Not a Passing Mark

The debate over the California exit exams continues to rage, now making its way up the court levels to another appeal. At the heart of the matter is whether or not 20,000 students who flunked the exam, but otherwise fulfilled graduation requirements, should be awarded diplomas. The plaintiffs say the case is unfair, and not all students had an equal chance at learning the material necessary to pass.

This is definitely a sticky subject, as it touches on some fundamental problems in our educational system, especially in good ole California. However, the thought of exams to help assess our children’s academic acuity is appealing to me, especially as there are gross differences in the “grades” that different schools hand out. As such, and as much as people will claim there are biases and differences, I think the results should stand and the people should fail.

These tests have been coming for years now. There has been ample time for schools, and students, to prepare for them. For several years these tests were taken, but not mandatory for graduation. This is the first year it is required to graduate. The students knew it was coming; this was not a last-minute pop quiz given to them. If they felt they were behind, and their school wasn’t cutting it, they should have sought help elsewhere. That is what students have been doing for eons – you need help, you find a tutor.

Secondly, this is a state curriculum mandate. The board has said you need to know xyz to be considered graduated from high school. Yes there are inequalities associated with it. That happens with all things, and it is an indication for the schools to improve. You could make a similar argument with college acceptances. All students are not equally prepared to apply to Harvard, and they don’t have the same chances to get in. Does this mean therefore that all students should be accepted to Harvard carte blanche? No. While schools should be prepared to improve, to offer more services to their students, to better prepare and educate them, the fact is that there is a set of standards now set before the students, and they did not pass the test. Literally.

And they should hold themselves accountable for that in some part. That may sound harsh, but it is their responsibility to pass the test, just like it is ultimately their responsibility to go to school, apply to college, get a job, etc. If they don’t have what it takes, it is not the fault of the test to point out their deficiencies. It is not 100% fair, and it should be remedied for the future, but these students need to realize they don’t have what it takes. We need qualified students moving into our businesses, our government, and our colleges. It is the quality of this education that keeps us going as a country, and this is a dire sign we need to improve. But for the future of American sciences, economics, and our status as an innovative society, they should fail.

Yet Another Facet

In my un-ending analysis of all things wrong with the American educational system, which I consider key to the future of this country both as a technological, economic, and social model for the rest of the world, I turn to a new facet of this conundrum. One which I have considered for a long time, but have yet to write on. And this new article from the USA Today prompted me to finally break the silence. Today I focus on student work ethic.

There has been a lot of blame assigned to various aspects of the educational system in this country. And most have some merit to them. Do we have a large proportion of teachers who are unfit to educate youngsters? Yes. Do we have a large bureaucracy in the administration of the schools which hampers teacher effectiveness? Yes. Are schools under-funded and often overlooked in budgetary concerns? Most definitely yes.

However, there is ample reason to also point out that the kids themselves are at least partly to blame for their own poor academic performance. It has become almost a given in this society that students who go to class and do the work earn an “A” in the class. However, we forget that just doing the required work satisfactorily should not earn you an “A,” but rather a “C” – for average. Anyone who has gone to college knows that if you just do what the teacher requires of you, you will end up with a C in the class. College professors pull no punches when grading, for they could care less whether you pass or not. There is not the same level of self-responsibility enforced in earlier education, and that is where it starts to hurt us as a nation. Students are allowed to get away with mediocre work, without demanding more from them as people or even as students. If they receive low grades, they can go complaining to their parents, who in turn pressure the schools to ease up on their kids. After all, they did go to class, didn’t they? It is not always the teacher’s fault for this poor performance if they grade fairly. After all, they are there to teach the students, to inspire them. But there is some aspect of self-motivation that needs to begin within the student and the student’s home in order for that education to have an impact.

