While trolling over the internet, I came across an excellent essay by George Leef that I had to share. For those of you with an interest in college life and higher education overall, you have to read this essay. It’s a great combination of interesting, biting truth regarding the end results that we expect from students at our universities and colleges. My favorite part of the essay:

The final bad answer Henrie discusses is the idea, derived from John Stuart Mill, that the purpose of college is to get students to challenge reigning beliefs. The trouble with this approach is that it tends to collapse into a universal skepticism. Students are conditioned to think that all our traditions and institutions must be defective if they can’t pass the test of rigorous rationality. Utopian reformers love this, since it creates a horde of young people who imagine themselves to be deep and “critical” thinkers, but who actually have very shallow minds.

Ha ha! You really have to read the entire essay to understand where Mr. Leef is coming from. How many of us know people who have ridiculous, anarchist views on government which they attribute to their college experience (* raises hand *)? How many of us know people who justify the use of drug use because it allows them to produce deeper thoughts (* raises hand again *)? I love this article!

And it’s so true, too. Many people might be able to recall a college experience where great time and effort was put into competing theories of government, for example. Then those competing theories were used to measure up against the American system (again, for example). But how many students or graduates can recall a class that talks about how the American system (or some other system) of government is the best, feasible working government? Not many.

Anyway, just sharing - I thought it was enlightening.

MSNBC.com posted an article today that I found surprising and interesting. Apparently some of America’s highest-regarded institutes of higher learning are suggesting that graduating seniors take a year off before they start college. Fascinating! From the article:

It’s called a “gap year.” And while it’s been a common and popular rite of passage in Australia and the U.K. for decades, the concept is now starting to gain significant steam here in America.

A gap year, huh? Lump me into that portion of the American public who went to nursery school, then immediately to preschool, then immediately to grade school, then immediately to high school, then immediately to college, then immediately to graduate school, and then immediately into the full-time workforce. I started my education at 2 years old and I finished it (for the time being) at age 25. No “gap” year for me…or most of the people that I know, quite frankly. More from the article:

A growing number of high school seniors are balking at riding the academic conveyer belt from preschool all the way to university. They’re burnt out. Or not quite ready. Or they want to explore a few interests before deciding what to study in college. So instead of packing their bags in anticipation of freshman year, they’re volunteering in New Orleans or teaching in Thailand. They’re starting the great American novel, or interning to help figure out what they want to do with their lives.

I love it!

What a brilliant idea, if you can afford it. Using hindsight as 20/20, I would have loved to travel for a little bit before going to college or before going to graduate school. Of course, I couldn’t do that before graduate school because if you don’t go back to school, then you have to start paying back your loans. However, taking a year off before college to do something else would have been a good idea - especially this idea of trying to get an internship or two in the off year. Good thinking.

I would have loved that internship idea because honestly, at 27 years old, I’m not entirely sure that my current field is one that I want to stay in for the long-term. Anyway, this is an interesting idea and I wish that there was some data to show that taking a year off after high school provided a net benefit for the student. I’m also lured by the idea of a “gap” year where you have no “real world” responsibilities! I was just telling one of my roommates that once I pay off my student loans and all other major outstanding debts AND I put aside enough money to live a scant life off of the interest, it has always been my plan to either take a sabbatical from my job or leave the workforce for about a year. Again, I’ve never really had a “break” from school or athletics or work and I’m not willing to wait until I’m 67 for my first long-term vacation!

But I have to get there first… Wish me luck!

Minding the Campus is a great website that keeps an eye on the many oddities that seem to take place at college campuses. You know these oddities - the private school that believes they do not have to follow American law, the public school that believes they can restrict a student’s right to freely express their views (in a non-harmful way), the college professor that bashes and berates America…while he lives and raises a family in the very country he seems to hate. There are illogical happenings all over college campuses and Minding the Campus is one of the best sites to monitor what’s going on.

Just recently they posted a commentary by Charlotte Allen that discussed the increasing costs of college textbooks. This is one of the most thoughtful, thorough discussions of this topic that I’ve read and the comments on the post are equally as thought-provoking. If you have the time in your day, I highly suggest reading this commentary.

For what it’s worth, my stance as an Adjunct Professor is to assign textbooks that deliver the message of the course and - most importantly - help students learn the material. If that goal can be achieved with a used text or text that is cheaper than a brand new book, then I’m happy to assign an older text for the students.

