would have done anything different, save study more and take advantage of more opportunities. I hate the idea of a world where we can’t afford such accidental pathways to happen. I also hate the idea that so many students leave college with debt and no credential and no apparent lasting benefit.

So, how can we allow the one and improve the other?

 

 

Silliness

Posted on by

I am easily amused. Especially when observing silly games of oneupmanship.

“My discipline is better than yours. It does real stuff.”

“No, my discipline is better – we use math.”

And so on.

It reminds me of high school science classes and describing the various disciplines.

  • If it moves, its biology.
  • If it stinks, it chemistry.
  • If it doesn’t work, its physics.

It also reminds me of the discussions of astrology in both Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land” and the fifth book of Adams’ “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” trilogy. In both cases, the use of astrology is justified as being no more than a way to organize your thinking and perception of the world around you. I’m not sure this is all that much different from truly academic disciplines.

I guess it would be easy to ask, “Why can’t we all get along?” but then, I would have less to be amused about. I have spent enough years raising children, grandchildren, as well as 10 years as an active scout leader, to learn to enjoy observing childish behavior. You can’t really stop the behavior (other than yelling “shut up!” and separating the offenders) just work to help it dissipate over time, so you might as well learn to appreciate it at as an art form. Clearly, it is art from the naive school, but art nonetheless.

The sad thing is this. They are all wrong. The only truly meaningful discipline is art. After all, art is about learning to really see the world around you BEFORE you interpret it or describe it. Once the basics of the tools are covered (how to make a line) the lessons focus again and again on “What do you see?” “Are you sure you are what’s there and not what you think is there?” The tools (media) are then used to fill in the gaps of knowledge or interpretation….

Oops. I guess that is no different from making assumptions. “Assume a friction-free surface….” “Assume a ladder…”

Damn. I guess there are no real differences, just variations in tools and methods for grokking the universe.

 

What are you really paying for?

Posted on by

This morning I played chauffeur to the two crippled ladies in my life. My wife and my dog. My wife had foot and ankle surgery in May and today she got her cast replaced with a boot. Unfortunately, the healing process ahead is also preparation for several more surgeries so we have a long journey ahead with more pain and discomfort for her. My dog needed blood work because she is aging and needs pain relief for arthritis and bladder control help. Thus periodically we have test her kidney and liver functions.

Medical issues are big in my house.

So, when I was finally headed to the office and scanning satellite channels, I stopped on NPR for the last bit of a show from KQED about price-shopping for medical procedures, using MRIs as an example. This interests me. I have had a lot of MRIs – 14 or 15 since New Year’s Eve 2009. All but the first have been at VCU. My co-pays on these have typically run between five- and six-hundred dollars until we meet our maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses.

While I listened, I thought about procedure costs and my views on insurance. I believe in being a responsible consumer. I don’t really want the insurance company to pay for something I would not be willing to pay for out of my pocket. So, why don’t I shop around for the best MRI price?

Convenience. Quality control. Service. Peace of mind.

It is unlikely to find an MRI facility other than VCU that I can walk to and from in 10 minutes from my office. There is no place that close to home.

Most MRIs have limits of accuracy and precision within the range of one to two millimeters. Since we are now dealing with a tumor about the size and shape of a triple-thick Lima bean, the difference of a couple millimeters can be hugely important to the reader’s interpretation of the images. Whenever possible it makes a great deal of sense use the same machine.

VCU Neurosurgery is really good about scheduling everything a year in advance – on the same day. For example, I may be scheduled at 8:00 am for my 35 minute MRI and then at 9:30 upstairs to see my neurosurgeon for the results, and the next morning with my radiologist.

This last thing is really big. Many of the brain tumor survivors, or those in pretreatment status, often have to wait days or weeks to get their results. I’m done in a few hours and my doc will spend whatever time I need with me to answer my questions or discuss my case.

This is why I don’t shop around. Sometimes the lowest cost is not the best deal.