Going to class, merely being a body in a seat is not sufficient to receive good grades, nor is it enough to elucidate a good education out of the public school system. Students need to be challenged, pushed, and they need to know that it isn’t going to come easy. So often students have the ability to opt-out of classes that they decide are too difficult. Look at physical education (PE) for a moment. Can’t run a mile? Ok, then you don’t have to try to run at all, just walk it. In fact, don’t even bother changing into your gym clothes, just waltz around the track talking to your friends with your backpack still on. What an example of lowering standards to the bottom level! I’m not saying that every student should be an athlete; some are just not built for it. But as PE is a class, the students need to learn to push themselves (physically, in this case) and to accomplish what the teacher puts before them. If you can’t run a mile, that’s fine. Run what you can, walk if you get tired, and then get up and run some more. [Note: fail them in PE… imagine being withheld a diploma, or even forced to repeat a grade, due to your inattention and lack of motivation in physical education] If you allow students to rest at the bottom of your expectations, you end up with a collection of students that are fundamentally unable to compete in the world. And not just because their education is sub-par, but also because they are unwilling to take the responsibility to better themselves and their situations. Their attitude leaves the responsibility of their performance at the feet of other authority figures (teachers, principals, counselors, etc.) to ensure the students make it where they want to go.

And the counselors, teachers, etc. most definitely do want the students to achieve; that is why people get into teaching in the first place (for it certainly is not for the wealth or glamorous lifestyle teaching affords). But they are so tied up – teaching material to a vast number of students, dealing with the red tape, maintaining discipline in the class, and several other projects simultaneously – that they are not always able to motivate students. The lack of motivation arises, I think, from a variety of symptoms, the breadth of which is too expansive to illuminate here. Maybe it is the parents not spending enough time with them (a remedy for a lot of social ills of young people, I think); maybe it is not enough ability to concentrate due to a gross overindulgence in television and video games. There is definitely a pressure put on children that being smart is not “cool.” The nerds are never the trendy ones, and the stereotypes of smart people are almost overwhelmingly negative. There needs to be a way, outside of school, to start children caring about their education, their future.

How to achieve this is anybody’s guess. I could start with a variety of prescriptions, such as spending more time with your children, ensuring they spent a good amount of time doing their homework, helping them whenever possible doing projects and reports (without actually doing the work for them). Some parents I knew promised their kid financial or other physical rewards for performance in school. While the carrot method might work, there is also a deeper cultural change that needs to take place. And a lot of that culture, as mentioned above, has to do with how an education is perceived as forwarding yourself in life. For too long in American society has achieving a good education dimmed as the best way to make your way as an adult. Other, get-rich-quick schemes such as professional sports, acting, popular music have been emphasized continually. Also, the pressure to make money forces students to look no further in their education than what is mandated by law. Out of high school, time to get a job. And since those jobs traditionally are not of great quality or intellectual demand, why bother trying to do well in school, when you won’t even need it or use it? These qualities are dangerous, and have lowered the drive of students as a whole to receive, even demand, a good education.

If you have any doubt about this being a cultural aspect, look at the disparities between American children and immigrant children, even those children born of recent immigrants. There is always a big deal made about how Asian students do so well, even Asian American students. Why is that? It is not some miraculous genius gene born into their race. It is that there is an aspect in that culture that demands that children do well in school. They see education as the way to make something of yourself as an adult, to better yourself, your family, your future. It is not just Asians – immigrants from Europe, Africa, Latin America, all have children with a strong sense of drive to achieve. And they hit the marks, even exceed, far above their American counterparts. In the article sited above, the author mentions this difference: “When asked to identify the most important factors in their performance in math, the percentage of Japanese and Taiwanese students who answered "studying hard" was twice that of American students. American students named native intelligence, and some said the home environment. But a clear majority of students put the responsibility on their teachers. A good teacher, they said, was the determining factor in how well they did in math.”

That, I think, encapsulates this whole argument. The students expect a teacher to just hand them their education. No regards to studying, working, trying. There is a need for students to be driven to work hard. And not driven in a slave-sense, but driven in a sense that they are self-motivated to get an education for themselves. Schools and parents, and society, have been conditioned to see an education as a right of being here, and a diploma as a natural result of sitting in classes for 12 years, whether you put forth the effort or not. It is time to make it apparent that an education in this country takes work. It will not be easy, yet there will always be people there to assist you if you want it. Make the students work for their education, and they will appreciate it and all that it can do for them. Let them rest at the bottom, and you will brew a whole new generation of problems for this country to solve, without a motivated populace to solve them.