While looking around FOXNews.com I noticed a story about a high school student arguing that his “American Government” textbook is biased. The article cites some parts of the textbook that claim global warming is still being studied and that the Supreme Court decision on striking down the Texas law regarding gay sex harmed the fragility of the federal system.

What bothers me is that this story is nothing more than a high school student with too much time on his hands - and a considerable liberal bend - trying to take the low road on each of these debates. The low road, as anyone who keeps an eye on political discourse can tell you, is to immediately claim that the other side’s argument is wrong and presents an inherent bias. It’s sad, really.

But I don’t blame the kid. In fact, I admire his will to put himself out there in the public eye. I do, however, blame the horrible education system in New Jersey that apparently has failed this child. A citation from the article linked above:

Another part of the book that the report criticizes deals with a Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas law banning sexual contact between people of the same sex.

The authors wrote that the Supreme Court decision had a “benefit” and a “cost.” The benefit, it said, was to strike down a rarely enforced law that could probably not be passed today, while the cost was to “create the possibility that the court, and not Congress or state legislatures, might decide whether same-sex marriages were legal.”

Derek Araujo, the report’s author, said that’s a matter of opinion and that gay-rights activists, for example, see it differently. “The major problem with this is they describe the costs and benefits of the system in a very political way,” he said.

No, you morons, this is not a matter of opinion. Stop blurring the fucking issue that the textbook is talking about, damn it. The “political” part of this debate is not looking at the issue in terms of American Government (which is the purpose of the class and textbook in question). American Government can ONLY be taught from the facts, not from a biased point of view. When it IS taught from a biased view or to an audience/class that has inherent biases with no preparation for a clean discussion, you get stupid stories like this one.

From the standpoint of American Government, the issue here is the Supreme Court making a decision about an issue that is not specifically cited in the Constitution. A teacher (and a textbook) MUST make that connection. Now, if you want to ignite some debate with the students you can always ask for their opinions on the issues themselves (in this case, gay marriage). That will probably bring a lively discussion. But the authors of this textbook (James Wilson and John Dilulio) are correct - the root issue here is the Supreme Court deciding whether or not gay marriage is legal. Does anyone read the Constitution any more besides Ron Paul?! This type of issue is to be decided by the states, period.

Now, if one wants to make an argument that certain freedoms are being restricted and thus the Supreme Court needs to step in, then I can buy that argument if it’s made well. But the issue at hand here and as discussed in this textbook is one that is not inherently political. It’s a basic, fundamental discussion of how the American federal, judicial, and legislative system work together. Get over it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did NOT use this textbook in my class on American Government that I taught last semester. I did, however, use a previous version of this text as a student at my ultra-liberal Graduate School. Also, I was sent an updated copy of this text by the publisher when I began teaching my course and I made the decision last semester to switch to the college version of the textbook in question.

Ever since I started paying back my student loans some 20 months ago, I’ve been complaining about how inept and downright rude the people at the New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority are on the telephone. Not only do they treat you like you are trying to get away with something, but they fail to understand the basic fundamental purpose of their organization - to provide low-cost student loans to New Jersey residents so they may earn a higher education degree.

Well, it looks like these folks are finally going to get what’s coming to them. The Asbury Park Press reported the other day that an independent monitor will begin looking at the NJHESAA as a part of the national student loan scandal that is unfolding. Good.

I don’t know all of the nitty gritty details of what’s going on at NJHESAA and I really don’t want to know them right now. I’m glad that this organization is being monitored and that new borrowers will think twice about whether or not this is the proper vehicle for their higher education financing needs. If I could go back in time and NOT take a NJHESAA loan, I would do that in a heartbeat. I’d rather have a loan from a large traditional financing institution that sees me as nothing more than a profit on their books than deal with the arrogant, demeaning people at NJHESAA.

And they charge me too much for my loan. Thanks to Dave for sending me this link a few weeks ago.

Once again, there are problems in Ocean Township. While the brainwashed masses (which seem to be dwindling) continue to rant and rave about the local off-campus college constituency and how they are ruining their “family neighborhoods,” it looks like those families aren’t so wholesome themselves…

From today’s Asbury Park Press (this has been edited to withhold names):

It might have seemed like something from “That ’70s Show,” but it was no laughing matter to the six people who got arrested, five for underage drinking and a sixth for joining in a scheme to bake marijuana into brownies, police said.

When police were called late Wednesday night to a wall-shaking party on Oakhurst Road, they heard loud music and found Bryan J. K——, 19, hosting a party where underage drinking and marijuana were evident, Detective Lt. Steven R. P—– said.

