<p>
[quote]
I would be far more likely to refer to UMass-Amherst.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is the one flagship public I probably would agree to call "impoverished", although in that case the challenges extend beyond monetary issues.</p>
<p>^And that's partly because the presence of Harvard MIT, Williams, Amherst, and so forth suck the air out just as the Grandes Ecoles suck the air out for other French universities. But the UCs operate in a totally different context.</p>
<p>However, I recently posted a Boston Globe article that reported that public universities are raising fees to increase revenue and that these fees are in some cases surpassing tuition as the main expense for students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The real crisis is American education, and the real shame of America, is our K-12 system, especially as it plays out in large urban areas, not our higher education system. The author chooses to attack higher ed, because it is not wholly controlled by government, but it nonetheless works. That is anathema to intellectuals of a certain stripe.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Applause and whistles are in order!</p>
<p>
[quote]
of course, the author ignores the fact that the UC system purposely recruits and admits low income kids (each campus has ~33% Pell Grantees), and the fact that the UC system doles out tons of finaid to these kids, in an almost Robin Hood style education (as mini as suggested)</p>
<p>However, such facts would render the article worthless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Blue, out of curiosity, do you have access to the numbers that would help asceratin the percentage of state aid and UC funds versus FEDERAL funds doled out as aid to Pell grantees? Given the low tuition (or the other name given to describe the cost of attending) for residents of California, isn't a substantial percentage of financial aid represented by Pell, SEOG, and other federal assistance?</p>
<p>
[quote]
...the vision of high-quality university education for the whole society has been largely abandoned.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>xiggi: a standard grant pkg for a Pell Grantee at at UC would be comprised of approx 50% federal $$ and 50% Cal Grant. On top of that, the feds would kick in work study money. But, even leveraging federal largesse (which any state could do if it so chose), it doesn't negate the fact the UC's are educating MORE poor kids today (as a % of total) than they have in prior decades. But, that FACT would eliminate the thesis of the whole article which the author concludes in the quote above.</p>
<p>
[quote]
annual Department of Education spending on federal Pell Grants grew from $8.7 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2006, nearly 50 percent growth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
5.3 million students received federal Pell Grants in 2005, an increase of 44 percent over ten years. In all, in 2006 more than 10 million Americans will receive various federal subsidies for higher education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to economist Richard Vedder, college tuition costs increased by 295 percent between 1982 and 2003, a growth rate higher than health care costs (195 percent), housing (84 percent), and all items (83 percent). In his book, Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much, Dr. Vedder argues that increased federal spending on higher education has contributed to rising tuition costs. In other words, federal subsidies are not making higher education more affordable because colleges and universities simply consume this additional source of revenue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bluebayou, I appreciate the reply. </p>
<p>I'll to agree with your comment that "But, even leveraging federal largesse (which any state could do if it so chose), it doesn't negate the fact the UC's are educating MORE poor kids today (as a % of total) than they have in prior decades." This said, I find it hard to completely abandon the cynical view that the percentage of Pell grantees at the UC, and especially at UCLA and Cal is not an accident, but is part of a well crafted plan to maximize the federal contributions to the UC system as a time when the California experiences the impact of growing chasm between budgetary requirements and frozen property taxes. </p>
<p>As far as educating poor kids, you may find the positions of Dr. Kirst interesting:</p>
<p>The title itself speaks volume: "BETRAYING THE COLLEGE DREAM"</p>
<p>There are more articles on his blog, but linking to blogs is not permitted on CC. Here's one article worthy of checking:</p>
<p>Again, a cynic might conclude that not all poors are equal, even in one of the most socialistic-minded state of the left coast.</p>
<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>to out cynic me, y'all have to get up awfully early. :D</p>