Update to "Brain Drain..."

What I pointed out months ago, and what others have been saying for years, has now hit the mainstream media. With the new edition of Time magazine, following closely on the heels of the 2006 State of the Union address, the topic of science education, funding, and development in this country and its future is now in main political sights. Where will this take us? Let a real battle for the future of our country begin.

A Call to Action?

From President George W. Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Address: “And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people -- and we're going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science.

First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.

Second, I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit to encourage bolder private-sector initiatives in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life -- and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.

Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world

This is certainly a commendable approach, one that is long overdue. As noted here in previous posts, there have been quite a few indicators that the scientific dominance that the has enjoyed over the last 50-80 years is quickly coming to a close, with disastrous consequences . Not only does it indicate damage to our reputation as a global power, our continued domination in economics, technology, science, engineering, and more . Indeed, maintaining a consistent, high-level of education for the next generation (and ensuring that they are able to provide the same for generations to come) is crucial to our survival into the future . You can read the report of this crisis from the at National Academy of Science

It is a good first step, but one is certainly left wondering: will it be done? Can it be done by this administration, by the current climate in our political offices, by the attitude of the citizenry? The changes that need to be made exist not only on a governmental level, but on a personal level . We need to cherish the things that teachers give to society; they need to be recognized as being important members of our society . I feel that only with this attitude change will we start to be able to implement policies that make sense, that we’re putting money in directions that will actually benefit ourselves and our children . It is time to wake up and see where we’re headed, and to move on what we want to become.

Who Will Lead?

Every so often, I mark with sadness the passing of one of the great vanguards of science in this nation, if not on this planet. It is so very rarely that a figure such as Carl Sagan, who combines a wealth of innovation, distinguished academic research, and public awareness and education, exists to the enlightenment of society. His boundless energy and enthusiasm were, for generations, the face of science in the public’s eye. He was balanced, concerned for us as a people, a society, a species, and made us realize our own special nature in his own reflections. Prolific writers such as himself, and the indomitable Isaac Asimov, helped propel science to new levels in a variety of ways, inspiring countless numbers to take up the practice and delight of scientific discovery. Such towering figures, especially Carl, would lead to a natural conclusion that their shadows would long influence the scientific community. Sadly, this is not what has transpired.

While the passing of any great man of learning and the people, of whom Carl was both, has repercussions that are unknown in scope and magnitude, the vacuum left by his death ushered in an even more dangerous situation. Today his absence is sorely felt. Instead of a persona, or a collection of personalities, promoting the positive, and realistic, aims of science, science is continually sniped by various segments of society. There is no respite; most famously in recent times the concept of evolution, one of the soundest scientific theories developed since gravity, has come under attack. Indeed, by questioning the “fact” of this theory, the skeptics call into question the very notion of the scientific method, something every scientist should be appalled at. Science funding is cut at every level; concrete science, which is accepted by institutions across the globe, is endlessly disputed for short-term financial gain.

The list of affronts to science, and to our own position as a progressive technological society, are maddeningly endless. And who stands up to defend them? There is no face, no organization, that presents itself in the front of the maelstrom in order to defend what they knew was right.

Even more pressing than these issues now confronting our attention is this lack of a leader to serve within the public awareness and work to bring science as a whole back to our collective priority list. Carl Sagan provided a much-needed voice and image to science. A person who was so honored and yet understood the ramifications that science has on the public, and is able to work with the public to help promote science education and awareness. These qualities of leadership are sorely lacking in the modern science community. While there is still, and will always be, a need for pure scientists, the whole community seems to have fled to that proverbial ivory tower, content to put-put about their experiments and divest themselves from the world around them. Their isolation is made plain on so many levels, from their instruction in the next generation of scientists and engineers, to the relative silence on so many of the issues named above. It is impossible for them to remain so aloof.

