I attended ISU in the early 70's. It was not uncommon back then for Freshman students to be on academic probation. It they were unable to maintain grade point requirements they were ultimately expeled. This practice was tough on many students. However, as I recall, ISU would accept any Iowa high school senior graduating in the top half of their class. There were certainly many students, fulfilling this requirement, that were not well prepared or motivated for college. I don't know if ISU currenlty has the same admissions policy?
At the time I thought this admissions policy was correct. Most people who wanted the opportunity to attend ISU were given the chance. However, they had to perform or they were out. I still believe that this is the best policy for a state supported school. If lower graduation rates is a major reason for the poor academic ratings then, reluctantly, I will accept the lower ratings.
Note, there wasn't much grade inflation at ISU in the seventies. I don't know if that has changed? Many of the Ivy league schools reportedly have so much grade inflation that it would be impractical to expel students based on grades. If allowing poor-performing students to graduate produces high ratings then the schools that do this will get higher ratings. However, in the longer run, their reputations will suffer.
All the states you mentioned have one thing in common, they all underfunded their pension plans for state workers by diverting it into other areas. Frontline on PBS did a great story about it last year, the story looked at the problems in Kentucky, and how for over 20 years they had underfunded the plan, and then wanted to the public employees to switch over from a defined benefits program into a more state friendly 401 K plan.
Just like the Feds did with SS, they collected the money, and then chose to spend it on other things instead of saving it to pay the pensions that those people earned.
This statement, which I also believe to be true, proves that these rankings have nothing to do with educating students. And for that reason should not be used by anyone to choose a school for themselves or their kids. It is these IVY league schools that are destroying their value.
These rankings, if not about education outcomes, then what do they measure? It's ALL about Coastal education/academic elitism. That's why they care about keeping most people out, fancy doctorate numbers, and it's mostly all a freaking survey. This survey is all about some elitist club, if you care about that then fine, go with the rankings. But I, for one, couldn't give a damn.
What are pension plans? You mean those things which major corporations have all but abandoned? You mean those things which the government puts its money into 'thinking' it will grow disproportionately to GDP? You mean, those things which purportedly have been wrought with criminal management? Oh. Those things. One should never look to someone else who has no financial motivation to manage your personal wealth. Least of all, the government.All the states you mentioned have one thing in common, they all underfunded their pension plans for state workers by diverting it into other areas. Frontline on PBS did a great story about it last year, the story looked at the problems in Kentucky, and how for over 20 years they had underfunded the plan, and then wanted to the public employees to switch over from a defined benefits program into a more state friendly 401 K plan.
Just like the Feds did with SS, they collected the money, and then chose to spend it on other things instead of saving it to pay the pensions that those people earned.
I figure you are familiar with the signaling model of education. If not, enjoy --
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/the_magic_of_ed.html
The way we treat higher education and these rankings makes perfect sense if you view it through the lens of labor market and socioeconomic signaling, rather than through the "human capital" model.
At least you and I agree public finances in this country have been seriously (and probably criminally, if this was done in the private sector instead of the public sector) mismanaged over the past few decades.
They saw the pile of money sitting there, and think, "we can just use that and pay it back at a later date, instead of raising taxes." For many elected officials they just believe it will not be their problem when the s**t hits the fan, because they will not be in office. So they kicked the problem down the road, used the money and could go out and say, "I didn't raise your taxes" in their next reelection campaign.
Just like the Feds did with SS, well now its coming back to roost and they still do not want to raise taxes to make up the difference.
IMHO, the ISU Foundation's goal is to help the Institution. Alumni Association focuses on graduates, not that we're not important.It pains me to see this happen. I’ve seen some comments saying that there is nothing we can do about it... but is that so? I don’t know the answer, but would donations, or maybe joining the alumni association help some? I know this won’t solve all or even most of the issues, but maybe it can help some? I don’t know, just spitballing some ideas here. Alumni membership is fairly cheap, but not sure how much it actually helps the university itself.
Yep, need to create jobs for all those marketing grads we are turning out! Kill two birds with one stone.So after reading this thread, it appears that the best way to get our ranking up is to treat the rankings like they do the Oscars in the movie business. Spend a lot of money marketing the people that fill out the surveys!
I think you are maybe more right on what the goal should be but society as a whole particularly businesses have treated college as their training program.Don't think the primary role of the research University is to teach job skills. Certainly, the knowledge gained from an Aerospace degree makes one more valuable to Boeing, but it does not qualify you to desgn the next F35.
On the other hand, research done by the PhD's in Aerospace MIGHT lead to the next iteration of the Stealth Bomber. Or, to bring it home to Iowa, the PhD in Agriculture reasearch might increase crop yields. Don't think most AG grads learned how to drive a tractor at ISU, but if they went into farming, they sure learned the value of using GPS for fertilizer application, even if they don't know how to write computer code.
Think of Atanasoff, a MATH professor at ISU, who invented the first digital computer. His goal was to lessen the time it took to solve complex multivariable equations, not to have Siri find music for you. Yet his vision and research, albeit along with others, created that ability. I know there continues to be that type of research at ISU, but it seems to be more indusry driven, as grants and investment by industry are increasingly needed to fund these activities.
Donating is always helpful. It's not the solution to the problem by any means, but it can help.It pains me to see this happen. I’ve seen some comments saying that there is nothing we can do about it... but is that so? I don’t know the answer, but would donations, or maybe joining the alumni association help some? I know this won’t solve all or even most of the issues, but maybe it can help some? I don’t know, just spitballing some ideas here. Alumni membership is fairly cheap, but not sure how much it actually helps the university itself.
The rankings are about more than educational outcomes. From the beginning, these universities have existed to produce research. This research propels economic growth around universities, brings in external capital, and is an overall benefit to society. These rankings put high value on research productivity, which is not something the average student coming through ISU for an English degree is thinking about.This statement, which I also believe to be true, proves that these rankings have nothing to do with educating students. And for that reason should not be used by anyone to choose a school for themselves or their kids. It is these IVY league schools that are destroying their value.
These rankings, if not about education outcomes, then what do they measure? It's ALL about Coastal education/academic elitism. That's why they care about keeping most people out, fancy doctorate numbers, and it's mostly all a freaking survey. This survey is all about some elitist club, if you care about that then fine, go with the rankings. But I, for one, couldn't give a damn.
I do agree that the chaff, like me , who does not go on to advance degrees has a basis valuable to industry, and without such undergrads, the public research University could not exist at its current level, so that level of education is needed to "man" industrial america. However, I don't think curricula should be driven by training for industry, it is a side benefit for industry, which does fill corporate ranks and gives jobs to grads. Yes that should be part of the equation, but perhaps exercises too much influence due to funding needs at a cost to pure academic research.I think you are maybe more right on what the goal should be but society as a whole particularly businesses have treated college as their training program.
I find it ironic you bash "conservative talking points" when, in reality, I am all for states making smart investments. State governments used to spend most of their money on actual investments in the form of education and infrastructure improvements for transportation and industry. Now, they spend most of their money on healthcare and retired DMV clerks and schoolteachers. Instead of something we use to build for the future, state budgets now are more about political patronage to well-connected and well-funded interest groups, especially public sector unions.
I do not know about you, but I would rather my taxes go to something that generates a return for society, not just politicians' reelections. I think I am on your side -- spending priorities compete with each other. Post-secondary education is just on a losing streak right now compared to these other items.