<p>But, not sure I agree with your first cyncism. If the author of the article is correct, the Unis are being filled with rich kids, not poor kids but at the UC the trend is the opposite -- rich kids can attend privates. If not for holistic review [or fill in your reason(s)] which gives big tips for low income kids, Cal, UCLA & UCSD could easily fill up their frosh classes with full pay kids, so there would be no need for the federal largesse regardless of the state budget. Indeed, the Dean of Boalt has even asked the Regents to increase Boalt's tuition/fees significantly, with a concomitant increase in finaid for low income students. </p>
<p>Not sure I understand your final point. </p>
<p>But, do agree that many K-12 schools on the left coast are a mess, particuarly middle school and high schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
more American students attend college than in any other country
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That statistic is long out of date. Some European matriculation rates surpassed US in the 1990s-early 2000's, and much of what is accredited as college in the US wouldn't pass muster elsewhere.</p>
<p>I don't know about countries other than France, but the state of higher education--and by that I don't mean the Grandes Ecoles or even the Sorbonne, which has seen better days--is extremely sorry. My siblings have run the gamut: Grande Ecole, Nanterre, Sciences Po (briefly) and an IUT. Here is an excerpt from a 2006 article:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, France is caught between its official promotion of the republican notion of "equality" and its commitment to the nurturing of an elite cadre of future leaders and entrepreneurs.</p>
<p>Only 4 percent of French students make it into the most competitive French universities - the public "grandes </p>
<p>^^--^^</p>
<p>Calculating the graduation rates of high schoolers seems to be more an art than a science:</p>
<p>An interesting snapshot on how the US compares to the rest of the OECD is:</p>
<p>The conclusions are, however, remarkable:</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>There are causes for concern in the United States’ education system. The advantage it had over other countries of much higher completion rates of upper secondary education and tertiary education has been eroded.</p>
<p>The higher education system in the United States remains strong, at least in its reputation which is all that is measured internationally and at least for its elite institutions. The United States’ economy continues to derive a relative advantage in innovativeness from the research conducted in its universities.</p>
<p>The quality of the learning of 15-year-olds in the United States, particularly in mathematics and problem solving, are well below those of many European countries and also Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand. With its relatively high expenditure and its relatively low student achievements at the school level, the United States education system is *clearly inefficient. *
[/quote]
</p>
<p>PS The OECD had one glaring omission in its report. They forget the word PUBLIC in the sentence that should have read "the United States PUBLIC education system is clearly inefficient."</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>I have always maintained that the k-12 system in the US is inferior to the k-12 system in France (which is the country I know best). But the rate of university attendance and the quality of higher education in the US are both higher than in France. If the dropout rate in the UK s high, the level of university attendance has to be commensurately mediocre.
When I lived in Europe, I knew some comprehensive school teachers who had very similar laments to American teachers faced with students with limited English. One teacher said that she spent much of her class time the day we visited her tying her students' shoelaces and finding out if they'd had any breakfast. Sounds familiar? That was in 1979.
As for French higher education, the rosy picture we entertain of it ignores the realities of life in the banlieues such as Bobigny.</p>
<p>Marite, I was not disputing your information about the US versus France. I was merely adding a couple of statistics and viewpoints about the ... validity of the numbers. </p>
<p>Fwiw, when debating graduation numbers, it may be worthwhile to revisit our past discussions about the articles about Birmingham High in Los Angeles. The "official" sources maintained that the graduation rates were dozens of points above the "real" numbers. Similar situations happen in Texas, and probably throughout the United States. The results: a massive under-reporting of the dropout rates. </p>
<p>How much of an impact does that have on the statistics used by the OECD ... I don't know. :D</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>Yes. Statistics are slippery at best.
