<p>San Jose State University is one of the two flagships?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>San Jose State University’s policy requires students with 60 units to have declared a major, and does not allow students with more than 90 units to change major “except by special permission”. Now, it does not say how hard it is to get that “special permission” (given the intent of the policy, it is rather likely that they will only approve it if the change does not require excess units, in addition to being allowed into the major since many are impacted). Even if the major change were allowed, the other parts of the policy that disallow students who are over units from registering for courses other than those required for graduation and that disallow students who have fulfilled all graduation requirements from staying put a cap on the courses/units that the student can take.</p>
<p>The policies at Berkeley do not make exception for late major changes – those who change major late are still subject to the semester or unit ceilings.</p>
<p>What would you like to see the universities have as far as policies of this kind or others intended to avoid perpetual students?</p>
<p>Obviously, such policies are not the complete solution, since the biggest share of the problem comes from poor K-12 preparation.</p>
<p>Some more ideas for incentives against perpetual students at state universities:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>After 130 semester or 195 quarter credit units (or 70 semester or 105 quarter credit units since junior transfer) attempted at the university, in-state undergraduate students pay out-of-state tuition, and all undergraduate students get lower registration priority.</p></li>
<li><p>Repeating courses (including failed or late dropped courses, but not including passed courses that are designated to allow being repeated for credit) requires paying out-of-state tuition for that course, and puts the student at lower registration priority for the course.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’d go further to say that everyone isn’t college material, but a better job has to be made so that those who are deserving have the means to stay and be successful.</p>
<p>I’ve have posted my ideas over the years, but that is beyond the point of this thread (I think). But the short answer is that they start with higher standards. (Does EVERY 3.1 student in California need to be able to attend a major, research Uni?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve been singing that tune for many years. The real policy question then: does it make economic sense to be remediating students in college? Is it good public policy to be teaching high school-level work at supposedly four-year Universities?</p>
<p>American colleges are some of the best in the world. American k - 12 is one of the worst in the world. I do not care what some economist is saying, his focus is not correct. Colleges would be cheaper if they did not have to fill the gap between k - 12 and college with some resources are being completely wasted as sometime gaps are not possible to close. The thinking process is gone in a wrong direction and it is too late to correct it. Person has to develop plan for another future, his chosen path is closed to him, very very sad realization, too many instances of this happenning.</p>
<p>^Sorry, but only <em>SOME</em> American college are the best in the world. The rest of them are not. And I mean, REALLY NOT.</p>
<p>So while YES, there’s a BIG problem in k-12, there’s also no way to magically correct that problem to prevent a flow-through to the MAJORITY of post-secondary institutions in the U.S.</p>
<p>For example - this is arbitrary, but using the Times Higher Education top 200 World University ranking, the US is represented by about 72 universities – so we dominate 36% of the top 200 World universities. But we have 2,618 college and universities in the U.S. So those schools that made the top 200 World rank actually represent only 2.7% of the country’s schools.</p>
<p>I think the problems we’re seeing in the US college system flow from or mirror some of the root problems we have at the k12 level to some degree.</p>
<p>We have real extremes in the quality of delivery, funding, and programming. We have real extremes in capability and cultures/environments that emphasize academic success. </p>
<p>However, we somehow think that sending everyone to college will not actually dilute the quality of college. How can it not, with such extremes in combined intellectual capacity, training, resources and experience? It doesn’t matter whether you prefer nature or nurture arguments – both play in, and both relate to an increasing partitioning of our society intellectually and socioeconomically.</p>
<p>kayf,
Are you familiar with the “best in the world”? Even the best private prep. k -12 in the USA do not measure up to average / ordinary schools in many other countries. The reason that they cannot is academic program. Even private prep HSs have to follow the same academic program as the rest of the USA. Physics does NOT start in 6th grade, it is NOT studied for many years (just one of the examples). The same goes for algebra, geometry, trig. There are NO separate geography classes. It should be no such thing as science or social study classes in elementary or for that matter math classes, they should be subdivided into specialties. Elementary school is not busy work with tons of meanningless papers to fill. It develops very important analytical thinking to make sure that kids in HS have foundation to prepare for college. Other countires preppare EVERYBODY for college, they truly give every person an opportunities to do so, kids do not have to chase tutors and take remedial classes. It does not mean that everybody will go to college but it makes much higher educated human resources, people who do not struggle understanding what it is one third of the pound that customer wants to buy.</p>
<p>Other countires preppare EVERYBODY for college, they truly give every person an opportunities to do so, kids do not have to chase tutors and take remedial classes.</p>
<p>-No desire to go to other countries, not yet anyway.
