Many undocumented/first generation/minority students come from countries which have highly structured national education systems. In contrast, the American system can fairly be labeled as chaotic. There are significantly different – and confusing — roles with respect to funding and accountability at the federal, state, and local school district levels.

Specifically with respect to the topic of this FAQ, regardless of the amount of website information on all matters educational, there is insufficient guidance at many high schools concerning undocumented students and what they can expect if and when they apply to college.

Clarity is especially important because there are three distinct, but interrelated, pieces of the puzzle: access – does the college accept undocumented students; rate – what tuition cost category is relevant to the student; and financial aid – what is available.

Below is an attempt to address this informational and analytical shortcoming.

Readers are invited to provide suggestions on how the FAQ can be improved.

(Q) Isn’t there a legal restriction on K-12 schools asking students about documentation?

(A) Yes, they cannot do so. However, in no way should this hinder a school from providing information to students who self-identify as undocumented; the role of the school, particularly the guidance counseling department, is to assist all students in pursuing their educational goals.

(Q) When should undocumented students become aware of the college process?

(A) Ninth grade is the starting point for the academic record that is presented to a college; all students, irrespective of status, should be thinking ahead at this age level.

(Q) Access to College: If I am undocumented, can I apply to any school?

(A) Yes.

(Q) Will they ask if I am undocumented?

(A) This may sound like splitting a hair, but they should not ask directly.

(Q) But they ask for a social security number, don’t they?

(A) Yes. You can leave it blank, or, if you have DACA, you can put in that social security number. If blank, the school may insert your student ID number.

(Q) What happens then?

(A) You may or may not be accepted, but that decision by the college is, on the surface anyway, based on a whole set of relatively understandable factors (high school GPA, standardized test results, personal essay, etc.) and not connected to documentation. That is the theory; in practice, if a school discerns the prospective student’s lack of documentation, it may assume financial difficulties in attending the school, so why bother accepting said student.

(Q) Are colleges becoming more or less accommodating?

(A) Enrollment at many colleges has declined, leading some of them to react with policies that can include flexibility on the issue of documentation (e.g. charging an “international fee” but not classifying the student as international).

(Q) Tuition Rate: OK, what if I am accepted?

(A) If you are attending a public college, you need to know whether legislation says that the tuition rate for undocumented students must be the same as that for resident students (this is the case in New Jersey and New York, among other states). Note there is typically a geographical residency requirement—you must live in the state for a stipulated period of time to get the lower resident rate.

(Q) What if I am attending a private college?

(A) In a direct sense, documentation is not a factor; however, see the aid comment below.

(Q) Are there other wrinkles in the rate area?

(A) Yes, you should be careful not to be considered an “international” student, because the rate for that category is much higher.

(Q) In terms of college, what is unique about having the DACA designation?

(A) You may be required to sign an affidavit stating that you intend to become a legal resident; since this is something you devoutly wish to happen, this is easy to sign. Besides, it is necessary to get the resident tuition rate.

(Q) Financial aid: what can I get?

(A) The biggest negative is that you are not eligible for FAFSA-based aid: the Pell Grant and related federal loans.

(Q) What about scholarships from the colleges?

(A) Public colleges are restricted, but sometimes can find monies funders have provided specifically for the support of undocumented students. Private schools frequently offer quite sizable scholarships. All other things being equal, this would cause a rush of undocumented students to these colleges. However, the absence of conventional financial aid (see above) means that the required money from the student is often still too large to be affordable.

(Q) Is there outside money available to help undocumented students get further education?

(A) Increasingly the answer is yes. Different foundations (e.g., TheDreamUS Scholarship) and individuals (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook) have come to the conclusion that our economy and society need more educated individuals and it is silly to have barriers that prevent undocumented students from getting their degrees, pursuing their careers, and contributing to their new home country.

(Q) What is the most favorable state for undocumented students?

(A) Interestingly, it is California, which passed its own version of a DREAM Act (AB540) in 2010, covering both rate and aid, access not being an issue. This is the same state that in 1994 passed anti-immigrant legislation, Proposition 187. Changed attitudes are possible!