You know what this shows? That Ocean Township is a regular, normal American town. So for all of those Monmouth University students out there who are either forced to go to these “coalition” meetings or are stuck in a situation where you are berated by police officers when they walk into your home or berated by the local judge in the courtroom, remember this story (and the countless others on this blog).

Some people in Ocean Township will try to make you feel like you are a blemish on their idyllic little community. Bullshit. Their community hides much more than just what you read here - they’re just like everyone else so don’t fall for their holier than thou crap.

But hey…someone better do something about those damn college kids, right?

What a joke.

After listening to Governor Mike Huckabee make a great comment during the ABC News Presidential debates tonight, I had to quote him here. When asked about illegal immigration and what he would do, Governor Huckabee said a bunch of things, but one quote caught my mind:

“When people live in the United States, they ought to have their head up - they ought not to live in fear. Everytime they see a police car, they shouldn’t run and hide. Nobody ought to live like that in this country.”

Ha ha ha ha!!! Governor Huckabee!

I like Governor Huckabee - I really don’t have any major gripe against him, but at this point in the campaign I really don’t have a desire to learn much more about where he stands on each issue (remember, as an independent I can’t vote in New Jersey’s primaries without declaring a party - which I won’t do). But let me make this comment about Governor Huckabee’s quote up there…

As a person with a larger-than-normal degree of empathy, I can appreciate the fact that illegal immigrants are forced to live in a manner that many of us find abhorrent. Yet while I find the Governor’s statement to be a great political quote and one worthy of repeating, I wonder when a candidate will step up and make the same, truthful comparison about the good old boy system that has ravaged New Jersey and many other areas of this country.

In other words, I lived through some of the worst abuses of civil liberties that I’ve ever seen when I was a college student renting a home in Ocean Township, New Jersey. Police officers sat outside of our house, they routinely followed my roommates into the driveway of our home and questioned them at all hours of the day (and night), they would open up the front door of our house at 2am and walk through and tell us they were “just checking” even when only 2 people were home. It was a disgusting abuse of power that took place 6 - 8 years ago and to this day my roommates and I have a great disgust for the Ocean Township law enforcement and a much greater disgust for the anti-college student feeling in Ocean Township.

We ARE the people who see police cars with “Ocean Township” on the side of them and we attempt to run and hide because we know that in this town you can be arrested (or at least given a big money ticket) for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s happened to my former roommates, it’s happened to our friends, and it’s happened to me damn it. And I don’t buy the crap that we were “rowdy college students living in family neighborhoods.” Bullshit on that! We weren’t nearly as rowdy as the “family” that lived two doors down from us with the high school-aged daughter who was selling drugs to half of the town. Our rent (our very HIGH rent, I might add) paid the same taxes the rest of the town paid. And, we added a great deal to the local economy.

So I love Governor Huckabee’s comment that no one in America should live in fear of the police. But what happens when the local police (or an entire state’s police system) has turned into nothing more than a civil liberties abusing fundraising arm of the politicians? It’s disgusting and if America really wants “change” then we all need to start by no longer permitting the vast abuses of power that we see at the local level.

The folks at MSNBC.com finally posted something worth reading. The other day they had an article that talked about how charities are finding it harder to plug the holes in their budgets with donations. As someone who makes a lot of donations each year and also works in and studies the nonprofit industry, I found this article very interesting. For me, one of the best parts of the article was:

It costs more to acquire new donors than to retain them, experts say. But churning through donors also makes it harder to woo benefactors. “Donors don’t want to be funding fundraising,” says Sargeant. “They want to be funding the work you’re trying to do.”

And they’re demanding much more accountability from the nonprofits they bankroll. If they don’t get it, they walk, says Penelope Burk, president of the fundraising consultancy Cygnus and Associates.

This is it - this is what the nonprofit industry comes down to. First, are you asking for someone to make a donation that goes to a cause or goes towards paying for salaries? Second, are you willing to explain your expenses and why money is put in certain places as opposed to others? Third, are you doing what you actually said you would be doing?

The answers to these three questions are why I donate to the Sigma Pi Educational Foundation. When I donate to the SPEF, I am giving a tax-deductible donation to two specific funds (both of my choosing) that are managed by people I know on a first-name basis and can e-mail at 1:00pm and receive a personal response by 2:00pm. These funds are under the oversight of a Board where I know many of the members on a first-name basis and have many of the cell phone numbers in my phone.

That level of trust is hard to come by in the nonprofit sector.

