Category: Majors

Using Big Data and Social Media to Predict Student Success

10/15/2014

The basic premise of this TED talk was that scientists can look at the data from Facebook about what you “like,” and then make predictions about you. In the case Golbeck presents, many smart people have “liked” curly fries from Arby’s. (I also happen to love them!) So, which came first? Do more smart people like curly fries? Or did one smart person, who hangs out on Facebook with people who also happen to be smart, like those curly fries, and then their smart friends saw their like, and liked also?

Jennifer Golbeck: The curly fry conundrum: Why social media “likes” say more than you might think

Do you like curly fries? Have you Liked them on Facebook? Watch this talk to find out the surprising things Facebook (and others) can guess about you from your random Likes and Shares. Computer scientist Jennifer Golbeck explains how this came about, how some applications of the technology are not so cute — and why she thinks we should return the control of information to its rightful owners.

I began thinking about big data, and predicting student success. It’s not just “evil corporations” who would have access to our data. What about the universities, or the government? The movie, Minority Report, was grounded on the premise of the government being able to arrest murderers, before they committed the crimes.

Let’s say a college, who has its students go “like” their Facebook page, could do a data analysis of all the students on it’s Facebook site. That school could then categorize their students into those who complete their degrees, and those students who fail out or quit. Maybe there is a certain pattern that successful students take, and a certain like pattern that unsuccessful students demonstrate. What if liking Starbucks was an indicator of student success (drink more coffee, study longer) and liking the local bar (take out stress, let’s go drink!) was an indicator of student failure?

It’s often been said that the SATs, the ACTs, or GPA do not adequately predict who is going to be successful in college. What if social media data patterns DO tell us who is successful or not?

To take it a step further, what if schools made it so part of your college application package was to HAVE TO like the college page? Then, the school could collect data about you… What if the school sees a pattern in your Facebook likes that is that of an unsuccessful student, and then never lets you in? What if you didn’t know your data was being used in that way? What if the data shows that minorities have patterns of unsuccessful behavior? Could social media data discrimination be the next big outrage?

Or, what if this data was put towards helping students already enrolled? If the college sees a students starting a pattern on Facebook that shows distress - end of the semester complaining, substance abuse, withdrawing from friends - what if the school then stepped in to intervene? Just like in 1997, when I was in undergrad, the Resident Assistants would report you to the student life department if they thought you showed patterns of failure (sleeping late, missing classes, drinking, filthy room, not showering), what if Facebook is now used to look for patterns?

The data is there. Big Brother is here. My question is, should we not let scientists analyze our data? I might be HAPPY if Facebook reported to the college that I was showing a pattern of failure I didn’t recognize myself, and then got me help. I might not be happy, however, if my Facebook showed a pattern of failure, and the school kicked me out, because I was no longer worth “the investment.”

What if my employer could analyze me to see if I was worth hiring? (WHOOPS! They are already watching you at work)

What if doctors could predict which patients would comply with their directives? (WHOOPS! Neuroscientists already can)

What if Target could predict I was pregnant, and then send me coupons? (WHOOPS! Target already figured out a teen was pregnant, before she told her dad)

Here are the top ten movies that predicted the future, before it actually happened.

Chilling, thought-provoking, and raises more questions than it answers. What if I applied to a college, and they told me, “We analyzed your social media patterns, and those patterns show you only have a 23% likelihood of achieving your degree. Therefore, you don’t get in.” What if I could be in that 23% who DID succeed? Shouldn’t I be allowed to try? Or does the college know IN FACT that I CAN’T be successful, and won’t let me waste my money? Or does the school let me in, and THEN use my data to shape me, mold me, personalize my education to MAKE ME a success? Who gets to decide - me, Facebook, or the university?

2 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

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

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

Using Big Data and Social Media to Predict Student Success

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

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

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

Author

What's Amy Reading?

Archives

Categories