I don't have a theme here, just some quasi-random articles that caught my attention over the last few months, none of which rate a full-blown blog. I'll just toss them out here and see what sticks.
I really like her suggestion that we "increase the chances for students - across university types, across backgrounds - to have their minds blown." I've never articulated that, but I can tell when my students really appreciate that they just got EDUCATED in a way they never thought possible.
Zuska and her outreach project for this one. I've got to reassess my time (and access to my wife's Kindle) and see if I can read that book in time for her planned discussion. Since the last serious reading I did on this subject would be when I read Kate Millett's Sexual Politics (back when it came out), it could be time to get caught up on the gender culture wars.
These days, as those data show, CCs seem to be the only place where students are failed for not having the relevant skills ... and even that seems to be too little from where I sit at the end of the math line, trying to teach physics to kids who still have trouble moving symbols around to solve equations. One of the comments pointed to an essay saying that our education system needs more F's (coming out of the K-12 area).
I wasn't surprised by the 260 k$ price for an MD, except that I thought it seemed LOW. I looked at university budgets some time ago, and one thing that jumped out at me was the massive costs of running a medical school. I suspect that some costs have been put into the research area that are really part of the cost of any graduate program. I don't quite buy the "full cost" analysis, where you spread the cost of failing students over the ones who pass, but I can see it from the point of view of a legislator. And it also makes sense based on the "more F's" argument above: the quality of the person who graduates is partly a result of the selectivity of the process that produces that graduate. You don't want engineers who design bridges that fall down.
old article on orientation and advising.) A college class could engage them in a way that HS does not. The fact that you don't need an ed degree to teach that college class, pointed out in one of the comments on that article, can only add fat to the fire of some other discussions. But what really interests me is that I think the best way to assess the "outcomes" of a school is to look at what happens next. Are HS graduates ready for a job or for college? Clearly not, as our placement tests prove every fall. Are our CC grads ready for the university? Not always. And we need to look at that. I am told (all in the form of anecdotes) that mine are, but I'm not satisfied by that kind of "data". Time to make the trek to Wannabe Flagship and see what I can learn.