Throughout history, there have been scientists who are prominent in the public eye. Even, to a degree, minor celebrities. This benefited not only the person in question, but also the pursuit of science in general. These persons brought positive discoveries to the forefront of the nation’s, and even the world’s, attention. Such personalities, like Einstein was in the early part of the century, are another necessary point of public contact for scientists. They form the relations team that conveys a human face to a discipline that is all too often viewed as impersonal, cold, distant. And it is this face that needs to be projected to the public, both to garner additional support for science research and implementation, but also to inspire the next generation of children to consider scientific endeavors as a positive life choice. To integrate the scientists in the lab and the public at large can only benefit both, and isolation works counter to that optimistic future.

Science does not remain in the ivory tower forever, however much pure scientists’ supporters want to believe. It makes its way into the public realm, and it is ultimately the public, though perhaps indirectly, that dictates how this science will be conducted in the future. If it is allowed to get mired in politics, superstition, lobbying, how will this affect the future of science? Of our entire society? Scientists can be marshaled into their own individual self-preservation, but it requires adroit work with the public that only a few can provide in order to bring science back into the positive light of this society and create an overall benign atmosphere in which science, and therefore all of society, flourishes. The bridging of the gap between laboratory scientists and the public was Carl’s greatest gift. He did not speak from a pure scientists’ point of view, nor from any prejudiced position, but merely as a human, as part of this era and this society. He convinced us all that science was worth knowing, not because it is profitable or politically correct, but because it is human nature to be curious and wonder about the world around us. That is the power, and beauty, of science as he described it. Science can be beautiful, it can be fun, it can even be spiritual. A voice of such unification and universal appeal is not often uncovered. And now we are bereft of such leadership, perhaps when we need it the most.

Carl, we need you to help work towards a better future in a science-driven society. We need your successor to help make us believe again why we pursue the unknown.

Merit-Based Plan has Need of Improvement

There are few who are more in favor of paying teachers more money than I consider myself to be. Teachers are, without a doubt, the most important profession in this country at the moment, as they prepare our future generations to take on the responsibilities of a complex society and to lead it in new directions – and hopefully, new heights – of science, law, technology, arts, and culture. It never fails to engender a sense of anger when I see other professions that are far less important reap the benefit of large sums of money (think professional sports, for the cliché argument).

What Houston is trying to do is admirable [see article below], and works towards a general theory of merit-based pay increases and bonuses for school personnel. Rewarding a good teacher for propelling his/her students to do better in their scholastic achievements is a new and potentially useful tool in the run to improve our general schools. That such a large school system is willing to do this, following Denver’s lead, is admirable

However, I have several concerns for this type of merit-based bonus system, and it comes in the form of teacher creativity and student interest. Exclusively tying teacher compensation to student test scores, especially at the younger levels (K-8), runs the risk of handicapping the teachers into becoming too dogmatic in their approach to teaching. Children, more than learning the basic facts needed to pass a grade, come to school needing inspiration, the installation of a desire to learn and read and explore. Give them this beginning, and for the rest of their life they will continue to seek out new sources of information and be driven to pursue topics that interest them and will further their education. That college student levels are falling (a report recently showed especially teenage boys not enrolling in the levels they used to) shows very acutely that people are not interested in taking their education to the next level. Their self-motivation to pursue an education is limited to what is required by law, despite the plethora of reports and articles saying that college degrees guarantee higher wages and a better living. This sort of establishment of wonder, of interest, will serve them far well into the future more than making sure they have the minute details of some subject drilled into their heads. These people are more likely to take an active interest in the news, in current events, and thus be better citizens for a democracy.

When you rely on reaching a minimum of factoids during a school session, you limit the ability for teachers to take their classes in different directions, robbing them of their choice in being a creative educational force for young people. Instead, you make them human flash-cards, responsible for bombarding them with the certain data points that are required to pass the test, earn the teacher the bonus, and get the student perfunctory to the next level in their education. Quite frankly, this can be boring, both for the administer of the education as well as the recipient. Now, there are some classes where teaching-to-the-test methodology is accepted, even preferred. High school Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classrooms are perfect examples where this is even expected of the teachers. But not in 3^rd grade. 3^rd graders should be allowed to pursue topics that engender an interest in them of knowing more, exploring more, both scientifically and artistically and mathematically and historically. In all topics, they should be stimulated to be creative, dynamic individuals. Too much dogmaticism, you create robots, superficially intelligent and educated, but with no independent thought ability and creative nature.