(Q) Has DACA helped indirectly?

(A) Yes, with a stamped social security card (work authorization) students can obtain higher-paying jobs than those available in the underground/shadow economy. So they are better able to offset the absence of conventional financial aid.

(Q) General: Can I contact the college I am interested in and ask about their policies?

(A) Good luck. Colleges are notorious for slow or non-existent responses to telephone calls and e-mails alike. To add insult to injury, if the student does connect with a college representative, frequently the latter does not know his own school’s policies.

(Q) Are there other suggestions for the prospective undocumented college student?

(A) Because colleges, in my experience, can do almost anything they want to do, if you receive a “no” in making a request of a college official, then go ask a different official. If you receive a “yes,” get it confirmed, preferably from another person at the same school. When errors are made by the college representative, it is the student who suffers; the staffer’s life is unaffected.

(Q) What would be the impact if DAPA is upheld?

(A) With undocumented parents protected by DAPA from deportation, their resident children would be better able to focus on education.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

“Learning takes place when you are OUT of the comfort zone; the networking and live-action conversations are so important.”

Warning: this essay wanders more than a bit, so here for the impatient reader is the conclusion: there are no longitudinal metrics available to readily determine whether on-line higher education is en route to being a truly major delivery mechanism or instead will be viewed as basically a niche tool.

A Few Background Comments

Change in the overall educational arena has never been a process which would find its way into the consulting playbook of a Bain & Company, nor would it have been a chapter in Jack Welch’s famous binder for developing management talent at GE. Neither would it resonate well among the highly intelligent players at the Google ping pong tables.

Historically, for example, shifts in elementary, middle, and high school education have been episodic. Professors and experts at various non-practitioner locales would slay multiple trees in order to produce pedagogical dissertations, the result perhaps being the “New Math,” inexorably followed some years later by a learned discovery of all the flaws in the “New Math,” which then quietly was transformed into some type of modified approach (what else!). Subsequently, with sufficient passage of time so that prior errors in highly-paid thinking would not be so evident, there came the “New Math,” not to be confused with the prior curriculum of the same name.

Meanwhile, life in the classroom went on, as it did at the teachers colleges. Tenured teachers knew they would outlast any iteration of the “New Math” and hence could combine lip service and rolled eyes without serious impediment to either their job security or, in fact, to how they taught their classes. The aforementioned colleges, having no substantive connection to what took place in real world classes, could easily abide still another Ph.D thesis on “A Comparative Study of the New Math, Singapore Math, and the approach to Math by the Indigeneous Population of Nebraska.”

Describing the pathways of change at the higher education level is on the one hand, impossible–there are so many variations, and simple—each college/university has basically established its own path, its own blend of academic and non-academic offerings, with the metrics being rankings in the listings compiled by various publications (which the schools all “hate” of course), the ability to select students from a nice pile of applications, and the success of the perpetual fund-raising campaign. Missing until recently has been deep and public scrutiny of costs, graduation rates, and ultimately, life success rates.

Hopefully, somewhere in this contorted essay, there will be at least a conceptual linkage of the above comments to on-line higher education—after all, that is the subject of this essay– but first I have to take a break and go to Bernie’s Diner for something to eat. In the words of the famous Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot, “…to think, the stomach and the brain must be in harmony.’

At Bernie’s, I know that if the consumptive public has no taste for an item on the menu, it will not be there. Students should be so lucky; their reaction to educational innovations historically have almost not counted, even though they are the ones whose presumed appetite for education (and the statistical scorecard which becomes theirs) can be irreparably damaged by exposure for years on-end to non-productive curricula and teaching methods alike.

The K-12 school superintendent chefs may turn over in only a few years, but the educational meal was largely unchanged until a quarter-century ago, when the loose category called “educational reformers” appeared on the scene. Said individuals are not to be confused with the pedagogs within the system who have misused the term “reform” ever since the McGuffey Reader was removed from the public school curricula. The newer breed of reformers actually not only wants to do everything differently but to measure the results and make adjustments accordingly.

