College Visit - Montana State University

The fourth and last stop of the Montana College tour is Montana State University located in the wonderful town of Bozeman.

Most impressive academically at MSU was the Academic Advising Center. Freshmen, undecided about their majors, are designated as ‘exploring students’ and assigned advisors in the center. These great advisers help students enroll in freshman classes that not only will fulfill requirements in most majors, but also, provide options for career exploration. I was so impressed with this program, I’d encourage all students enrolling at MSU to consider declaring themselves ‘undecided’.

A unique program at MSU, Champ Change, is designed to encourage students to get involved in on campus activities. The lure of the mountains is so strong that many students succumb to leaving campus for their non-academic activities. That’s ok, but on-campus involvement is more highly correlated with student success. So, the Champ Change program awards points for students attending lectures, concerts, sporting events and participating in intramural games or residence hall activities. Earn enough points and you can earn a $1000 scholarship.

We met the impressive Career Center Director who has a research based, developmental program, which if students took advantage of, would be very beneficial. The students on the panel we met with weren’t familiar with the Career Center.

I knew Montana State had a well-known and well-respected Engineering program. I was less familiar with the Photography and Film school. We met with a faculty member from the Film program who told us about the ‘Montana Mafia’ currently influencing the film industry in Los Angeles! Students can enroll in the fill program as freshmen, about 200 do. However, there’s room for only 48 students in the junior level courses. Very selective.

The tour ended at MSU. The week provided me with knowledge of Montana Colleges and lots of new friends.

College Visit - Montana Tech

Third stop on the Montana College Tour was Montana Tech in Butte, MT. Butte is an old mining town with a claim to fame of being one mile high and one mile deep. Digger, the Tech mascot, attests to the mining history of the community and the college.

The most impressive feature of Montana Tech is the fact that they admit students from a variety of ability levels and those students are successful in their engineering fields. It appears that Montana Tech could be considered as a college that ‘changes lives’. The school provides opportunities and support for students interested in engineering who might not have opportunities elsewhere.

The admissions presentation focused on five themes, all of which were evidenced during our visit.

Tech is Quality Focused. They offer 21 degrees which includes study options in nine engineering fields. With only 2700 students, each student has plenty of opportunity to interact with faculty in classes and labs.

The second theme is Driven Students. The average ACT score of freshmen is 23, and yet 72% of them graduate. Students are active in their high schools and even more active on campus. The Admissions Office assigns an activity score to each applicant. The average high school activity score for enrolled freshmen is 5.2. The activity score is calculated for each student at graduation and the average is 6.7.

In addition to focusing on quality and driving themselves to succeed, Montana Tech students like real life experiences. They describe themselves as wanting to “do” science rather than “study” science. Students have either internships or jobs with engineering or other technical companies and also spend time on community projects helping the town of Butte. They compete in engineering competitions like mining, environmental engineering, human powered machines, bridge building, concrete canoe races and software engineering contests. Montana Tech bests teams from much larger, more selective colleges in these competitions.

The fourth feature of Montana Tech is the personal nature of the experience. The TLC(Tech Learning Center) supports all students with tutoring and other academic support easing the transition to college. Admissions representatives who establish relationships with students during their college search process follow Tech students through graduation, maintaining that relationship. All professors have agreed to measure student performance after 20 days into the semester so that students know if they’re in trouble and the faculty help students get the assistance they need. They joked that Tech students don’t need ‘helicopter parents’ because they have ‘helicopter advisers.’ Lastly, Tech is proud of their affordability. They offer scholarships to most of their students, from a $2800 scholarship for students with ACT scores between 20 and 24, to a $6000 scholarship to top students with ACT scores above 29.

Advice from the student panelists to incoming students is to retake the last math class you took in high school your first semester in college. For example, if a student took Calculus 1 as a senior in high schools and did well, their advice was to enroll in Calculus 1 in college. Getting a strong foundation in math increases the likelihood of success in all classes.

In summary, Montana Tech is a challenging institution for hand's on, success-oriented students.

