Dr. Amy B Hollingsworth Berkhouse
  • Home
  • Curriculum Vitae
  • The Seven Minute Scientist
  • About Me
  • Biology With Technology
  • Free Biology Resources for High School Teachers
  • Technology Tools for Graduate Students
  • Amy on The Web
  • Getting Organized as a Grad Student
  • Nerdy Inspiration
  • Blog
  • Five Ways to Get a Busy Professor to Answer Your Emails, That Don't Involve a Bribe
  • 3 Ways to Get or Give a Great Letter of Recommendation
  • The 13 Things That Motivated Me to Get A PhD

Common Core - Fight Against It, or Overcome It?

11/28/2014

0 Comments

 
“When you challenge other people's ideas of who or how you should be, they may try to diminish and disgrace you. It can happen in small ways in hidden places, or in big ways on a world stage. You can spend a lifetime resenting the tests, angry about the slights and the injustices. Or, you can rise above it.”

Carly Fiorina

Every teacher has probably said, at least once in their career, “If you spent as much time studying for your test, as you spent trying to cheat on this test, you’d have gotten an A.” Unfortunately, many teachers now spend copious amounts of time complaining about Common Core and standardized testing. I have seen enormous amounts of time devoted to bashing the CC, bashing the department of education, bashing testing, and bashing reform. Instead of teachers putting all their energy into improving their lessons, some are putting all their energy into the negativity around the Common Core.


In this article, We Need to Do More than Talk about the Goddamn Test, by Jim Horn, he says:
Since 2002, standardized tests have been used to label, demonize teachers, sort and culturally-sterilize students, and shut down schools to benefit the education technology complex and the low-life losers of the charter industry.


By the way, where the hell are the hackers when we need them provide copies of the tests that Pearson and Cuomo keep secret?  Where is Anonymous and their commitment to fairness and democracy??

Obviously, Jim is frustrated with testing. I can completely understand why he thinks the ways he does. I happen to view the Common Core and standardized testing another way. I think the Common Core standards and standardized testing give teachers a clear curriculum path, prioritize disciplinary knowledge instead of “play time” in the classroom, and are giving us valuable data about what works, and what doesn't work in education. Charter schools are giving families choices about which schools they feel are right for their children.


In The New York Times piece that Jim refers to, “We Need to Talk About the Test,” by Elizabeth Phillips, she voices similar frustration. She puts forth a real concern about standardized testing:
I’D like to tell you what was wrong with the tests my students took last week, but I can’t. Pearson’s $32 million contract with New York State to design the exams prohibits the state from making the tests public and imposes a gag order on educators who administer them. So teachers watched hundreds of thousands of children in grades 3 to 8 sit for between 70 and 180 minutes per day for three days taking a state English Language Arts exam that does a poor job of testing reading comprehension, and yet we’re not allowed to point out what the problems were.
What do standardized tests really mean? What is their purpose? Why are they necessary? Every educator has witnessed the decline in the rigor of education over the last 30 years. Do you remember a point in your own education where you stayed up all night studying for a test, creating flashcards, making notes, reading the textbook, and collaborating with peers in cram sessions? Do you think students do these same things today? Are they even willing?  The only hints our teachers used to give us were "Read the chapter." I remember once sitting down to read a whole chapter of my Intro to Biology textbook that weighed 15 pounds. I highlighted, I took notes from it, I did the questions at the end of the chapter. I went to the library. Now, students want a video summary of the chapter, so that they don't have to read.


Where are the places that our students live, that allow them the time to focus on studying? In stable households, where a child can devote time and energy to studying. These are generally middle or upper-class households. I was successful in high school and college because I had two working parents who could provide a stable house, a car, utilities, a desk to study at, and the materials I needed. I wasn’t hungry or malnourished, as are many children living in poverty. I wasn’t distracted by siblings screaming and fighting in the background, by a child of my own, or by parents who were in desperate need of money, or they’d lose the family home. Both of my parents were college-educated, and could help me with my homework, and suggest ways to study. Many students these days are not as lucky as I was, but should we not even TRY to educate them in a rigorous fashion? Many teachers have to deal with IEPs, home life problems, gang problems, poverty problems - they feel like they have to prioritize keeping their students alive, and not teaching. And that makes me sad.


As it became required that every student be given a chance at a high school education, some teachers may have become more lax so that students "like them." "Popular teacher, and "hard teacher" aren't words students often mutter together. Many teachers teach things that their students enjoyed, instead of covering the entire curriculum. They began offering study sheets, which helped the students get better scores on their teacher-generated tests. The teacher-generated tests showed no consistency between teachers in the same schools, in the district, or in the state. You knew which teachers had easier tests or were more fun, and you clamored to get that teacher. Teachers found they enjoyed teaching so much more when they didn’t have students complaining about how hard their tests were, so they might have told students what exactly was going to be on the test, allowed an open book test, or even allowed students to take group tests. Is a "good teacher" the one parents and students like, or the one who completely teaches the discipline? I'd like to argue that teachers should be both. Both rigorous, and kind. Both thorough, and thoughtful. Both challenging, and fair. I believe all teachers can meet the objectives of Common Core, while keeping their creative flair.