At the college level, change at the top has been triggered by unsatisfactory athletic results and unsuccessful fund-raising, which in many cases is saying the same thing. Before rocks get thrown at me, I am not referring to the elite universities who are caught up in the research/publish race even more than in apples-to-apples academic comparisons.  I mean a top place like Stanford would never be concerned with its football prowess, would it!

One line of thought therefore is that on-line education in general is the logical outgrowth of a screwy education industry change mechanism and the desire of many smart, highly motivated people to make the academic lives of students better, whatever that means.

Anyway, now that I am satiated—probably overly so– from a rewarding visit to Bernie’s, with luck I will be able to think more clearly about the subject at hand. Unfortunately, on-line higher education does not have the simple decision rules as a diner.

On-line Higher Education

Founded in 1976, the University of Phoenix came onto the scene as a completely on-line approach to higher education and a for-profit one at that. The conventional college/university system all but tarred and feathered these newcomers and their new-fangled method, demonstrating once again that the most illiberal segment of our society is often found on the nation’s campuses. Phoenix persevered, however, and actually grew quite substantially, peaking at around 400,000 students before somebody important, the Department of Education, had its eyes opened to the fact that the school had high drop-out rates, high debt levels for departed or graduated students, and high default and delinquent rates for said young people. Not good. The entire category of for-profit higher education providers is now subject to a rule which is summarized as the “ability to benefit:” does what the student pays for in his education equate to a sensible current/future financial obligation considering his chosen career.

Meanwhile, conventional non-profit purveyors of what is purportedly higher education are having nightmares, disguised as philosophical debates, about the unfolding trend to look at their august endeavors in a similar way. Attempts to hold them accountable for the way they run their college businesses are inevitably met with, “you do not understand,” overlooking—no, seeking to sweep aside—the fact that student debt is now about $1.2 trillion, which is above that of consumer debt, and 40% of recent graduates are either unemployed or working below their ostensible academic credentials.

Permeating the entire higher education system is the belief by many that socialization and networking are being “taught” well, but academics not so, which presents an employability problem. Employers not only value the generic skills of critical thinking capability, complex reasoning, and writing, but also what are called “field specific competencies” (source: “Aspiring Adults Adrift,” the follow-on to “Academically Adrift”). Bluntly put, employers do not trust that any academic credential, from high school diploma to Bachelor’s degree, means that the recipient actually knows how to do something.

Because of skepticism toward degrees per se, many big companies have reduced the number of campuses on which they recruit; moreover, they use strategies which aim at establishing a preliminary self-selection process. An example is having a three-day conference/workshop for prospective Bachelor’s graduates meeting certain criteria who are interested in working for a specific multinational company. In addition, it seems that companies are placing even more importance on whatever formal or informal training programs that are in-house. Simultaneously, they want a seat at the curriculum planning table of community colleges: public costs, private profit anyone!

Graduate School Level

To put the higher education dilemma in a different statistical box, at present, in the American graduate school system, 17% of all students are international; in the STEM sector, it is more than half (this is an immediate argument for immigration reform that speaks directly to our self-interest but that belongs in a separate essay). Of total student debt, about 40% is incurred at the graduate level, compared with only 14% of enrollees.

These data points could argue for changes in the graduate school cost/delivery mechanism, but at present there is not a clear connection between the two, even as there are signs that additional business marketing principles are coming to the fore. Whether business logic and on-line education should be conflated, as many are doing, at least conceptually, is a different story. More students served cannot be the metric; it has to be more educationally satisfied customers.

The Wonders of Technology

In a backwards way, because on-line education is light on socialization among students, it offers the opportunity to be more, not less, academically focused. Individual courses may have reached this standard, but there is no evidence that systematically this is happening.

Instead the primary appeal of on-line is convenience, not only for students, but for schools, professors, teachers, parents—with the assumption that everyone in the digital age associates all the cool “iDevices” with “learning,” with no need for prior or on-going analysis to validate the premise.

