“In Canada and Japan, public-university tuition is now about $5,000 a year. In Italy, Spain and Israel, it’s about $2,000. In France, Denmark and Germany, it’s essentially zero.”
Ah, September. The blackberries are dying on the vine, the mornings are darker and cooler, and faculty meetings fill the calendar.
At one of those back-to-school confabs, like always, we were prepped on our newest students, most of whom were born in 2005. Here is the “Generation Z” snapshot for your viewing pleasure.
In my “Multicultural Education” course, I plan to use this graphic on day one to illustrate what may be the most important concept of the entire course.
In small groups, I’m going to ask my students to assess what the PLU faculty and staff that crafted this slide got right and what they got wrong. When they report out, we’ll try to synthesize for the class overall. My assumption is that they got about half right and half wrong and that the overall list doesn’t apply to any particular student or small group.
Which is the point I want the students to remember.
More specifically, I want them to remember that whenever we find ourselves in diverse settings our challenge is to understand patterns and themes within groups while simultaneously acknowledging vast individual differences. The closely related point is that no one wants to be reduced to their group identities, everyone wants others to honor their individuality. Therefore, since we want that, we should do that for others.
The College That Refused to Die. I challenge you to find a more depressing case study of a liberal arts college on life support. I felt like I needed to take a shower after reading the story of its downward spiral.
Some situations are not salvageable. This is Exhibit A.
“Reporting by student journalist Theo Baker, a Stanford University freshman, in the Stanford Daily student newspaper led to the stunning resignation last week by Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne.”
Tessier-Lavigne is slinking back to the Biology Department.
Imagine a scenario where Tessier-Lavigne is scrolling through his Bio 101 class roster and right there near the top is the name of sophomore Theo Baker.
“A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed résumés, and applied at a higher rate — but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things. For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in.
And “The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America’s elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.”
After reviewing more than 500,000 internal admissions assessments at three elite institutions over fifteen years, this conclusion.
“In effect, the study shows, these policies amounted to affirmative action for the children of the 1 percent, whose parents earn more than $611,000 a year.”
Can we stop the “equal opportunity meritocracy” nonsense?