Teachers, like Jim, who was first mentioned, wish they had a cheat sheet for the test. But in essence, they do. They have the standards. What is going to be on the test is thoroughly outlined. Teachers are free to teach their discipline to the best of their abilities, with their own creative flair, as long as they meet or exceed the bare minimum that Common Core requires. The reason Common Core emerged was because there was no consistency in education across America. Good teachers were frustrated with their students, and began dumbing-down the curriculum. Good students were frustrated by their home lives, peer interactions, and hormones, and put less and less energy into their studies.


Standardized testing points out the gaps in educational quality. Just as a doctor does a blood panel during your yearly physical, and then knows where your levels are at, standardized tests tell us what level our students are at, compared to other students across the country. As Elizabeth points out, “yet we’re not allowed to point out what the problems were,” teachers KNOW where the problems are. We know that students come to our classes unprepared from previous grade levels. We know students transfer from other districts, where they received inadequate teaching. We know students are passed on to the next grade, “because they are sweet,” and not because they are smart. Social promotions are part of the problem - letting a child pass on to the next grade level, even if they didn’t master the concepts, because it seems cruel to hold them back.


I would like to challenge every teacher - Instead of spending your precious teacher-energy complaining about the tests, every teacher in every school should vow to spend all their energy helping these kids pass (as many already do). They should research each lesson in their lesson plan and make it better, by identifying the standard it is meant to teach, and increasing the rigor of their lessons (Make one of your lessons better TODAY. Then, make one better tomorrow. Then one the next day…). They can spend their time helping the entire class, instead of leaving the class sitting and waiting, while the teacher attends to one problem student. Teachers can flip their class, so students can watch lectures at home, and teachers help the students through activities or projects during school. And, teachers can turn to experts to help them make more valuable lessons, deal with students in a way that encourages growth and success, and improve themselves as teachers by reading sites such as edutopia and The Teaching Channel.


I witness so much energy wasted, complaining about the tests. I observe teachers getting burnt out. I feel these students being anxious and frustrated. I see parents angry at the schools. And I see a way to fix this. I worked with The UT Austin. Charles A Dana Center “Professional Teaching Model (PTM).” The premise of the PTM is that teachers collaborate to look at what children should have learned in the previous grade, coming into their class. They identify what the children should learn in this grade. And finally, they assess what children will be learning the next year. Here is a worksheet, that shows how this works. This is an amazing model, because it utilizes teachers as the professionals that they are. It fosters collaboration, and constant improvement. And it accomplishes what we all want - more student success.



If every teacher in every school improved one of their lessons every six weeks, instead of hating the standards, can you imagine the leaps and bounds education would take forward? 
0 Comments

How Does Doing Nice Things for Other People Affect Your Life?

4/8/2014

0 Comments

 
This is a beautifully done video, about the effects doing good things for other people has on our lives. Doing kind things for others doesn't just make them happy. It makes YOU a better person. There is both intrinsic and extrinsic joys to doing things for other people.
Teachers, when you are kind to your students, it matters. Even when they do naughty things, in the long run, you will have an influence on their lives. How will your students remember you?
0 Comments

Bill Gates Gives His Wealth Away

4/5/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
I think that Bill and Melinda Gates have done some of the most amazing, most helpful things with all their money. They have set up their lives to help so many people. They are wonderful role models. I appreciated their brainstorming techniques, which is described as “long walks on the beach, talking about their goals.” I watched their TED talk, “Bill and Melinda Gates: Why giving away our wealth has been the most satisfying thing we’ve done,” and was inspired by many of the things they said.
In 1993, Bill and Melinda Gates took a walk on the beach and made a big decision: to give their Microsoft wealth back to society. In conversation with Chris Anderson, the couple talks about their work at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as their marriage, their children, their failures and the satisfaction of giving most of their money away.
They talk about how they are not going to enable their kids to be rich, spoiled brats. They are not leaving their children billions. No trust funds. They want their childrens’ lives to have a meaning and purpose. They will provide an education for each child, that encompasses each child’s strengths.
The Gates parents’ attitude toward their kids and money — call it the anti-Paris Hilton approach — resonates with an attitude toward wealth that runs as a subtext through TED itself. As an event, TED manages to gather some of the world’s richest people into one room. Once there, they’re bombarded with the message that money is not for having but for doing. As the world’s richest people, the Gates family could spend lifetimes doing nothing at all. But for the TED set, at least, the only points you get are for making something happen.
I agree strongly with that point. These days, everyone is a critic. People criticize Gates for having an agenda. Others think there are ulterior motives, or a vast conspiracy. But being critical, in and of itself, doesn't help anyone do anything. The only way to help people in your life, is to make things happen. The Gates made goals, and then they go through each checkpoint on the way to reaching their goals.