And I don’t think higher education is really any different. When a student or family makes a choice about college and how much to pay, they should really think about what they are getting for the money and how it fits within their value system. The same logic applies to legislators and institutional leaders. Think about what you are paying for and why it matters to you.

What really matters is whether the educational experience meets your needs. Of course, for it do so, because it is not a “laying on of hands,” the student must invest effort, must invest themselves, in the education experience.

And the institutions, those supporting them, must make it possible for each student to be successful.

It is a niche series of arguments and posts

Posted on by

This post is an edited email with a very bad pun in response to friend/colleague who asked about Nick Anderson’s WaPo piece. In Virginia, we have the institutional profiles, which I have referenced before (http://research.schev.edu/iprofile.asp) and are now used as the web pages institutions to which link to comply with new law in Virginia.

What these do not have is a score or rating or ranking. This is primarily because such is neither necessary or generally appropriate for a coordinating body to produce. While we believe in transparency to hold institutions accountability and certain narrow forms of accountability (such as the Institutional Performance Standards, which usually have some funding attached to them and are required by law), it is still our job to work to see that all institutions have the ability to succeed, while recognizing that each has unique place in Virginia’s postsecondary marketplace.

I am on record (in many places) for opposing the proposed Postsecondary Institutional Ratings System (PIRS). However, my opposition is based on very specific reasons:

1) The existing data at USED and elsewhere in the federal government is completely inadequate for the task. Virginia knows more about student success in Title IV financial aid programs than USED – and these are not our programs, nor our responsibility. I don’t think USED and the president should consider a ratings system until the data issues are addressed.

2) Ratings, as proposed,  for community colleges are completely meaningless. Students attending these institutions are rarely overwhelmed with choices about where to attend college. In fact, the community college may be their only choice, or at least their only sensible choice.

3) The ratings proposal is about undergraduate access and performance only. Not only does this mean the ratings would not actually be “Institutional” in nature, it means that, should the ratings be successfully tied to Title IV aid, undergraduate performance could prohibit access to federal loans for graduate students. As Kevin Carey pointed out last April in the Chronicle, which I have been saying for years, professional master’s programs are cash cows that support the institution and might well be considered for-profit. If Title IV access for graduate students is too be affected, let’s make sure that graduation rates and time-to-degree for graduate and professional students are part of the ratings – but these measures do not currently exist.

I think it is perfectly appropriate for USED to rate institutions based on Title IV performance (both student performance and institutional behavior, including compliance with reporting and disclosure laws). However, they have such fundamental data problems at this time, it can’t meaningfully be done. Different offices within USED define institutions differently and thus 1 in 5 institutional records between the office of Federal Student Aid and IPEDS do NOT match.

As for whether or not Virginia can create an alternative, we certainly could. I think it is totally unnecessary. Further, without legislation telling us to do it, I think it is a terribly bad idea. It is far better idea to continue to push the envelope in terms of what is known about Virginia higher education, creating such levels of data-based transparency that no one can hide. Within another year, I think we will be there. We are close now.

Ratings of financial stability/viability are perhaps another matter. What the presidents are most fearful is what happened to Virginia Intermont College. Just being put on a “caution” list, caused (I think) a 60-day delay in federal reimbursements and the institution was already leveraged to the hilt with bills past due. Presidents are quite right to fear any system that adds any additional possibility for the disruption to the money flow. (If you ever read “Dune” by Frank Herbert, you will remember the phrase “The spice must flow!” The only difference here is spice means money.)

In the end, all that really matters is how we serve students. This morning there is a report on new research that raises questions about the ongoing critique of graduation rates at minority-serving institutions. Basically, the authors found that when one controls for student educational background and institutional resources, the graduation rates are comparable to those at predominantly white institutions. While probably still a bit lower, that is explained in my research by the fact students are very much affected by institutional culture. If the norm is not to not graduate, than graduation is act of being different. Most young people tend, despite protestations to the contrary, want to fit in and if not completing is okay, then “no problem.” In fact, when you look at graduation rates of students who have successfully earned 60 credits or more in the first two years, there is very little difference between our HBCUs and our predominantly white institutions. The hard part is getting students to that point.