College Visit - Carroll College

Carroll College is a Diocesan Catholic College, in the capital of Montana, Helena. As a diocesan college they are independent of any religious order. The college is an important part of the Helena community.

The College requires all freshmen to enroll in their Alpha Seminar, a course devoted to maintain and build the culture on campus. The goals of this program are to connect students to the campus, connect students to each other and to introduce students to the skills required to be successful in college. They include understanding and acting on the values of a Catholic College, respecting each individual and the community, as important skills.

Most impressive was that the college community seemed to embrace the values they espoused. All of the students, Catholic, non-Christian and even students who described themselves as non-religious, participate in community building activities whether that be attending mass or devoting time to improving the campus, city or world communities.

Each residence hall area has three advisors. First is the traditional residence hall advisor responsible for community building and rule enforcement. Next is a Kirchen Advisor, who is responsible for helping students with their spiritual development. Lastly, there is a Technology Advisor in each hall available to help with computer issues on the spot.

They are very proud of their championship Forensic and Football teams!

Also, Ralph Esposito, an art faculty member, is constructing a fascinating brick sculpture outside the library.

College Visit - University of Montana

1^st stop on the Montana College Tour itinerary: University of Montana in Missoula, Montana. Patrick Grueller is the admissions representative for the state of Minnesota.

The campus is within easy walking and easier biking distance to the downtown. We watched folks enjoying the sunshine and Big Sky as they tubed down the River. The mascot is the mighty Grizzly Bear.

I was most impressed with the campus attention to student success. Academic Deans presented highlights of their programs to us. Unprompted, they acknowledged low retention and graduation rates and presented not only programs they’ve established to improve student success, but also set and published an easily measurable quantitative goal. This brave action, rare on the part of academic administrators, implies that they’re serious about improving and willing to let the public, parents, and students hold them accountable for achieving this goal. The Early Alert system will identify, within the first few weeks of each semester, which students are having academic difficulties. Those students will be contacted by an adviser and offered the assistance they’ll need to turn around their low grades. I know that other schools try to do this. The difficulty in accomplishing a successful Early Alert system is that many faculty don’t provide feedback to students until mid-semester when it’s very difficult to successfully intervene. The University of Montana officials assured us that the faculty will provide feedback after the first few weeks of the semester, in plenty of time to be helpful.

Most surprising to me was the high quality of the Journalism program as measured by student achievement. Montana offers wonderful educational and internship opportunities to journalism majors and those well prepared students have won numerous awards for their proficiency and professionalism. I consider this program a hidden gem.

At the PEAS farm (Program in Ecological Agriculture and Society) we learned about sustainability programs the Education program at the University, the City of Missoula, and the local Food Bank, jointly sponsor. The definition of sustainability they use is simple to understand and remember and powerful when implemented. Of course, it includes recycling and careful attention to energy use, but in it’s broadest sense, they believe we’ll sustain our world when all of our decisions take into account that: We’re bonded to each other and we’re bonded to the earth.

We met with a panel of students who offered this advice to all incoming freshmen:

Believe it when they tell you that in college you have to study!

The campus has a strong commitment to providing opportunities to Native American students, probably the strongest program I’ve seen on any campus. The level of understanding of the needs of Native students and the respect for the many local tribes provides for a high quality program.

Next Stop - Carroll College.

Faculty Ask: Are Colleges Worth the Price of Admissions

There's a new book coming out next month: Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids - and What We Can Do About It. It receives high praise from its early reviewers. (Not surprising, since early reviewers usually are friends of the authors.) Anyhow, I read a commentary by the authors Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus recently in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Based on my reading of the commentary, I suspect the book will be controversial: praised by critics of higher education and damned by those devoted to defending American higher education as it stands. I haven't read the book yet (I didn't get an early copy since I'm not pals of the authors and it's not available yet for purchase.) The commentary offers 9 proposals, recommendations for change that the authors believe could begin to "set things right". This blog will include reactions to the first 5 of these.