Most of their philanthropic work centers around the educational system in America, reducing poverty and equality through access to education, and health care and childhood vaccines. They have traveled extensively through Africa, and have tried to help bring down the rate of infant mortality. They are fighting to bring access to injectable birth control in third world countries, because this gives women the choice whether or not to reproduce.


Gates said, “Just because we don’t agree with everything about education, doesn’t mean we scrap the whole system. We fix what’s broken, and we keep our eyes on our goals.” The Gates advocate for smaller class sizes, STEM education, charter schools, and technology innovations. They discuss wanting great teachers in small classrooms, to give each child more attention. They have rightly pointed out that many of the graduating seniors today read at a middle-school level. They are working to help schools through grants, technology donations, charter schools, and creating university programs.


When you have money like the Gates’ money, you are going to be criticized. People complain about their investing tactics, which they say is promoting companies that hurt the people in third-world countries. The Gates say they will always invest for the maximum return on investment.


Next, people say there are three major problems with the foundation's allocation of aid. First, "by pouring most contributions into the fight against such high-profile killers as AIDS, Gates guarantees have increased the demand for specially trained, higher-paid clinicians, diverting staff from basic care." This form of "brain drain", pulls away trained staff from children and those suffering from other common killers. Second, "the focus on a few diseases has shortchanged basic needs such as nutrition and transportation.” Finally, "Gates-funded vaccination programs have instructed caregivers to ignore – even discourage patients from discussing – ailments that the vaccinations cannot prevent. If people want to see nutrition or transportation focused upon, they should start their own foundations. It’s not right to criticize, but do nothing to offer up help for what people think should be priorities. The Gates can focus on any disease they want - yes, there will always be other diseases out there that need money, but it is ultimately up to Gates and their foundation to how they spend their money.


About education, Gates is criticized for “undermining the public education system.” I think that “public education” is a broken system, and I also advocate for charter schools, which can meet the needs of more students, in creative new ways not controlled by unions. Like Gates, I love teachers, but hate the bureaucracy. I do think test scores should be part of teachers’ evaluations, and I love the idea of merit pay. I think merit pay encourages the best teachers to put in the effort to become better. When the Gates Foundation gives students choices that they may not have had, if they had been stuck in a failing public school, I think the Gates are helping the poor beyond belief.


Just as there will always be critics of the government, there will always be critics of the Gates. I believe that they have made amazing progress in achieving the goals they have made, and that they should forge ahead with the good things they do. Nothing they do is without vast amounts of research and man-power, and the Gates are helping people live and be educated every day. I may need to apply for one of their grants!

0 Comments

Is the Path Out of Poverty the Path Right Back Into Poverty? Is Pushing For "Diversity in STEM Education" a Bad Idea?

4/4/2014

1 Comment

 
Picture
STEM education is in the news, and is often touted as the best college career path ANY student can take. STEM is also criticized for not having enough minority student interest. Historically, STEM is very white, and very Asian. Pushing low-income, first-generation minorities into STEM fields may not be the “great idea” that it appears to be, from the outside. The headline on The Inside Higher Education blog reads:

New Push to Boost Numbers of Minority STEM Ph.D.s

California Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and the University of California campuses at Berkeley and Los Angeles jointly announced a new effort Thursday to increase the number of minority Ph.D.s in science, mathematics and technology fields. The four universities will create "a unique, cross-institutional community of underrepresented minority Ph.D. students, postdoctoral scholars and faculty members in the targeted fields; developing faculty training to better recognize and help these students thrive and advance; and conducting research that includes annual surveys of Ph.D. students about what factors impact their attitudes, experiences and preparation for the future," the announcement said.

On the surface, this seems like a noble goal. Get more minority students into STEM. Exciting! But, on the same website, is this headline about how blacks and Latinos are taking on more debt than their white counterparts:

Debt, Race and Ph.D.s

Colleges and universities -- not to mention many businesses -- have been pushing for gains in the numbers of black and Latino students who earn doctorates, especially in STEM or social science fields.

A new study may point to one hindrance in making progress toward this goal. Black and Latino graduate students are more likely to borrow and more likely to borrow larger sums to earn a Ph.D. than are white or Asian graduate students. The figures are particularly striking for African Americans and for STEM fields.


And in light of the reoccurring theme on The Chronicle of Higher Education, Insider Higher Ed, The Huffington Post, and countless other websites, it is becoming almost impossible to find a tenure-track, high paying job. One article talks about rejection, frustration, giving up searching, and living in despair. Here, a report from Congress about adjuncts, and the lower compensation and unpredictable schedules they face:

The median respondent salary was $22,041, below the federal poverty line for a family of four ($23,550), although the typical course load was difficult to ascertain from the online forum (with adjuncts reporting as many as 10 courses per semester). Some 89 percent of respondents teach at two or more institutions, and most can’t depend on assignments from semester to semester. Many also said they relied on help from family members and government assistance to survive, despite having advanced degrees. More than 50 percent of respondents had Ph.D.s and 30 percent held master’s degrees.