Unfortunately, I do not have the perfect solution. Testing students in every capacity is an unattainable goal, and there are a number of characteristics of healthy students that escape quantification. Standardized test scores should be a part of the teacher’s evaluation in consideration for a pay increase, but I do not believe it should be the only facet of a teacher’s performance that should be considered. Perhaps independent reviews could be conducted, to better understand the way the teacher interacts with the students. Student evaluations as well are a possibility, but run the risk of a more biased outlook on a particular teacher. Other results could be developed as well, and I hope they are, for this will help maintain well-rounded, independent teachers who produce well-rounded, interested students, and that is the foundation for a better society.

Teacher pay tied to test scores in Houston schools
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-01-12-houston-merit-pay_x.htm

HOUSTON (AP) — Houston became the largest school district in the country on Thursday to adopt a merit pay plan for teachers that focuses on students' tests scores

By a 9-0 vote, the Houston school board approved a plan that offers teachers up to $3,000 in extra pay if their students show improvement on state and national tests. The program could be expanded to provide up to $10,000 in merit pay for teachers. The vote came after several teachers told the board during its monthly meeting they believed the plan was flawed and unfair because some teachers will be eligible for larger bonuses than others

”This is not a perfect plan but it is a beginning," said school board president Diana Davila. Other school districts around the country have implemented various types of incentive pay programs for teachers in recent years. Denver adopted one in November, becoming at the time the largest school district to do so. Houston, with more than 200,000 students, is the nation's seventh-largest school district

The plan is divided into three sections, with as much as $1,000 in bonus pay in each. The first will award bonuses to all teachers in schools rated acceptable or higher, based on scores on the state's main standardized test. The second ties pay to student improvement on a standardized test that compares performance to nationwide norms. In the third section, reading and math teachers whose students fare well compared with others in the district would be eligible for bonuses

The teachers' union doesn't approve of the plan, saying it focuses too much on test scores and is too complicated. In general, teachers across the country have been paid based on their years of experience and education levels. Starting teachers in Houston make about $36,000 a year. The average salary in the district is about $45,000.

Whoring Out Higher Education

I have watched the unfolding dilemma in our public education system with great apprehension, as should any American who values the future of our country, both socially, technologically, and economically. One of our greatest responsibilities is to maintain an educated populace and workforce. The benefits of such a society are innumerable. Not only would technological and scientific breakthroughs continue to improve our knowledge of the world and its potential uses, but educated peoples are more likely to take an active role in government, helping guide our nation to a brighter future. Uneducated masses are more prone to propaganda, secret legislation, more apt to fall into other modes of government that do not benefit the majority of the people. They are easier to mislead.

There are a plethora of problems inundating our school systems on a national level, more than there is space here to illuminate. Some of these are mere petty obstacles to be overcome with reason, like school prayer and intelligent design debates. These get a lot of press time because they are hot-button issues. Others are vastly more important, yet not nearly as reported upon as they should be. Such examples include physical education, arts and music education, scholastic standards, classroom sizes, teacher compensation and accountability, even finding qualified teachers. These issues I will hopefully touch on in the coming months.

Today’s topic, though, is on the funding of higher education, and the theoretical consequences thereof. The public college system is in grave danger from a lack of consistent financial support from all levels of the government. This precipitous drop has retarded the ability of public education at a college/university level to fulfill its stated duty of preparing the next generation of academic minds. One example is the University of California system, which has seen a 40% drop in state-based funding in the last two decades alone, according to spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina. Congress seems keen to follow this pattern, for in the House’s planned $50 billion in tax cuts, the amount designated for secondary education funding has fallen by nearly $3 billion. These shortfalls are even more abhorrent because they do not follow similar patterns in economic development or retreat (i.e. the California economy has not dropped 40% in the last 20 years). But that is another topic for another time. These institutions, facing such bleak prospects, are forced to turn to the few recourses they have available to them, each more drastic than the last.