So it is now time to talk about technology, which might be considered the final, pivotal piece of whatever structural image befits the discussion.

This part is really simple: everybody knows that in today’s digital world, all things are possible short of slicing bread. If the gadget or app or website or whatever is doable, like really easy to accomplish and often really cheap, it must be good, beneficial, no problems attached. So roll it out. And do not cringe when more students use Twitter than can place Afghanistan on a map.

P.S. A complete understanding of the Luddites reveals they got a bad rap, which stuck obviously as a synonym for being against technology. Not that I would be sensitive about being so labeled.

Higher Education Premises

At the same time there is a recognition of technology being the centerpiece of educational change (overlooking the even more important factor of human capital), it useful to list some of the general assumptions regarding higher education in general.

• Students, and this writer for sure, already regard all colleges as businesses
• Students (and many teachers) have grown up with the Internet as an everyday activity
• Instant gratification is desired by a large number of people of all ages
• Students are looking to be employable upon gradation
• The supply function in higher education is deficient in many countries
• With respect to policies, whether academic or administrative, colleges can do as they please
• Socialization, sports, and networking are the most important subjects at college
• Those seeking upward economic mobility from education have to march to a different drummer

Picking up on the final point above, financially challenged students are faced with multiple questions: how many hours per week can I work, should I stay close to home in order to help family finances, and—should I go for on-line education as a way to hopefully finesse these questions. Given that less than 10% of individuals in the lowest economic quartile get a college degree, versus over 75% in the highest such segment, changes in education which benefit low-income strivers are devoutly to be wished. Unfortunately, the skew of where these students go for higher education is toward community colleges and for-profit vendors, neither of which is an academically compelling alternative.

On-line Education

It is time to fit the actual subject of this little essay into the mosaic less than artfully sketched above. Is on-line higher education to be the collegiate capstone of the delivery component of education reform, bringing successful education to those otherwise unexposed, or allowing those with geographical constraints around the world to access the best professors, or giving those with squeezed schedules the flexibility to make their education purchase on their own time.

Unlike the “New Math,” the contemporary version of on-line education has sprung from entrepreneurial energies, even when coming from those who initially were employed by large schools. The most important of the energies are those surrounding the aforementioned technological advances, the Internet/Social Media age. Second has been specific individuals like Salmon Khan, who thought there had to be a better way to help his little sister learn math.  (His approach deserved the label of the “New Math,” except, as noted at the outset, that term now has been used to the point of abuse.)

Third has been the amorphous group of education reformers who function with a combination of philosophy (high academic standards, disciplined culture, data driven instruction, heavy professional development) and intellectually open minds that, to quote Poirot again, “do not disturb facts to support a theory.” Fourth has been those colleges and professors who were not shy about recognizing the type of business opportunity which the for-profit education providers had discovered years back. The fact the former would still shun the latter at your average cocktail party should not obscure the numerous underlying commonalities.

Break number two: time to get personal.

THE WRITER’S STUDENT EXPERIENCE WITH ON-LINE HIGHER EDUCATION

Never having had the pleasure of pursuing an MBA and being a constant traveler, I decided to go on-line for this totally unnecessary add-on to my life’s resume. The purveyor was Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), whose ads can be seen anywhere from the World Atlas website to the NBA.

The following was the early check list for on-line learners¸ what in business would be referred to as qualifying the prospect: “persistence, ability to tolerate technical problems, technical capability to create documents, ability to process the Internet and download software. Students must have good time management skills, preferably by setting a schedule. They must have effective and appropriate communicate skills.”

Certainly there is an implicit belief in the on-line world that sending students to read a website is no different from its historical predecessor–get this book from the library and read it. Of course, it is a little more difficult to mark up websites, although there are related ways to do so.

These are the technological mechanics, suggestions, and requirements relevant to the first on-line course I signed up for, “Human Behavior in Organizations.” Intellectually I knew this would be quite interesting since I function as the sole employee of the WKBJ Foundation. The second course was on “Global Entrepeneurship.”