Respondents also reported low prospects for advancement to tenure-line or full-time jobs, and 89 percent said they received no professional support for teaching or research from their institutions. The average length of time respondents said they’d worked as an adjunct was 10 years. The median length of time was four years.


“Growing up in a poor neighborhood … I believed earning several college degrees would be my path out of poverty, but that is no longer the case,” one adjunct said.


So, is the path out of poverty a path right back into poverty? The likelihood of achieving the tenure-track dream is so small and wrought with emotional turmoil and anxiety, is it worth it to push minority students down this path? They may end up in a worse place – saddled with student loan debt, stuck in an adjuncting position that pays below the poverty level, and without the necessary skills to advance in a non-academic position – than they were before they began “pursuing their dreams.” Is higher education the path out of poverty, or the dream-crusher that mounts added liabilities and wastes precious time? How do you know when higher education is the problem, or the solution?

1 Comment

Why do I believe so strongly in Common Core standards and testing?

4/1/2014

3 Comments

 
Why do I believe so strongly in Common Core standards and testing?

First, if you are not aware of the Common Core, here is a crash course from NPR.


Then, several articles featuring reasons for the Common Core, and what they do.

The Common Core and the Common Good: Our educational system is not keeping up with that of many other industrialized countries, even as the job market becomes more global and international competition for jobs becomes steeper. “American students rank 25th in math, 17th in science and 14th in reading compared to students in 27 industrialized countries.” That same report found that fewer than half of our students finished college. This ranked us 14th among O.E.C.D. countries, below the O.E.C.D. average. In 1995 we were among the Top 5.

Some rightly point to the high levels of poverty in our public schools to adjust for our lagging performance, but poverty — and affluence — can’t explain all the results away. One strategy of changing our direction as a nation is the adoption of Common Core State Standards, meant to teach children the skills they need to be successful in college and careers — skills like critical thinking and deep analysis.

The problem is that, in some states, Common Core testing has been implemented before teachers, or the public for that matter, have been instructed in how to teach students using the new standards.

Bill Gates: Commend Common Core: Right now,45 states are implementing new academic standards, known as the Common Core, which will improve education for millions of students. Unfortunately, conversation about the standards is shrouded in myths.

The standards are just that: standards, similar to those that have guided teachers in all states for years, except these standards are inspired by a simple and powerful idea: Every American student should leave high school with the knowledge and skills to succeed in college and in the job market.

Today, 80% of students say they expect to go to college while only 40% of adults have an associate's degree or higher. Clearly, the old standards didn't help them achieve their goals. Common Core was created to fix that. And at least 75% of teachers support them, according to several surveys.

Inconsistent standards like the ones we've had until now punish students who have to switch schools. Either they're expected to know material they've never been taught, or they're re-taught material they already know. But with standards that are not only high enough but also consistent, students will be able to move without falling behind.

Myth: Common Core was created without involving parents, teachers or state and local governments.

In fact, the standards were sponsored by organizations made up of governors and school officials. The major teacher unions and 48 states sent teams, including teachers, to participate. 

Myth: Common Core State Standards means students will have to take even more high-stakes tests.

Common Core won't necessarily add to the number of annual state tests students take. States will introduce new math and language arts tests based on the standards to replace tests they give now. 

Myth: Common Core standards will limit teachers' creativity and flexibility.

These are standards, just like the ones schools have always had; they are not a curriculum. They are a blueprint of what students need to know, but they have nothing to say about how teachers teach that information. It's still up to local educators to select the curriculum.

Six Ways the Common Core is Good For Students:

1. Common Core Puts Creativity Back in the Classroom

2. Common Core Gives Students a Deep Dive

3. Common Core Ratchets up Rigor

4. Common Core is Collaborative

5. Common Core Advances Equity

6. Common Core Gets Kids College Ready

Student success is the outcome every education professional works so tirelessly toward, and the Common Core will help them get there if it’s implemented well, according to the panel of educators.

“Yes, it’s an extra workload as a teacher, and it’s difficult…but it’s for the betterment of the students,” says Davis-Caldwell. “And if we keep that our focus, I don’t see why we can’t be successful.”

The Common Core's Unsung Benefit: It Teaches Kids to Be Good Citizens: The Common Core has started to take political flak from the right and the left. Conservatives worry about the overreach of federal incentives, while unions don’t want the standards connected to teacher evaluations. What is being lost?  The standards’ significant emphasis on reinvigorating the democratic purpose of public education. Making good on this promise presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redefine and reprioritize the special role that schools play in preparing students for active civic participation.

