The DREAM Act and the Party of “No”
It is of better valor to stay outside of the political arguments, and I most often heed that advice. But events of last week are forcing me to reconsider said advice.
Last week, the DREAM Act was voted down in the Senate on a party-line vote. The DREAM Act allows students who are, by birth, illegal immigrants to gain access to in-state tuition and financial aid for college. As well, it allows them to fast-track for citizenship. Continue reading The DREAM Act and the Party of “No”
Higher Education Rankings: Who Cares?
Yesterday, both The Chronicle of Higher Education and InsideHigherEd reported on the new international rankings releases by Times Higher Education and QS World University Rankings, the latter which is being released with US News & World Report next week.
Of great opportunity, I was attending the OECD IMHE conference in Paris during the release, and both “papers” quoted colleagues of mine attending the conference. Continue reading Higher Education Rankings: Who Cares?
The Problem with Higher Education
This morning I sat in on the OECD Institutional Management in Higher Education Conference in Paris listening to a panel on the need to do more with less in higher education. The illustrious panel included representatives of Open University, Cisco Systems, and others, and was moderated by my friend and colleague, Peter Smith of Kaplan Higher Education. Continue reading The Problem with Higher Education
Bounce!
My summer reading thus far has included the book Michelangelo and the Pope’s Ceiling (a novel about the painting of the Sistine Chapel) and Bounce, a story of “the science of success.” The first one was simply to impress (not true; great book!!). The second has significant meaning to what we do in education. Today’s commentary focuses on some of the tenets of Matthew Syed’s Bounce. Continue reading Bounce!
Measuring Institutional Commitment to Serve Low-Income Families
Each year a growing level of national angst follows the publication of the USNWR rankings. Several other rankings also are published which attempt to measure various institutions, and not always in a positive light. In the future, as a result of federal legislation (HEOA 2008), there will be yet another ranking by sector referred to as “lists of shame,” which will depict the highest rankings by cost, net cost, and rate of increase in costs of postsecondary institutions. Continue reading Measuring Institutional Commitment to Serve Low-Income Families
The Swail Letter on Higher Education 