This week's blog is about an article I read in the New York Times September 11th edition. The title is "On Campus, It's One Big Commercial". In a nutshell, the article discussed how companies such as American Eagle Outfitters and Target are using students to market their products or services, but to do so in a brilliant (if you support it) or devious (if you don't) way. On large campuses, representatives from these companies will in some ways take the role that campus orientation leaders usually take in assisting students with directions, checking in, making sure they have everything they need, etc.
I must admit that I had some conflicting emotions as I read this. The academic in me that sees a college campus as perhaps the last stand against the tide of commercialism was dismayed at this intrusion of capitalists in a place that should be a shield from the onslaught.
The administrator in me wondered "how can we get in on some of this action, and perhaps use it to our advantage".
The entrepreneur in me wondered "how can I get involved in this, and perhaps utilize it for a future idea of my own"? Terrible, I know. But I had to admit I had such thoughts.
The fascinating quotes from college officials admitted that the institutions involved were not handling this new situation very adeptly, but I can't help but wonder if, in the face of budget problems there may be an effort in the future to tap into this commercial effort for the benefit of the institution (and of course the inevitable arguments that will follow regarding how much of college is being taken over by the creep of corporate influence.
I'm not sure yet where I'll land in this argument. I'm sure the internal dialogue will continue.
Curtis 9-18-11
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
All politics are local
This week's article of interest for me was the one from the September 2nd Chronicle of Higher Education. Here's the link: http://chronicle.com/article/In-Nevada-Harsh-Economic/128806/
In brief, the article mentions the diminishing funding for higher education in the state of Nevada over the past three years, due in large part to the economic meltdown in the gaming industry in Las Vegas which has driven the state's tax revenues. Less gamblers equals less taxes equals less revenues equals less funding for higher ed. Completely makes sense right?
But my conspiratorial little mind focused in on an interesting statistical element to that article. It mentiond that Las Vegas was near the bottom of the country in terms of 25-64 year old job holders in the local economy who held bachelor's degrees. Translated another way, one traditionally has not needed higher education to get a paying job in Las Vegas, or presumably other parts of the state that rely on tourism and casinos.
Here's where my political speculation comes in....one can only imagine that in such a location, with the gaming industry holding such power in determining the state's financial priorities, that not only is higher education not a top priority, is it perhaps a source of agitation to many powerful interests in the state. I can only imagine that among the academics in Nevada are included those faculty who study such things as the addictive nature of gambling and the social cost of enabling that addiction in so many new gamblers. Is it possible that the faculty who conduct such research were among the first to face "unfortunate budget cuts that have cost you your job"? The article didn't really go there, but I can't help but wonder....
In brief, the article mentions the diminishing funding for higher education in the state of Nevada over the past three years, due in large part to the economic meltdown in the gaming industry in Las Vegas which has driven the state's tax revenues. Less gamblers equals less taxes equals less revenues equals less funding for higher ed. Completely makes sense right?
But my conspiratorial little mind focused in on an interesting statistical element to that article. It mentiond that Las Vegas was near the bottom of the country in terms of 25-64 year old job holders in the local economy who held bachelor's degrees. Translated another way, one traditionally has not needed higher education to get a paying job in Las Vegas, or presumably other parts of the state that rely on tourism and casinos.
Here's where my political speculation comes in....one can only imagine that in such a location, with the gaming industry holding such power in determining the state's financial priorities, that not only is higher education not a top priority, is it perhaps a source of agitation to many powerful interests in the state. I can only imagine that among the academics in Nevada are included those faculty who study such things as the addictive nature of gambling and the social cost of enabling that addiction in so many new gamblers. Is it possible that the faculty who conduct such research were among the first to face "unfortunate budget cuts that have cost you your job"? The article didn't really go there, but I can't help but wonder....
Sunday, September 4, 2011
College dropouts and lost tax revenue
A few weeks ago, listening to NPR on the way into work, I heard a report on the amount of money lost to taxpayers and governments when students drop out of college. I've been searching for that story on NPR but just can't find it. Apparently though, it is based on this report.
http://www.air.org/news/index.cfm?fa=viewContent&content_id=1405
There are two issues that I have with this report. One is a pet peeve of mine and the other is what I think of as some basic economic assumption problems.
First, the pet peeve - it is often reported that only about 50% of students who enter college graduate within 6 years. That statistic always drives me a little crazy. The true reporting should say "about 50% of students graduate from the school in which they start". Most schools do not keep track of transfers, only their entering new student fall cohorts. I attended a retention symposium last year in which Dr. Donald Hossler of the National Student Clearinghouse noted that the true graduation rate is much higher, perhaps over 70%. In retention we should not be asking if a student comes back to our school for their 2nd (and 3rd and 4th) year. We should be asking if they come back to any school.
The other issue - the "lost money in taxes" makes one giant assumption - that there are high paying jobs just waiting for those students when they get out of school. A 9.1% unemployment rate in the country suggests otherwise.
One more thing to think about. I was talking to my brother recently who was thinking about his chosen profession (computer science) and how it has changed since he graduated college back in the early 80s. His lament is that when he was a student, companies cared very much that a prospective employee finished a college degree in computer science. But now, when he looks around the landscape of the profession, he finds that many companies simply don't care about the degree. They care about certification in a specific skill (either a programming language or software package).
I'm not suggesting that college dropouts are not costly to the country on a variety of levels. I am saying that the issue is a bit more complex than the article would have us believe.
Curtis 9-3-11
http://www.air.org/news/index.cfm?fa=viewContent&content_id=1405
There are two issues that I have with this report. One is a pet peeve of mine and the other is what I think of as some basic economic assumption problems.
First, the pet peeve - it is often reported that only about 50% of students who enter college graduate within 6 years. That statistic always drives me a little crazy. The true reporting should say "about 50% of students graduate from the school in which they start". Most schools do not keep track of transfers, only their entering new student fall cohorts. I attended a retention symposium last year in which Dr. Donald Hossler of the National Student Clearinghouse noted that the true graduation rate is much higher, perhaps over 70%. In retention we should not be asking if a student comes back to our school for their 2nd (and 3rd and 4th) year. We should be asking if they come back to any school.
The other issue - the "lost money in taxes" makes one giant assumption - that there are high paying jobs just waiting for those students when they get out of school. A 9.1% unemployment rate in the country suggests otherwise.
One more thing to think about. I was talking to my brother recently who was thinking about his chosen profession (computer science) and how it has changed since he graduated college back in the early 80s. His lament is that when he was a student, companies cared very much that a prospective employee finished a college degree in computer science. But now, when he looks around the landscape of the profession, he finds that many companies simply don't care about the degree. They care about certification in a specific skill (either a programming language or software package).
I'm not suggesting that college dropouts are not costly to the country on a variety of levels. I am saying that the issue is a bit more complex than the article would have us believe.
Curtis 9-3-11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)