I really think we can accomplish everything intended for PIRS to accomplish by shining a very bright and public light on institutions and students. Which we do already in Virginia.

 

Additional readings:

What I said to the GAO

About the Undeclared Major as a Dead Horse

Duncan Doesn’t Understand the Opposition to PIRS

Describe a Rainbow in Seven Words

Five Stages of Education Policy

Why Ratings Seem to be Necessary to Outsiders

A response to Schuman and Warner

The Gainful Employment Rating System

The Damage of Relying Federal Data

Rating the Ratings Game

College Decision Day and PIRS

As a Matter of Fact You Do Need a Badge

 

Defining and Disclosing Financial Health

Posted on by

George Cornelius blogged this morning over at Finding My College about the desirability and need for private colleges to disclose their financial health.

No matter how you look at it, we, the U.S. taxpayers, pay dearly to support our higher ed system. Yet, when it comes to the so-called private institutions (the quasi-public colleges), there isn’t much shared with us or with prospective students about the spending and financial health (or lack thereof) of the institutions.

While I can quibble with the notion of quasi-public, it is a familiar argument. Bob Morse at US News & World Report tried making a similar argument years ago that private institutions should be subject to FOIA based on the large amounts of public money they receive. However, the money technically goes to the students, though it does seem to be a bit of a shell game. The money (student financial aid) can only be used at a qualifying provider and that provider makes the determination of eligibility and award. And controls disbursement.

The U.S. Department of Education, and any state that subsidizes quasi-public colleges, should compel the recipients of this largess to disclose conspicuously on their websites their financial statements for the past five years as well as data and information about student learning and outcomes. In other words, prospective students and their families should be given information with which to distinguish the performing institutions from the underperforming ones, and the ones with a future from the ones that are likely to find themselves in the junkyard of failed institutions before the current restructuring of higher ed has run its course.

The Department, and Congress, already require oodles of disclosures. The conspicuousness of these disclosures tends to leave much to be desired. This is also true for their usability. However, when I read George’s post this morning I was intrigued by the thought of what this might look like. In Virginia, when it comes to student-oriented data, the public and nonprofit institutions have no place to hide at the undergraduate level. We publish an awful lot of data, very detailed, with student outcomes out to 10 years. However, it does not touch the student learning issue, nor the financial stability issue.

I’ve mentioned before that there are two criteria that put a private institution on my at-risk list. A retention rate for the first to second year of less than 60% and fewer than 1500 students at an undergraduate-only, or 2000 at a predominantly undergraduate institution. A significant endowment can compensate these risks, but most institutions with these issues  have little to no endowment.

What can’t compensate is an inability to pay bills if the big checks are late. Such as those from the federal government. This is what happened to Virginia Intermont, despite the president personally loaning nearly a half-million dollars to the college. We could require some kind of disclosure as to the percentage of an institution’s total revenues represented by state and federal sources, including student financial aid.This is similar in nature to the 90/10 rule the Department has established for the for-profit institutions.

Even with five years of such numbers, that is only a minimal warning. It seems to me that a “cash-on-hand” warning trend added to this might be appropriate. Every 90 days the institution reports on its website how many days it can operate with current expenditure commitments and cash available. While this may not be directly meaningful to most families and students, it would certainly tell agencies and accreditors something important about the viability and sustainability of an institution.

I would also add a measure explains how much of tuition revenue is used to fund institutional aid, and on average, what students who have to borrow to pay for their attendance and do not receive gift aid, contribute in debt towards gift aid for other students.

Why?

This excellent article from Forbes describes many of the associated problems.