The Common Core identifies three texts—and only three texts—that every American student must read: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution (Preamble and Bill of Rights), and Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I will make an amazingly bold, perhaps unbelievable claim. If a school district would hire me as “The Common Core Director,” within four years – if allowed complete control over the system – I could take any low-performing district, and get them to over 80% passing the graduation tests. This would be without firing ANY teachers, with ANY population of students (poor, rich, white, black, brown, ESL), and without expending ANY additional funds. How much do I believe I could be successful? I’m willing to stake my paycheck on it. An average Ohio school superintendent makes $150,000 a year. As a teacher, I made $50,000 a year. Pay me $50,000 a year for a director’s position for those four years, putting the extra $100,000 in a savings account for me. At the end of four years, if I have been successful, everyone wins. The students see success, I get the paycheck. If I have been unsuccessful, take that money and provide free tutors for the students.

How do I know I would be successful? I have done it all before, as part of the science department in Eagle Pass. We went from a 39% passing rate on the state science tests, to an 89% passing rate in four years.

I believe in the Common Core. A bare minimum helps all kids get at least a rigorous education, and a shot at college. Schools are always free to extend education, and should – teachers can still teach fun and exciting lessons in their content area, while providing each child with a quality education. And every teacher in the public school system is being paid using taxpayer dollars. Those teachers can teach however they choose, as long as they provide AT LEAST the common core that every other teacher is responsible for. It just makes sense.


3 Comments

Follow the Money: For-Profit Schools are Doing What High School Vocational Programs Used to Do – Keep Students Poor

3/21/2014

1 Comment

 
In a long discussion about “Fluff Majors,” the conversation points back to “Why go to college?” or “Should everyone go to college?” Another question, “Whose job is it to push students to take difficult or challenging courses?” The Chronicle of Higher Education touched on a sector of higher education that keeps students poor – for-profit institutions. What would happen if we shut down all the for-profit institutions tomorrow? Vocational education has been taken out of the high school curriculum, and snatched up by for-profit institutions. And it’s a HUGE money maker.

“Mr. Longanecker’s takeaway from the study, which he reviewed in advance of its release: "Don’t wish for these to go away," he said of for-profit colleges, where a high proportion of the students are women, minorities, and low-income. "A lot fewer students would have access to higher education, and we know which students would be shut out."

I remember back to my days at Norton as a high schooler in the 1990's. There were four real “routes” you could take in high school. You could be in advanced placement, taking really challenging classes, which prepared you for college. You could take “college prep” classes that were not as hard, but still prepared you for college. You could take “the normal classes” which were core, basic classes that everyone took. Or you could take “vocational classes,” which prepared you for a trade – being a secretary, a beautician, a carpenter, a welder, a med tech, and others (that’s all the ones I remember). I took mainly advanced and college prep courses.

I don’t know at what point vocational classes were phased out, and everyone took either basic, college prep, or advanced courses. I’d imagine it has to do with No Child Left Behind. Every student was prepared to go to college, and when you graduated from high school, you either went to college, took that vocational training we used to be offered in high school, or you just quit your schooling there. Not pointing fingers at any political persuasions, but you can see how this added to the high school, college, and vocational teacher workforce. Kept students in school longer. Kept them out of the workforce. Kept more teachers employed, but in new institutions.

So, from what I’d imagine, vocational programs are never going to return to high schools. For-profit schools would close down, and high schools don’t have the money to re-create those programs. Letting poor students use federal money at for-profit institutions lets that group of students get the vocational education they used to get in high school (for “free”). Where the taxpayer used to pay for K-12 education for all children, they now pay for at least K-14, and many times K-16 (a four year education at any college or university). In thinking about the political aspects of this fight – how much education should Americans pay for? K-12, K-14, K-16, or K-16 for each and every person who wants it? There are a lot of ramifications that reach every part of America – the workforce, the educational system, taxes, and probably every sector I haven’t mentioned here.

Now, I admit to being a fiscal conservative. I’d like to see each student, once graduating from high school, be able to make their own choices about where to go to school, if they go to school, and what kind of investment they’d like to make in that education. Choose wisely, choose only what you can afford on your own, and take fiscal stake in that choice. But, there is a whole other segment out there of fiscal liberals, who’d like to see education completely free to all, at every level (up to grad school, including grad school, and any refresher courses). Let students try things, fail, try another course or major, and have the opportunity to take anything for “free.” (taxpayer subsidized) The answer is somewhere in the middle. Somewhere between “Pay for it all yourself,” and “We’ll invest in you, no matter what.” Such a complicated web of motivations, finances, politics, and choices.

What is a degree worth? What are degreed people worth? What degrees are worthy? Who chooses what degree a student should pursue? Who decides where a student gets their degree from? Who decides what degrees are offered, and where? Everyone has an opinion on these questions – who eventually gets to decide who is right? The voters? The teachers? The students? The – ***GASP*** – politicians??? Those weasely jerks who are influenced by money from for-profit institutions, unions, companies, foreign countries, and rich people… Scary, right?


1 Comment

"Fluff Majors" Keep Low-Income, First-Generation Students Poor. How Do We Fix This?