However, to prepare EVERYBODY for college definitely will solve many problems, specifically, boredom in k - 12, lack of challenge, which leads to kids challenging themselves (sometime unlawfully), give them real challenges, make academics exciting, interesting instead of dull…you will see great rsults in amny aspects of kids’ life, not just academically.</p>
<p>…btw, yes, Chinese kids who happen to come here have huge advantages in both HS and college. They are placed in higher level classes in HS despite of language challenges, the same goes for exchange students from Europe. Many parents here are aware of that. However, going there to get educated is not a solution, solution is to have great k -12 here, as much money poured into it, money is not used to improve the situation, which is getting worse.
Life experiences answer many more questions and give us solid background. Any kind of articles reflect perceptions / opinions of somebody else and theri own background, you need to separate facts from fiction there.</p>
<p>I completely agree with MiamiDAP on this topic. Speaking from the personal experience, BTW. And term “other countries” does not equal “China”. </p>
<p>Science as a subject is a NONSENSE. When I went to school, we had separate lessons (some - twice a week, some more often) in Geography and Biology (starting in 4th or 5th grade, Biology was split into Botany, Zoology, Anatomy, etc), Chemistry and Physics (starting from the 7th grade). You absolutely can’t understand molecular biology without basic knowledge of Chemistry. And this is what is required in NY from 8 graders (the science program includes DNA replication).</p>
<p>Social Studies - another nonsense. There is NO Social Studies - there are History, Geography, Geology, Sociology, Economics. History is taught terribly as well in elementary and middle school. I understand that knowing a history of your state/country is important, but studying a wold history must start much earlier than in HS. And you need much more than 1 year in HS to be able to learn and appreciate it.</p>
<p>Forgive me for saying this, but Americans have very bad reputation abroad as people who are very narrow minded with limited knowledge of culture, history and languages of other nations.</p>
<p>My kids both went/going to private elementary/middle school, and the school really tries to do it’s best to educate, but they must follow approved by Board of Education program.</p>
<p>Well, as the dominant culture in the world over most of the last century the USA had no need to learn that much about other countries. They could learn about the US and adapt. Still pretty much true.</p>
<p>Well, I would respectfully disagree. Learning world history has TREMENDOUS benefits. Smart people learn from mistakes of others. And world history has tons of examples when the same mistake was repeated over and over by different nations in different times.</p>
<p>Besides, I would question a statement that the USA was “the dominant culture in the world over most of the last century”. I am sure quite a few nations would disagree as well.</p>
<p>And a statement “They could learn about the US and adapt” is pretty much a demonstration why Americans have such a bad international reputation. I am not saying we must be loved by everyone, but it would be nice to be respected.</p>
<p>Whatever the dominant culture in the world happens to be, greater knowledge about other countries would help in terms of dealing with situations where your country and other countries interact or may interact, such as immigration, trade, war, etc…</p>
<p>While I might concur, a generation or so of Educators do not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I concur, learning more WH and/or sooner means something else gets dropped out. And since we are already not very good at readin’, writin’, and 'rithmatic… :)</p>
<p>I used China as an example because they have many children who are * not* being educated, & because they are often held up as an example of exemplary STEM education.
Our country attempts to teach a very diverse population & while there are obviously many problems with the way we attempt to do that, I think it is a testament to the American people that many of us still value public education for all.</p>
<p>I don’t feel pushing STEM education per se down into the elementary schools is the way to improve education- although my D was exposed to algebra & physics in grade school.
What we need to teach kids is how to evaluate what they are learning, to encourage questions & investigation, instead of discouraging it & to value the arts as much as we do engineering.</p>
<p>I have never questioned the importance of having affordable public education system. The problem is that education is a two-way process. The teacher has to be willing and able to teach,and a student must be willing and able to learn. And the parents involvement is very important as well.</p>
<p>Where I grew up, we had a free education, not just K-10 (yes, we had 10 grades, but went to school 6 days per week), but also 2 year trade schools and 4-6 years undergrad and grad institutes and universities. A K-8 school was mandatory for all. And it was not uncommon for a kid to be held back and made to repeat a grade, if there was a need.</p>
<p>I am not promoting STEM-focused education, but the current system obviously does not work. You cannot just pick a fact from here, another one from there and expect a child to understand. Basis is very important. And since every kid will have to learn Physics, Chemistry and Bio in a HS any way, why not to start early, built a proper base knowledge, and enable the child to expand this knowledge later on?</p>
<p>As for
</p>
<p>Maybe this generation of educators is wrong? US K-12 education used to be much better a generation or two ago (or so I was told:))</p>