| Posted on August 19th, 2010 by Randy Proto |
![[Facebook]](http://www.randyproto-education.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.randyproto-education.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.randyproto-education.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://www.randyproto-education.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
I recently wrote in the Huffington Post about a new proposed regulation, call Gainful Employment.
Larry Penley, former President of Colorado State University posted a comment, and has a post on his blog and on HULIQ about the rule, both of which give a clear, rational view of the issue.
It is an issue that all higher education professionals – faculty, administration, public, private non and for profit need to thoroughly understand. In the end, it will affect all of us, and our students.
It will shift some students out of the postsecondary education system entirely. Some of our highest risk students. More than the Department of Education estimates, due to flaws in both its estimate logic and to unrealistic assumptions that occur based upon a lack of understanding of the mentality and experience of those very students. It will do so based upon measures that do not clearly relate to the success of those students. Not a good tradeoff. It will also eliminate access to education for many lower risk working adults - as it assumes that public education will absorb them. The very structure that many of them made a deliberate choice not to use, as it did not meet their need. By some estimates this group could be 30% or more of students displaced by Gainful Employment .
As proposed, Gainful Employment will apply measures to some schools (for-profit) that other schools (non-profit and public) will fail, but not be required to meet. And, because of this some students will be driven away from institutions they are now choosing, to institutions that have exactly the same outcome – or in some ways and in many cases a worse outcome - for similarly situated (demographically and lifestyle) students.
It’s complex and needs a lot of discussion and refinement.
| Posted on July 27th, 2010 by Randy Proto |
This writer does a great job of picking up on my article in Huffington Post and adding depth in her article in The Nation. She also has another very good article that gives a perspective on community college support resources for students among other things. It makes the very important point that students need more than simply access to educational options. They need institutions to provide the support, guidance and access to other resources necessary so that they are likely to graduate, with the right skills and professional development to assist them in becoming employed. She also touches on the lack of a seamless enough path between the Associate degree and the Bachelor degree.
A very informative view. Well worth pursuing.
| Posted on July 22nd, 2010 by Randy Proto |
I explore college affordability in this Huffington Post article. Only one facet though … more to come.
| Posted on July 18th, 2010 by Randy Proto |
I recently came accross this study about college cost structures in some research I was doing for an article. It has a good section detailing some of the actions that we should undertake to improve affordability. It is very comprehensive and a good foundation for interested parties. I don’t agree with some elements, but do with many others. And the data is valuable.
Take a look at Section J on page 74. It lays out a series of possibilities that align with ones and I think are fertile ground…and in at least one instance – shortening time to completion – that I (and other career educators) have been applying for many years. In my case via a concept and content I have coined the “Career First Curriculum.”
Hope the info is helpful.
| Posted on July 4th, 2010 by Randy Proto |
For two very good books on the future of higher education, check out this post on my other blog in case you missed it…….
| Posted on June 30th, 2010 by Randy Proto |
I noticed that this blog under a really interesting section called “Dispelling Myths” quoted my most recent Huffington Post article. The blog picked up the article from another educators blog – HICE School. So I spent some time looking over the author Tony Bates background and some of the posts.
Tony Bates is an excellent resource for anyone involved in higher education…..
| Posted on June 20th, 2010 by Randy Proto |
What do employers want from graduates? Over the past 30 years it hasn’t changed. There are surveys out there (I will find some and post the links). But, long ago I was introduced to a seemingly self evident set of answers by one of my mentors in management. The answers were based upon a survey he had reviewed.
Employers want, in this general order of importance for an entry level position in many fields: demonstrated reliability and perseverance; professionalism and organizational fit; and position specific knowledge and skills. 1, 2, and 3.
Item 1 : Demonstrated reliability and perseverance
Completing a program – a degree or a diploma program (of some meaningful length) is often interpreted, rightly, as a meaningful indicator of a person’s inclination to persevere. To stick with the job they are considering the person for and the tasks it entails until they are complete.
Reliability though is a bit more challenging. For an adult student, prior jobs offer the opportunity to demonstrate reliability. Or they represent a challenge to doing so. For young adults, even more difficult (or less challenging) as this track record is less established. But clearly, the graduate who has the advantage (all else being even close) is the one who can clearly convey: I will be on the job, every day, and will stick with it until the goal is accomplished – you can count on it. That maximizes the chance of getting hired.
So beyond merely granting the degree or diploma – and advice on a job search, what can educators, their institutions, or students themselves do to provide graduates with the ability to tap into this key advantage? Before I explain what I have done, I would be interested in your views….
| Posted on June 18th, 2010 by Randy Proto |
Early in my teaching career, I thought I knew. Give me a week or two, an assignment, a quiz and I could tell who would do well, and who wouldn’t. Who wasn’t “cut out for this.”
Then I met a woman I will call Sue. I was teaching Computer Programming. Sue just struggled from the first. I was teaching day and evening classes. I would get to class at 8 – and Sue was there. I would often leave at 10 pm, and frequently Sue would leave a bit before me. All of this to get to a “C.”
I watched her do the same for her entire program. Sometimes, I questioned the process by which she was admitted. Surely it could have filtered Sue out and saved her the risk and work, I thought.
Right after her class graduated, I went in to our Placement office to speak to the Director – Patty. She informed me that there were several placements from the class already – the first of which was – guess who?
The State of Connecticut needed a maintenance programmer in one of its departments. It didn’t pay very well at the time, so most of our graduates wouldn’t be interested and the interviewers knew that – but the State had good benefits. The staffers just wanted someone reliable who could keep things going for them – competently. And Sue would. And did. It was the right fit.
I don’t know where she is now - but I do know that she changed my perspective on teaching. She, and many students after her taught me that ability, which clearly varies, is related to success, but that students’ determination and good teaching determine the true size of the pool of students who in fact will succeed.
It’s a difficult balance in regard to that admissions process. Does one filter out 100% of the Sue’s, where test scores and other indicators may not indicate their true potential, or give them all a chance so the 20% (or 10% or 30%) who have the determination can succeed?
Not a simple answer – one I wrestle with often.
But in terms of prejudging any student, well, lesson learned.