3/18/2014

4 Comments

 
Let me preface this article by saying I am not knocking anyone's choice of major. I know there are majors that are seriously fulfilling, but not well paying. There are a lot of choices that go into choosing a major. You may have chosen one of the majors listed in my article. Heck, I did. I'm a teacher. What I want to discuss are the implications of choosing a low paying job (or not knowing that the job was low-paying before you started college).

The phrase "Underwater basket weaving" is an idiom referring (in a negative way) to supposedly easy and/or worthless college or university courses, and used generally to refer to a perceived decline in educational standards. This term emerged in the 1950's in a letter to the LA Times about the lack of expectations for football players to take difficult courses. It is now used for not just individual courses, but entire "fluff majors." A "Fluff Major" is when a student picks a course of study that is easy, so that they do not have to take a job or be challenged by the "hardness" of the courses. I actually wrote about this phenomenon a few years ago in "Are they up for the challenge? Community College Students' Perceptions of Challenging Classes." 
What we found (essentially) is that students wanted easy classes if the class was not part of their major (gen ed), and "hard but not too hard" if the class was for their major. What kind of courses would be included in the "hard, but not too hard" category? For many students, this means (unfortunately) the humanities - subjects that study human culture using methods that are primarily critical, speculative, or historical.

The humanities include ancient and modern languages, literature, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts such as music and theater. The humanities, which are also sometimes regarded as social sciences, include history, anthropology, area studies, communication studies, cultural studies, law and linguistics. What common factors underlie the humanities? Subjectivity, and lack of math. Note how the social sciences are different than the natural sciences. The natural sciences are empirical - (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. They involve scientific experimentation, and testing.

The first people who took “fluff majors” may have been men in the 1950's looking to avoid the draft. Colleges and universities very quickly set up “easy majors” to accommodate the influx of men looking to avoid going to war. These men might not have entered college otherwise. Setting up a dance program, an acting program, or a writing program is inexpensive for the school. Think about what it takes to offer a writing program, versus what it takes to set up an engineering program (hint – it probably differs by $500,000 or more).

“Fluff majors” have persisted up to today, as there is federal money available (sometimes called “free money for college”) for low-income students to go to college after high school, rather than entering the workforce. “Free money” or easy students loans are attractive options for potential students – if your choice is to take a Walmart or fast food job to support your family, or take $30,000 a year to go to school, which would you choose? Believing that going to college is a way to get an advantage in life – and that is how college is sold to students, as an investment in their future – in that after graduation, they will be able to get a much better job than a low-skilled Walmart job. But if you know that you had trouble with math or science in high school, or believe that these are “the hard majors,” (or any of the other myths, like “women can’t be scientists,” or “women are bad at math” or “African Americans don’t do science”) what do you take? A major that does not involve math - hence, the fluff major, which is "hard, but not too hard."

These so called “laid back degrees” are often appealing. Many times, the jobs that accompany these “easy majors” are desirable – becoming a teacher or a social worker is a noble and a “help people” profession. (Note to all – I am a teacher) Also, these potential college students have experience with these professions – everyone knows a teacher. Students know counselors, social workers, nurses, psychologists, home health aides, EMTs, police officers, or computer support technicians. Students understand these jobs, know people who do these jobs, and want to help others. Unfortunately, these are often the lowest paid career options, and options that lead to a paycheck to paycheck lifestyle. Becoming a dancer, a writer, a musician, or an actor may entice the students’ dreams of becoming famous, or making it big. What they don’t realize is the likelihood of "making it big" is small, and that if they don’t make it big, they may end up working at Starbucks, with student loans to pay back, anyways.

Part of the problem is that the highest paid career options are not the ones that low-income, first generation students are familiar with. A petroleum engineer can make $160,000 a year – and how many of those people do you know? I do not personally know one petroleum engineer. The next highest paid is an actuarial mathematician. I’ve never even heard of that job (and I work at a university!!!)! Here are the top 15 highest-paid majors, from Business Insider –

1. Petroleum Engineering

Staring median salary: $103,000
Mid-career median salary: $160,000

2. Actuarial Mathematics:

Starting median salary: $58,700
Mid-career median salary: $120,0000

3. Nuclear Engineering

Starting median salary: $67,600
Mid-career median salary: $117,000

4. Chemical Engineering

Starting median salary: $68,200
Mid-career median salary: $115,000

5. Aerospace Engineering

Starting median salary: $62,800
Mid-career median salary: $109,000

6. Electrical Engineering

Starting median salary: $64,300
Mid-career median salary: $106,000

7. Computer Engineering

Starting median salary: $65,300
Mid-career median salary: $106,000

8. Computer Science

Starting median salary: $59,800
Mid-career median salary: $102,000

9. Physics

Starting median salary: $53,100
Mid-career median salary: $101,000

10. Mechanical Engineering

Starting median salary: $60,900
Mid-career median salary: $99,700

11. Materials Science and Engineering

Starting median salary: $62,700
Mid-career median salary: $99,500

12. Software Engineering

Starting median salary: $60,500
Mid-career median salary: $99,300

13. Statistics

Starting median salary: $52,500
Mid-career median salary: $98,900

14. Government

Starting median salary: $43,200
Mid-career median salary: $97,100

15. Economics

Starting median salary: $50,100
Mid-career median salary: $96,700

Note that 9 of the 15 positions are engineers. If you are living in a low-income neighborhood, how many of your friends or neighbors will be engineers? Also note that most of these involve math-heavy courses. Math is something that terrifies or befuddles many students. That one barrier – believing math is too hard, or that you can’t do math, or that math isn't fun or rewarding – will keep these students near the bottom of the payscale.