The most obvious solution available to colleges is to cut costs. By reducing their financial need, the lowered amount of offered funding does not cut so deep into the school’s pockets. However, there is a trade-off, realized in a lack of services. These reductions manifest themselves in a variety of ways. Libraries cut hours or close altogether, “superfluous” student resources are removed. The number of class sections could be cut down, forcing professors and TAs into a larger student-to-faculty ratio. Administration also is considered expendable overhead. Wayne state university in Detroit cut 200 staff jobs to try and cover expenses. They were also forced to close an entire college, an extreme but not unrealistic example of how far schools must go in order to close the gap between spending and funding. This has repercussions that can be subtle, nuanced, but very apparent to students, who are faced with an absence of amenities that are quite essential to their function and productivity. Imagine telling a college student the library is closed at 5pm during finals. Or perhaps that the entire college has been wiped away or merged with another? Physics is difficult enough to master; what if the class or discussion ballooned to three times its normal size?

The second option is no more appealing than the first. Often schools will increase tuition and student-related fees to cover their margins. The New York Times reported that, from July 2004 to the same period 2005 the average public school tuition rose 7.1 percent. For comparison, private schools increased 5.9 percent, and inflation was 2.2 percent. The University of California Berkeley raised tuition 8 percent, from $6730 to $7434 a year in fees alone. Wayne State University shot up 18.5 %, and this was after the cuts described above were carried out. While the total amount required to attend a public school in your home state remains far below that of private schools - $15,566 to $32,000 – these constant, sometimes drastic increases are placing a huge burden on current and future students. With loan programs being trimmed as well, the financial obligation falls heavily upon the students themselves as well as their families. This translates into a continual widening of the gap between wealthy and low-income youth attending college. This under-representation could have untold consequences for our future society if a large proportion of minorities and low-income peoples feel unable to have schooling at their disposal for upward social and economic mobility (if there is any doubt to this, the events in France should stand out in sharp relief as a class battling against a glass ceiling. In that case it was mostly racial and ethnic; ours would be more socio-economic, but no less dramatic.).

The remaining solution, which to me is the most frightening, is the trend of schools to seek out private funding for their programs. Some of this money arrives in the form of research grants from private interests; others are private fundraisers pursued by presidents and deans for their colleges or departments; yet others manifest themselves as buildings, funded and erected with the money from corporate donors. It can be relatively innocuous: at the UCBerkeley College of Chemistry, the computer facility was sponsored by Chevron. But the problem lurking is where the limits exist on this donation process, and how much money one is willing to accept from them. The more money invested, the larger vested interest the corporation or other entity has in the school’s policies, and which could parlay into a larger role in the decision making process. Small computer labs are one thing – what if it were an entire college or department? Colleges are so starved for funds they cannot turn down this source of revenue, lest they be forced into more drastic cuts and fee hikes. All the same, this is beginning a trend of allowing private, especially corporate, influence in our schools. How much weight do you allow them to give? They could have unprecedented levels of control over the direction of the school’s courses, research, indeed their whole future. Do you suppose the Shell College of Chemistry would be willing to fund research on alternative fuel synthesis? Or that the Merck Department of Molecular Biology would look kindly upon a class in medical ethnobotany? These are idle curiosities at the moment, but could have grave implications on the freedom of our educational system if they do come to pass.

Allowing big businesses to dictate where our directions are headed in the minds of our scholars is bad news. These are the minds that are supposed to question; they are asked, even forced, to look at issues from new perspectives. Blocking even a remote aspect of the range of possibilities for inquiring minds to investigate, as they do in higher education, would be a major detriment to our society that might take years, even decades to realize and even longer to correct. Add in the loss of students due to potential fee hikes and the loss of facilities that come about from budget cuts, and the subsequent potential to our future is substantial, staggering even. Is it worth the risk to future developments, future innovations, further breakthroughs for our science and society to under-fund higher education now?

A New Form of School Rank

Washington Monthly has proposed a new system of school rankings for colleges and universities around the country. Their mission was to create a ranking system that asked what Americaneeded from its universities. Things like graduation rate and alumni donation, which are important to the U.S. News & World Report rankings, play a minor role here. Instead, their criteria for the school selection revolved around the question “What does Americaneed from its universities?” They go on to describe the three main aspects: “Universities should be engines of social mobility, they should produce the academic minds and scientific research that advance knowledge and drive economic growth, and they should inculcate and encourage an ethic of service.” Note: the social mobility indicates the relative access to schooling that lower-income students have, either through their own financial workings or through grant and loan programs designed to help them afford college. These are the functions, they indicate, that make universities socially relevant and important. Their results are astounding.