On the face of it, their ideas make sense. Probably all colleges and universities could benefit from discussions on the pros and cons of each suggestion, and by finding pieces of proposals they'd implement. It would be a huge accomplishment if Hacker and Dreifus accomplish serious discussions and debate on campuses. I bet college and university administrators, weary of attending Planning Retreats, would relish the opportunity to honestly debate Hacker and Dreifus' ideas. They'd need to be challenged to think creatively and free of fear of retaliation if they disagreed with someone higher up the food chain.

On more careful examination, the proposals seem to contradict each other on too many occasions. The authors are no doubt bright and experienced and eager to cause improvement higher education. They describe their experiences with colleges and students while researching their book. Their experiences are somewhat at odds with those of us who work day to day with students and families. The lack of internal consistency in their proposals troubles me.

Proposal #1 - Engage all students.

Who could disagree with that bold statement? They want better teaching. Certainly, it would be wonderful if all college professors(Let's apply this to kindergarten to high school teachers too while we're at it.) were conscientious, caring, and attentive to every corner of their classroom.

But then, they state unequivocally that all Americans can do college work. Debatable, but even if we stipulated to this statement, how does this mesh with the next proposal....

Proposal #2 - Make students use their minds.

Well, yes, of course. Within the rationale for this proposal, Hacker and Dreifus lament that 64% of undergraduate students are enrolled in vocational majors instead of the likes of "philosophy, literature, or the physical sciences". Does it follow then that all Americans are capable of earning undergraduate degrees in philosophy? Really?

Then they claim that "undergraduate years are an interlude...., a time to liberate the imagination... without worrying about a possible payoff". Really? Maybe in some idyllic, imaginary place, but not in the world that I know. Even students, whose parents can pay for their education as a philosophy major at a liberal arts college where teachers engage their students, have worries and peer and societal pressures and normal young adult developmental challenges to work through. Those whose families struggle to help with their costs have to juggle work, study, and a future of loan payments - hardly a worry free 4 years.

Proposal #3 - Replace tenure with multiyear contracts.

The authors were careful to avoid wording this recommendation as - eliminate tenure. They knew that would be a non-starter. The troubling part of their argument here for me is that they imply that our nation's faculty, the best and the brightest folks we have, those who likely did experience their undergraduate years as an interlude and many of whom did study non-vocational topics like philosophy, literature and physical science, can't be internally motivated to continue to do good work throughout their careers.

They claim that these best and brightest need to be motivated to do their best in the classroom by fear of losing their jobs. They claim that tenure eliminates reasons for faculty to improve their teaching. Are we to believe that tenure causes laziness or lazy, bright people chose the life of the mind as a faculty member? The value of tenure has been and will continue to be debated. Their argument seems weak in that it seems to contradict what they say about the value of achieving what's seen as "impractical studies" for all.

Proposal #4 - Allow fewer sabbaticals.

In most colleges and universities, tenured faculty members are eligible for a 'year off' every seven years for the purposes of pursuing their studies or research activities without the interference of teaching responsibilities. This can be a big expense to universities.

In reality, lots of faculty members can't afford to take sabbaticals. Usually, the time away from teaching responsibilities comes at less than full pay, while their mortgage payments remain the same. Then there are the costs of actually pursuing the sabbatical goals. Some faculty secure research stipends to help defray the costs.

The other side of this debate - sabbaticals should be encouraged for faculty to refresh their teaching curriculum and teaching skills. See proposals #2 and #4.

Proposal #5 - End exploitation of adjuncts.

Adjunct faculty are analogous to part time employees at a retail firm who do the same work as the regular, full time employees, but who get less pay and few to no benefits. Just as retail stores can hire part-timers because the job market provides few other options for the part-time employee, the university can hire adjuncts because there are more PhD educated people in some disciplines than there are jobs. Market forces are in effect in both situations.

What seems strange, maybe even ironic, about this situation is that many of the PhD educated people followed the advice Hacker and Dreifus offered in Proposals #1 and #2: provide opportunities for "impractical studies", the wisest of choices to chose "philosophy, literature or physical sciences". Lots of folks did that, and now they're adjuncts. Colleges pay adjuncts less than regular faculty. Most of Hacker and Dreifus' proposals indicate ways colleges should lower costs. This proposal would increase costs.