What is the answer to this problem? It seems like a self-perpetuating cycle – students who are low income hate math, and may not have the resources to spend on education, pick “fluff majors,” “easy majors,” or “laid back majors.” After they get the degree, they either cannot find a job, or are forced to take a low-paying job that keeps them living paycheck to paycheck. Students who have college educated parents, who are already wealthy, or already in good schools, and who have the resources to spend on education pick “hard majors,” know people who are employed in the hard majors, and go on to get a hard degree, and remain at the top of the payscale. Again, I don’t have the answer to this problem. How do you convince a person not to take a fluff major? Do we just let the students decide?



4 Comments

Unfairness in Income? Adjuncting Was Never Meant to be a Full Time Job

2/4/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Income Inequality seems to be on the tip of everyone’s tongue lately. President Obama spoke about it in his State of The Union Address on January 28th. He described how the middle and lower classes have stalled in their wage potential, and the possibility of getting by, much less getting ahead, seems to have lessened. Also in the news is the plight of adjuncts – those part-time college instructors who teach one or two classes at a university for a small sum and no benefits. This morning, adjuncts at my university were described in an NPR story, “Part-time Professors Demand Higher Pay; Will Colleges Listen?” The story goes on to describe how “professional adjuncts” – those workers who hold a graduate degree in their field, and who teach as needed at one or several higher education institutions, as their full time job – are essentially making minimum wage, or less. The plight of professional adjuncts is often a sad tale – often we read about how they struggle to make ends meet, selling plasma on the side to supplement their income, Margaret Mary Vojtko who died destitute at the age of 83 as she taught French for 25 years as an adjunct at Duquesne University, to this self-proclaimed “adjunct whore” who describes herself as doing tricks each semester to make ends meet. The horror stories abound. But how did these horror stories come to fruition?

I must first divulge my own experiences as an adjunct. I enjoyed my position as a non-major, adjunct biology instructor for 6 semesters at my university. I taught large, stadium-style lectures for classes of 100 to over 300 students each semester. I enjoyed working with these students, even though there were a lot of them, as they worked through the general education requirements of their degree plan. I spent three contact hours a week – either two classes of an hour and a half every Tue/Thur, or three classes of one hour every Mon/Wed/Fri – lecturing, using classroom technology, answering questions, helping the students find videos of concepts they didn’t understand, helping students with campus problems, or just counseling students on problems I could help with, be it personal or academic. Outside of class, I had to order textbooks, sit on review committees, collaborate with other lecture professors, do grades, answer emails (and with 300 students, that’s a TON of email) and make copies. I earned less than $1000 per credit hour for the course. After taxes, for one semester, I would see $399 deposited once a month, five times, into my direct deposit bank account. Take home for one semester of work - $2000.

Now here is where I differ from the adjuncts that are often described in the depressing stories you hear about these people with advanced degrees living on welfare and food stamps – I have a full time job. I work at the university already, as a Biology lab Coordinator. 40 hours a week, I work with teaching assistants, supervise 640 lab students a semester, order supplies, write curriculum, do learning management software for the course, and keep a bustling Biology lab exciting and fun. In between writing curriculum and being a single mom who just earned a doctorate, I love to teach a class or two. Most of the classes that are offered to adjuncts are the general education, lower level courses in the 100 or 200 range. I taught the lowest level of Biology course there is offered at this university – the one taught to general education, non-majors students. I know people who adjunct who teach the freshman English classes, the non-major History courses, even Physics! I also have my name and resume in the pool at six other universities/colleges for these types of adjunct positions. I think adjuncting is fun! It allows me to do something I find enjoyable – teaching. But, there’s been no adjunct teaching positions available in my department for the last three semesters, because of grant fluctuations and course load changes for professors. Thank god for my full time job.

Adjuncting was NEVER meant to be a full time job. That is the exact reason adjuncts, who are “professional adjuncts,” are in the position they are today. Adjuncting is a part time type of position, meant for people who are professionals in other full time jobs, who essentially “pick up a shift” here or there. They are like substitutes, who are called to fill in when a full time, tenure tract faculty gets a huge grant and the department needs someone to fill in. The people who wish adjuncting was a full time profession are sadly mistaken, and I believe will continue to suffer if they keep trying to push to make adjuncting a full time job with benefits and security. Just as I feel the minimum wage employee at Walmart or McDonalds is futile in fighting for this type of job to support them and their families (these fast food jobs were meant for teenagers who needed part time work, not for someone needing to support a family) – I feel the plight of the adjunct is useless. Someone who has the basic skills to man the fryer, stock the shelves, or teach the most basic of college courses will continue to earn part time employee pay, for low-level, part-time created jobs. Adjuncting is not a career, adjuncting is the burger flipping of higher education.