Research helped catapult a number of surprising schools, ones who do not initially appear to have great social contributions, to the top of the list. The research facilities of MIT, UCLA, Berkeley, Cornell, and Stanford all helped propel them into the top 5. However, more than research was needed to bring about a high score, as is obvious when Harvard ranks #16 on the list. MIT’s service dedication was very high - #7 on that list – and that helped push it to #1 on the overall rankings. Due to their high proportion of lower-income students, public universities ranked high on the list. The University of California system had 4 of its 9 campuses in the top 20: UCLA (#2); UC Berkeley (#3); UC San Diego (#8) and UC Davis (#17). At the same time, however, Princeton finished far down, around Iowa State University. This is partially due to its status as a university (Princeton stresses teaching rather than research), but it also did poorly on national service and social mobility, areas where it should have done much better.

It is a fascinating re-evaluation of schools, one that looks at the social implications of their roles as educators, rather than mere student-performance based results. I encourage everyone to look at this ranking, for it helps to encapsulate some of the ideals we need to stress in higher education: good strong research, a willingness to help everyone achieve a good education, and an emphasis on giving back to the community and the country.

The whole article can be read at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.collegeguide.html

Brain Drain to the World

The brain drain has begun. This article has to be one of the saddest, yet most unexpected, that I’ve read in a long, long time. It is no surprise to those who follow that the United States has been falling behind in science for quite sometime now. At first it was merely the slipping test scores and international competitions. We invented a programming competition in the 80s, and we came in first every time for the first few annual events. Last year, we finished a measly 17^th. Our math, science, literacy, geography scores are falling in comparison to the rest of the world.

The tide began to turn against us a long time ago. For me, the first real clue was when several high tech companies moved their research labs overseas. It was the first instance I had where they had not moved merely their manufacturing, as companies have been doing in the global arena for years, but pure R&D. Signifying that other countries had finally caught up to our level. China produces an enormous amount of college graduates every year. And the quality of education in Singapore, India, China, Japan, Germany, has reached the point where they can attract the top-name companies, and the research labs they possess. There once was a time when, if you wanted your child to go to the very best school in the world, s/he went to the United States.

Now, however, that is not necessarily the case. The home-grown universities are beginning to generate higher-quality educations, for a fraction of the price. And their dedication is beginning to show dividends.

And how are we keeping up with the rest of the world in science (my forte)? We slash funding for research. We deny access to stem cell lines. At the fundamental level of education in this country, K-12, when we should be inspiring children, planting in them a life-long desire to question, to learn, to progress, we want to teach them Intelligent Design. With all of the inherent problems in our education system, with all the bungles, red tape, excessive bullshit schools have to wade through, with all the inaccuracies, bad teaching, poor funding, we worry about Intelligent Design? Months, years have been spent debating a topic which was solved in the 1920s. And no other country in the world is having similar problems. It is purely an American phenomenon.

South Korea has taken up the torch to become the leader in stem cell research. They are doing things we can’t even come close to. Achievements that could have gone to the US, along with all the financial rewards (patents on medications, therapies, royalties, licensing), have slipped from our fingertips. We sit, debating on an issue which no other country seems to quarrel with. You don’t hear about stem cell debates in Europe; they realize the possibilities that lie within these multi-faceted cells. But we sit and bog ourselves down in these so-called “ethical” debates. And now we have lost two people who, "Without a doubt, are the best people I know to find out which genes are altered to cause cancer." Singapore is a more attractive place for the top two minds in our country rather than their homeland to continue their very important research. What a sham. It has been a long time since I have felt ashamed of what my country is doing to itself, how it is rupturing its future. Today I do.