These responses to the proposals may appear critical. In reality, the work they've done bringing these topics to light provides value and hopefully, an impetus for reflection. What's needed as follow-up is a commitment to civil discourse on these topics inside the halls of colleges and universities. If that doesn't happen, then I suspect that the discussion will take place in the halls of government and in the halls of individual family homes where leaders and parents will still wonder about the cost of college.

TOP 10: What Colleges are Really Looking for in Applicants

College Connectors participated in the recently released IECA 2010 survey of independent college consultants. The results reveal this year’s “Top Ten Strengths and Experiences Colleges Look for in High School Students.” While several items topping the list are unchanged despite the overheated college application process, there are a number of changes to the overall list as some items have made IECA’s list for the first time, others have fallen in importance, and a number of things that families believe to be critical don’t get anywhere close to making the list. The survey is conducted every few years, completed by hundreds of members of the Independent Educational Consultants Association.

As has been true for more than five years, a student’s academic performance in high school tops the list. Most important is a rigorous academic curriculum that challenges the student. While grades are important, educational consultants believe that demonstrating a willingness to challenge oneself is more important. Additionally, IECA members felt that grades need to show an upward trend—mediocre grades in the freshman year can be overcome by demonstrating that better grades came with maturity. According to IECA members, colleges want to know what type of student will be arriving on campus—not who the student was four years go.

According to College Connectors consultant Valerie Broughton, “What we learn most in viewing these results is that parents should avoid encouraging their teens to change themselves into what they think colleges seek but instead help teens learn to promote the best thing about themselves: whether that’s a willingness to challenge themselves in a difficult course, demonstrating passion for a particular subject, committing themselves to community service, or demonstrating leadership. A college application should present an accurate and authentic portrait of the student.”

“Solid SAT or ACT scores,” reflecting a consistency with academic achievement was #3 on the list. Terrific standardized tests are rarely enough to secure admission at a more competitive school. Some colleges even brag about the number of students with perfect SAT/ACT scores who are denied admission. Test scores should accurately reflect a student’s ability.

The importance of the application essay moved up since the last survey, perhaps reflecting the essay’s role as more colleges move to ‘test optional’ status. The essay was also seen as more important to private liberal arts colleges, as compared to large state universities. Donna Kelly, College Connectors consultant, emphasizes that the opportunity to include an essay, or personal statement, in the application packet is a gift, not a task. “The essay is the student’s time to tell their story, in their own words, emphasizing what they think is important for an admissions officer to know about them. Your grades and test scores are static; make your essay a dynamic piece of the puzzle!"

Debuting on this year’s list at #8 is “demonstrated leadership in activities.” Much has been discussed in recent years about colleges seeking students who will contribute in a meaningful way to campus life. The appearance of this on the IECA list underscores this growing desire. “Demonstrated intellectual curiosity” (#9) remains an important item, particularly with those schools with more competitive admissions. Rounding out the top ten is “demonstrated enthusiasm to attend,” an item that first appeared on the IECA list just a few years ago. This reflects the college admissions office concern over their yield: wanting to offer admission only to those who seem serious about enrolling. Broughton cautions: “Colleges want to know that students have a serious interest in the college rather than just a curious question about whether or not they can be admitted.”

Just missing the top ten list: “financial resources” (despite the economy) and “out of school experiences.” This latter item fell off the top ten list, although “special talents and abilities” (#7) remained. There has been considerable buzz in the admission community in recent months about the trend toward creative applications with videos or other unique components, but this placed far down, well out of IECA’s top ten list. Also relegated to a status of far less importance by IECA educational consultants were several items thought by the general public to be important to decision-making: the personal interview, being a legacy (family member of an alumnus), and demonstrations of responsibility as being far less important in the current admission climate.

The full list just released, can be found at TOP 10. This list offers great advice for families looking to understand the nature of college admission and is also used by school districts and many others.