Picture
Now please, don’t think I’m dissing on adjuncts. I know how hard, stressful, and overwhelming adjuncting can be as a job. When you have students taking intro courses, they can be the most needy students – the ones who may be taking your course while also taking basic math because they can’t do math, taking basic reading, because they can’t read, or just aren’t cut out for college. You may pour 30 hours a week into one course, to do the justice to your students that you feel, and I felt, they deserve. But the honest truth about adjuncting is that there is no security to it as a profession, it’s low paid work meant for people who have other full time jobs, and it’s something that I would advise ANY person who is getting a graduate degree and plans to go teach “because they love it” to stay away from. Go into secondary education and teach high school students. Find a job at a company that you can do professional development or job training. But if you get your grad degree and plan to “just go teach” instead of having a research agenda that is good enough to get you a tenure track position (and I almost guarantee you are not in that top 5% in your field who will be offered a tenure track job), then you are going to find yourself unhappy, unemployed on a whim of the finances of higher ed institutions, or forced to move somewhere you don’t want to live, working at a university no one has ever heard of. The truth of the matter is that a $80,000 a year job that you don’t have to move for, that allows you to teach a subject you love, with benefits and security, is a fantasy. 

And as long as “professional adjuncts” are offering themselves on the altar of higher education in hordes, the market for them is not going to change. Only when ALL adjuncts decide to pursue other job opportunities, that are full time, with benefits, and security, and no one wants those adjunct positions anymore, will higher ed pay more for them. Supply and demand. The brutal truth of education as a business.
Picture
0 Comments
    Picture
    Dr. Amy B. Hollingsworth

    Author

    Dr. Amy B Hollingsworth has worked in education for over 20 years. Most recently, she was a Learning Coach at the NIHF STEM School in Akron. She served as the Executive Director of Massillon Digital Academy. She was the District Technology Specialist at Massillon. She also was the Natural Science Biology Lab Coordinator at The University of Akron. She specializes in Biology Curriculum and Instruction, STEM education, and technology integration. She has written six lab manuals, and an interactive biology ebook. She has dedicated her life to teaching and learning, her children - Matthew, Lilly, and Joey, her husband Ryan, and her NewfiePoo Bailey.

    What's Amy Reading?

    • College Insurrection
    • The Chronicle of Higher Education
    • Digital Learning in Higher Ed
    • HuffPo College
    • Girls in STEM
    • The Simple Dollar
    • Tim Ferriss
    • Edudemic
    • Mashable
    • Inside Higher Ed
    • Gawker
    • io9

    Archives

    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2012

    Categories

    All
    Academia
    Adjuncting
    Adjuncts
    AIDS
    Animal Research
    Animal Testing
    Being In Pain
    Best Ideas
    Big Data
    Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation
    Bill Gates
    Biology
    Blogging
    Brainstorming
    Budgets
    Bullying
    Career Paths
    Challenges
    Charter Schools
    Choices
    Civilization
    College Ready
    Common Core
    Community Colleges
    Creation
    Creativity
    Critics
    Cruelty
    Culture
    Debt
    Degrees
    Democracy
    Discipline
    Discrimination
    Diversity
    Dream Big
    Easy Courses
    Ed Tech
    Education
    Engaged
    Engineering
    Evaluation
    Evolution
    Experiments
    Facebook
    Facebook Memes
    Faculty
    Failure
    Finance
    First Generation
    Flexibility
    Flipping Classes
    Fluff Majors
    For-profit Institutions
    Free Apps
    Gender
    Global Education
    Goals
    Good Habits
    Google Docs
    Google Scholar
    Government
    Grad School
    Guppy
    Hard Courses
    Higher Ed
    Humble
    Inequality
    Inside Higher Education
    Inspiration
    Low Income
    Majors
    Minorities
    Money
    Motivation
    My Faith
    Natural Sciences
    NCLB
    Negative Talk
    Pedagogy
    PhDs
    Politics
    Positive Attitudes
    Poverty
    Professional Development
    Professionals
    Professional Teaching Model
    Psychology
    Q Methodology
    Racism
    Religion
    Rigor
    Rules
    Science
    Scientists
    Social Media
    Social Sciences
    Society
    STEM
    Strength
    Stress
    Students
    Student Success
    Success
    Support
    Syllabi
    Teaching
    Technology
    TED Talks
    Tenure-Track
    Test Bashing
    Testing
    The Game
    The Humanities
    Time Management
    Universities
    U Of Akron
    Vaccines
    Value
    Videos
    Vocational Classes
    Web 2.0
    What Is Education Worth?
    Women
    Writing
    Youtube

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.