Text of the article: Scientists Leave U.S. To Do Stem Cell Research

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7001126033

November 21, 2005 3:00 p.m. EST by Andrea Moore

Stanford, CA (AHN) - Two government biologists recruited by Stanford University have decided to work in Singapore, saying they will face fewer restrictions on stem cell research overseas.

Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins, geneticists for the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland. A California ballot measure approved in 2004. say they are concerned about delays in the allocation of $3 billion set aside by a

The married couple are famous for discovering a way to accelerate the identification of cancer-causing genes in mice. The hope is to advance this discovery by using embryonic stem-cell cultures to build models of different cancers. If researchers can learn which genes are mutated in cancer, they may be able to develop drugs to block mutations.

At Singapore of Molecular and Cell Biology, the couple's discoveries would first be patented and used in Singapore.

"It is a loss for Stanford and a loss for America," Irving Weissman, director of Stanford's Institute for Cancer and Stem Cell Biology and Medicine told The Associated Press. "Without a doubt, they are the best people I know to find out which genes are altered to cause cancer."

The importance of Education

There are, and will always be, polls to predict what Americans think is the most important issue facing our nation/society/world at the present moment. A great many of the responses has to do with job security, the economy, recessions, etc. There are a lot of issues that people will voluntarily give as "important" but when the real issues come down to the ballots boxes or candidate platforms, other things get in the way. These issues include education, the environment, social reforms. Things that people espouse as important issues they give weight to, but ultimately fail to do so.

The more I have had a chance to contemplate it, the more and more education seems to be the most important issue facing our country right now. Education plays into such a wide spectrum of other problems facing us as a nation that we cannot afford to be lax in our support and criticism of the US's educational system. An educated populace creates more innovative young people, highlights more awareness about other problems (as well as fostering solutions), brings history to bear so that it may not be repeated ad naseum, and more. It is imperative, if we wish to maintain our own place in history on this planet, that we improve our educational system to be bar noone the greatest in the world. And there are a lot of issues facing our educational system.

First and foremost, you have to make education an attractive profession. Right now, the teachers are so abysmally compensated that they are only there for the love of teaching. While that is admirable, you have to entice those people who would like to teach and would be good teachers, but can't afford to be teachers, to come into the fold. When you have college graduates, saying to themselves that they can make 25% more being in industry and can payback loans faster than if they were a teacher, it is usually a no-brainer. You have to pay teachers what they are worth.
However, built into that compensation system is accountability. You have to have a system that allows the administration to cleanse itself of teachers who are inadequate at their jobs. I have had countless teachers who were obviously not fit to educate our next generations, but were still in their place after 20+ years due to limitations placed on hiring and firing of teachers. That is not acceptable, especially if you're giving them more money. You have to hold them to certain standards that they must uphold, or else they're gone. No questions asked.

Also, one aspect of teaching that is very overlooked is making it engaging, dynamic, and relevant. The stereotypical teacher is one of those pedantic boors who stands and drones on and on all day long about stuff the students don't care about in the least. That happens enough at the college level. But at the junior high and high school level you need to get students involved with what you're teaching. Rather than dry facts, dates, numbers, delve into the background of a particular subject. There are numerous ways to make education fun, from chemistry labs to juicy historical gossip. And it can still be relevant information. Teachers need to be encouraged to expanding the minds of their students. And with initiatives like No Child Left Behind, which mandate teaching to the test mentality among teachers, I fear this will only become more of a lost art with time.

Thirdly, we need to let teachers do the teaching, and stop trying to interfere. Teachers and schools are not the place to moralize your children. They are not the place to combat delinquents either. They are a place to learn. Also, debates like the intelligent design/creation/evolution debate are irrelevant. Modern science has dictated where the majority of evidence lies, and leave it at that. In a philosophy classroom or a historical science class, one is more than able to discuss these options. However, in biology, the way has been paved with nearly 150 years of strong science. Let it be at that.


The most important function of a teacher is not to drill into their heads the names of capitals from the world, but rather instill in them a desire to learn on their own; to read, to learn, far beyond their time in the classroom. That is what makes an educational system successful, far more than high SATs or other dogmatic measuring systems. Instill in your children that education is fun, useful, and a good use of time, and your society will reap the benefits for generations to come.