It used to be that it was okay to leave school after the brevet (taken after 9th grade, and in fact, most French students did. Nowadays, someone who has passed the brevet can, depending on the results, go to a more academic track or an entirely vocational one. Most American high schools only have an academic track. Our school does have a vocational program, but it is not a track as such, more a set of courses in different specialties. So I wonder about data collection. Do French students who go into a vocational track after 9th grade count as opposed to American students who are counted as drop outs if they leave before 12th grade?</p>
<p>I read a news report a few months ago about a midwestern public high school in a recently de-certified school district, in which the graduation rate for said high school was given as 55%, but the drop-out rate as 18%. Some math, eh?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do French students who go into a vocational track after 9th grade count as opposed to American students who are counted as drop outs if they leave before 12th grade?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good question, Marite. However, I would not be so sure if students who leave BEFORE the start of 12th grade as counted as dropouts ... in the US. I read that some districts only report dropouts and graduation rate using the the start and end of the 12th grade. </p>
<p>I think there are questions everywhere. For instance, I have also read reports that the PISA and TIMMS comparisons between the United States and European countries were unfair because of the highly developed vocational tracks in Europe. Well, looking at Belgium (as an example) revealed that the country reported scores from every type of education sector (vocational, technical, and special ed.) </p>
<p>No matter how we look at it, our K-12 is NOT doing as well as most want us to believe, and the future looks even bleaker as we still fail to adequately address the issue of the entry of a large number of poorly educated and poorly prepared immigrants in our system.</p>
<p>No matter how we look at it, our K-12 is NOT doing as well as most want us to believe, and the future looks even bleaker as we still fail to adequately address the issue of the entry of a large number of poorly educated and poorly prepared immigrants in our system.</p>
<p>Yes, I absolutely agree.</p>
<p>I don't know about Belgium. In France, the 12th grade is equivalent to the first year of college here (which is why students who have passed the bac are eligible for Advanced Standing). A lot more pruning of students happens before 12th grade (the first part of the bac, for example, must be passed before a student can go on to 12th grade). In US schools, APs are still not universally taught. </p>
<p>But I will repeat: the US k-12 school curriculum is not as challenging as that of many other countries. However. US higher education is on the whole better than in most countries. "On the whole" is an important modifier. It's no use comparing Podunk U to Oxbridge, Science Po, Beida, Todai, and other top universities.</p>
<p>Pell grants are usually regarded as a tool to improving access for children of low and modest income families. However, at least at private schools this may not be the case.
My son received Pell and SEOG grants that served to replace money that his well-endowed school would have provided. These were not treated as "outside scholarships", but rather served as federal transfer payments to his school. There was no economic effect for him or for our family.
I don't have any idea if this works the same at public universities for children who might qualify for tuition discounts because of family need.
But I have noticed that it doesn't seem to be the poor, but university administrators, who are most often quoted wringing their hands over inadequate Pell Grants.
My son's school was a fine one and very generous. No complaints there. I just think that the practical function of SEOG and Pell Grants may not be well understood.</p>
<p>Response to post #40</p>
<p>Marite:</p>
<p>
[quote]
YOU should not truncate quotes. Especially quotes by the author of the article under discussion by a poster.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I did not truncate your quotes for ill intention. I just simply quoted the only sentence that was relevant to my argument. Both you and I quoted Newfield’s article but my quote did not contain the whole paragraph like yours because I did not want the long paragraph overshadow what I intended to say. I did not leave out words to twist the meaning of the original contents. The sentence I quoted was totally complete. And I truly did not want to hide anything that you wrote or quoted. As a matter of fact, I did mention the your post number at the beginning of my response so that everyone could read it. I don’t have a lot of thoughtful and helpful posts like you do, but I do know the rules of the game, the judgments of the readers and the rights of the writers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Can you point to exactly where I said the author praised French education?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you did not literally say so. But your response and some other responses negative toward French education, which has nothing with the article, made me wonder.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But let's recognize that American higher education is, on the whole, better than French higher education and that more Americans go to college than French students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, this is the heart of the issue and I am happy that you mention it. And I would like to add: Let’s make American higher education not only better than French education, but also better than education in other European countries (which are a lot better than France). And more than that, let’s make American education always better than education in many countries in the world like Russia, India, China that are trying to catch or surpass us in the global competition. And the right way to do this is “let there be the light”. But before we can have the light shine and guide on our future generations, “let there be the money!” (borrowed from a UC campus student magazine during the early 1980s).</p>
<p>Coolweather:</p>
<p>I am glad we are in broad agreement. My beef with Newfield is that in order to make his point about the UCs, he mentions the Grandes Ecoles. As Elaine Sciolino pointed out, the Grandes Ecoles educate 4% of the total student population but absorb 30% of the total higher education budget. This imbalance is a big contributing factor to the financial crisis in the rest of the French educational system. There is no comparable situation in the US, including in the CA higher education system.</p>
<p>China, indeed is making huge strides, but again there is huge disparities in the quality of education between what is available at some of the top Beijing universities and what is available in the hinterland. And in Shanghai, profs complain they have no students. On paper they do, hundreds of them. But the students do not come to class; they're probably too busy making money.
India, too, has some excellent institutions of higher learning such as ITT--and widespread illiteracy and people happy to be making $1.25 a day.</p>
<p>Having read Newfield's cv, I am not surprised at his perspective. I just wish he were more informed about the rest of the world.</p>