I helped put these two funds together and I know where each dollar is spent. I know how much of the fund’s earnings are spent on administrative expenses and I know how much goes back to the overall end-user and it what forms (scholarships for the undergraduate fraternity brothers). At any time I can pick up the phone and call the President of the SPEF and have a discussion with him.

There’s a level of trust and reliability there that you cannot build very easily. Hell, my own company is a nonprofit and I’ve yet to donate or invest any money with them! I’ll be changing that in the New Year, but it has taken me the better part of 16 months as an employee to even reach that level of comfort.

So be sure that you know the places that you’re donating to and be sure that you know where the money is being spent. And hey, if you feel like you can’t make an impact with any organization, then donate to the Sigma Pi Educational Foundation! It’s a good group with a good cause which I’d be more than happy to talk to any of you about!

Earlier today a news brief was posted on the Daily Record’s website that spoke about the increase in students attending county colleges. Below is an excerpt of the release, which I’m sure will be made into a fuller article in the coming days:

The New Jersey Council of County Colleges says there are 158,152 students taking classes this fall. Nearly 81,000 are full-time, a 4.6 percent increase over last year.

County colleges previously had more part-time students. But the group says that trend has changed as tuition climbed at four-year schools.

Tuition at New Jersey’s county colleges averages about $2,500. It’s $9,500 at four-year schools.

This is great! Not only are New Jersey students saving some money by attending the county colleges, but as more and more of them make the 2-year pit stop at “county” before heading off to the larger schools, there is less and less of a stigma attached to the schools. County colleges often get tagged with the “13th Grade” moniker or other derogatory nicknames. I’ve never attended classes at a county college, so I wouldn’t know what the classroom atmosphere is like though I can’t imagine it is too much different than attending a smaller class at Rutgers, Monmouth, Rowan, or TCNJ.

As a side note, if this means that more New Jerseyans are going to college, then that is another great outcome of the county colleges!

Every once in a while you find a court case that is just a complete waste of taxpayers’ money and the system’s time. From my view, the recent court case against Monmouth University to block the construction of a 196-bed dorm is a great example of waste. There was no need to go forward with this case after the appeals process upheld the university’s right to build the dorm. The way that Joe Hughes (a local resident who is vehemently against the university’s advancement and running for office) pressed this case forward was shameful. Not only was he putting an undue strain on an already busted legal system, but his “coalition of neighbors” had already been outnumbered by another township-based neighbor group that supported letting the university move forward with their new dorm. A portion of the Asbury Park Press’ story:

WEST LONG BRANCH — The state Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by a group of residents seeking to block construction of a Monmouth University dormitory.

The Supreme Court issued its decision without comment, as is its custom. The action set the stage for construction of the 196-bed dormitory and adjacent parking lot in a residential zone near the school.

On nearby Kilkare Farm, the school plans to build a smaller parking lot, six tennis courts and a drainage basin. Neighbors fought for more than a year to block the plan that school officials said was necessary to house current students, not to expand enrollment.

Even the Borough Council got involved, when a majority of its members voted to sue their own Zoning Board of Adjustment for approving the portion of the project slated for Kilkare Farm. The council declined to pursue an appeal.

In June, a state appellate panel upheld a decision by then-Superior Court Judge Alexander D. Lehrer that determined the West Long Branch zoning board acted correctly in 2005 when it voted 5-1 to approve the project.

Property owners fought for more than a year to block the plan at the zoning board level before being rebuffed at the trial and appellate court levels.

There are so many variables at work here that it’s hard to put a finger on all of them. One of the things that gets me is that you have a minority of homeowners trying to make their stance the final stance when a majority of homeowners either disagreed with them or did not care about the issue. That’s wrong. America was not founded such that the minority position would win out and the legal system proved that in this case (although I am confident that was not the basis for their decision). The minority is to have a voice and that voice is to be heard and respected when possible. But when that voice is “my way or no way,” the majority rules.

I admire the passion of the minority homeowners group and they can never say that their voice is NOT heard in the township when it comes to university issues. They recently had the new sports complex at Monmouth University reduced in size thanks to their voices being heard. This is an example of public policy working as it should in terms of community input. But when your input isn’t taken as gospel, you shouldn’t immediately go to the courts. That’s ludicrous!

For me, this non-decision by the Supreme Court is one of their more sane actions lately. Let the university build and let these new beds take more students out of the surrounding communities and onto the campus. As a side note - I find it funny that these same neighbors are the ones that complain about students living in their neighborhoods. On the one hand, they don’t want more dorm beds. On the other, they don’t want students living next door. No logic there, folks.