If the whole idea of jacking up a price and then selectively discounting seems a bit nefarious, Crockett takes issue: “Students on campuses pay all kinds of different price points, just like people sleeping in a hotel or flying on airplanes pay all kinds of different prices.”

Does that make it right? Or ethical for a nonprofit?

Given the distorted model in place, perhaps this kind of distorted solution has merit. So long as obtaining student loans is easy and universities continue to chase rankings by leveraging aid and beefing up campus amenities, published prices will continue to rise along with tuition discounts. Thousands of schools will continue to struggle, and enrollment consultants like Noel-Levitz will be more than happy to lend a helping hand.

Yep. So perhaps the president’s proposed rating system (#PIRS) should focus only financial stability.

By the way, speaking of #PIRS, since no one else has picked up on this, Valerie Strauss published this tidbit on her blog entry regarding 50 Virginia presidents signing on to a letter opposing PIRS:

Education Department spokeswoman Dorie Nolt issued this comment about the letter:

I noticed you wrote about the letter from the Virginia college presidents. Here is a statement from me (Dorie Nolt, no Turner necessary) on it:

“We have received the letter and look forward to responding. As a nation, we have to make college more accessible and affordable and assure that students graduate with an education of real value, which is the goal of the College Rating System. In an effort to build this system thoughtfully and wisely, we are listening actively to recommendations and concerns, which includes national listening tour of 80-plus meetings with 4,000 participants. We hear over and over — from students and families, college presidents and high school counselors, low-income students, business people and researchers – that, done right, a ratings system will push innovations and systems changes that will benefit students and we look forward to delivering a proposal that will help more Americans attain a college education.”

She also said there was more information about the development of the rating system on the Education Department website here.

“College Rating System” as opposed to “Postsecondary Institution Ratings System” – this seems like two changes to me: one rating system and only colleges and universities – not the thousands of other postsecondary institutions.

 

Net Price isn’t always

Posted on by

If one is going to write about how net price for college enrollment, it might be useful to really understand how it works. And to understand the College Board is less interested in reality and fact, than supporting its business models.

Taking into account financial aid — some of which comes from the colleges themselves, some of which comes from the government — the average tuition and fees were $12,460 at private colleges last year and $3,120 for in-state students at public four-year colleges, according to the College Board. At those prices, college is an investment with an excellent return for the vast majority of students who graduate.  from How the Government Exaggerates the Cost of College

Putting aside that these figures include tax benefits that don’t show up until the college year is almost done, there are two very practical problems with how they are presented here.

1) The author leaves out the $9500 in room and board, and thus the net price at a four-year public for most students is $12,620. Like it or not, this is a real cost for all students, whether on-campus or not.

2) More importantly, all of the grant aid the student receives (some of which comes from other students, including those have to borrow their full cost of attendance), is based on the total cost of attendance – which includes room and board. Without this consideration, their grants would be far less.

From the College Board report:

The calculations of average net price for full-time undergraduates in Figures 10 and 11, as well as the calculations in online Tables 7 and 8, are a best approximation and are based on the aggregate amounts of each type of aid reported in Trends in Student Aid 2013 and on the allocation of each type of aid across institution types and between part-time and full-time students reported in 1993, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) data. 

There is no way to use these data to allocate aid intended for tuition and mandatory fees v. non-mandatory fees and other expenses. I’m not sure what value the College Board report has, other than to make people feel good about a myth. I find it terribly misleading, much like their test scores.

The basic issue is this. Living, eating, and having a safe place to sleep are part of the costs of attending college. There is no real net price that excludes those costs, save for students that are fortunate to be able to attend a local college and live with their parents rent-free. To ignore these costs as part of net price is to ignore the realities of most students – especially those attending institutions, public and private, requiring students to live on campus at least the first year. And those students that don’t live near a four-year institution.

 

 

 

There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Posted on by

There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch – TANSTAAFL

When I talk about TANSTAAFL, I am generally referring to the reality of costs, not the social construct the Heinlein described in many of his stories. Society has simply gotten too complex, with far too many structural inequalities not to have a safety net. Instead, I use a TANSTAAFL as a reminder that everything has a price, everything has to be paid for, that you simply can’t get something for nothing. This is even natural law, described by the laws of thermodynamics.

I read something like this excellent blog post  and I am reminded again of TANSTAAFL and the potential costs of Big Data and analytics. When faced with large numbers of people to sort and choose, it makes sense to use screening tools to reduce costs. It’s that you simply can’t get something for nothing. There are trade-offs, some of which are not apparent, some of which have societal impacts. One of these is reliance on math scores for rankings and admission decisions.

I like math and use it heavily most every day. But that is me. Not everyone uses more than arithmetic. This includes a lot of college graduates….and non-graduates that are forced into a college algebra track as preparation for calculus. Non-graduates who are non-graduates in part because of that match track. There is a growing body of support for the idea that students not going into STEM fields need college algebra, let alone calculus, and thus statistics or business math is a better option. Given the continued use and misuse of statistics in the media (and as poor justification for such blog posts as Peter Greene takes on), statistics seems a much better choice.

I am confused though, probably because I don’t have enough data to know whether or not our college graduates score better in math than other countries. On the other hand, I feel pretty confident that our graduation rates would improve if we re-thought our approach to college math. This is a core strategy of the Complete College America Kool-Aid. Thinking back to my time as a math tutor for non-traditional students, I can’t help but think this to be something to consider.

Of course, such a change might have other consequences. We could lose students to that pathway that we really want or need to be exposed to more advanced math. There are other potential costs, I am sure, including the cost of designing the curricula. There (simply) ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

I could go on, but it is time for the best news show ever – Last Week Tonight.

 

Free parking in the Jungle

Posted on by

Uh-huh, 85 comments about parking; 57 comments about a “more nuanced Bill Gates” and 26 comments on a suggested reading list for Mr. Gates.

Parking still wins 85-83.

For those that may question my suggestion in the last post of “The Once and Future King” as appropriate reading material for Bill Gates, I offer the following:

1) If one can’t defend the liberal arts (and sciences) with liberal arts reading, we should probably give up trying.

2) I’m afraid that Gates, and most others, would overlook the simple and practical lessons about education and life in “The Jungle Books” by Rudyard Kipling.

3) The same folks are likely to miss the point of suggesting Richard Adams’ “Shardik.”

So, while you are perhaps dismayed by my cavalier attitude and dismissal of your ability to comprehend my thinking, I offer this: the current approaches intended to disrupt and improve education are the equivalent of a one-legged man auditioning for the role of Tarzan. By the way, I was called out by my teachers, many, many times for disrupting the education process, and not once did anyone seem to imply that it was a good thing. Just as it takes more than a copy of Easy Rider to be a rebel, it takes more than well-intentioned, well-designed technology to replace, let alone improve upon, high-touch teaching and learning.

Although, I am not a teacher/professor/instructor, so I should probably stay out of the debate about what is good teaching and the appropriate role of technology. I should stick to counting things and analyzing the process and outcomes.

I note tonight that 50 of Virginia’s college and university presidents, public and private, have signed a letter of concern to Secretary Duncan and Virginia’s congressional delegation. I welcome them to the party. I haven’t seen the letter, but this quoted in the article:

“In our judgment, it would be a serious error for students to receive a message that their success in life is evaluated solely, or even primarily, by their earnings, and especially so in the period shortly after earning their degrees.”

Well, not even I think that aspect is about evaluating student success in life, as far as PIRS is concerned. How about ability to repay their loans? Have a family? It is hard to live and enjoy the life of the mind if you spend so much time working to just get by that you never have time to think.

Fortunately, we in Virginia are not limited to short-term wage outcomes. We are about to publicly release data out to  19 years (and shortly after that, 20 years since we just got the data for 2013). I presented the preliminary report to Council on Monday.