 Key to understanding the process was knowing that “your course will be delivered through Blackboard. Below are the most used Blackboard tools and areas.

 Announcements: this area is used to post day-to-day course details such as the status of or directions for assignments. Check the announcements on a regular basis, at least several times each week.

1. Course Information: the course syllabus, assignment guidelines and rubrics, technical support, Student Handbook, and advising information can be found here. Check this area at the start of the class. It is recommended that the syllabus be downloaded for future reference.
2. Learning Modules: this area contains course content, including lectures, readings, resources, and assignments. Check this area at the start of each module and throughout the module week to review course materials.
3. Discussion Board: this is one of the areas for discussion and collaboration in the class. Participate and contribute on a regular basis if your course includes discussions.
4. Research/Writing: SNHU library and research information can be found here. Check this area for links and information on different library-related resources.
5. My Instructor: instructor information is located in this area. Check this area to find out about your instructor’s background and contact information.
6. My Grades: Check this area to find out your grades for your course assignments.”

With respect to writing assignments,”because submitted papers remain the intellectual property of their authors, instructors, and respective institutions, we are unable to show you the content of this paper (ed. the student’s writings) at this time. If you would still like to view this paper, your instructor may be able to request permission to view the paper from the instructor to whom the paper was originally submitted.” That advisory came from another vendor, iParadigm, LLC to be specific. It handled the “Turnitin” aspect, after the student agreed to several pages of legalese. This relationship was not mentioned in the above list of procedural descriptors.

•  Moving right along, ”this is your class homepage” (which I discovered on the first day of week three). “To submit an Assignment, click on the “Submit” button to the right of the assignment name. If the Submit button is grayed out, no submissions can be made to the assignment. If resubmissions are allowed, the submit button will read “Resubmit” after you make your first submission to the assignment. To view the paper you have submitted, click the “View” button. Once the assignment’s post date has passed, you will also be able to view the feedback left on your paper by clicking the “View” button.”

A description of the students in the Human Behavior course would be as follows: some were English as a Second Language students, some were virtually illiterate relative to what one would expect at the graduate level, a couple were extensively experienced in the world of work. Many had children, many were dissatisfied with their jobs and looking for a fix; some were ex-military. All were into political correctness: all diversity is good, all stereotypes are bad, all bosses are stupid. There was lots of whining among the younger students who apparently think that companies were established for the sake of prospective employees.

The Clicking Process

 As the above advisory from the school said, the on-line student must be comfortable with the computer.

There were at least 15 main menu navigational items, with another 15 or so subheadings, including some attempting to steer the student to other products and services of the publisher whose e-book is assigned to the student for the specific course. There were Help Desks at multiple places.

Here is a quick run-through of the clicks:

SNHU … User Name … Password …SNHU Mail … Back to Home … Blackboard … Course Name … Discussion Board (Create Thread and/or Post) … (When prior okay) Return to Course List … My Management Lab … Sign In … User Name … Password (both different from above) … Course Name (Seven items, including a Study Plan) … Study Plan: five questions, click for answers, then a three-question test; 4-6 sets of these per chapter … Click out three times to be fully finished.

The Educational Function

From my standpoint, the course questions in Human Behavior were simplistic, ignoring important facets of context, culture, consistency, and credibility. In a normal classroom, these issues would hopefully be the subject of vibrant discussion. Not here. Discussion Board responses are of the kissing your sister variety. Here is a comment from the professor:

*Bob, “Your discussion for this week reflected a distinguished post. You made a connection to the content in the course by discussing the organizational behavior. Your responses to peers were engaging and informative. Your posts were submitted in a timely manner. Your responses supported with research will reflect critical thinking. You’re off to a great start in the discussion board!”

The above was my first input from the professor, as you can tell; I came to believe that her comment about research was a veiled way of saying that I was not yet quoting academic/website sources in my posts. Could I tell her I am so ancient that I have experienced all the curricular stuff and do not need to look it up?! I subsequently sent two “Case Incidents” directly to her, calling the computer system Kafkasque, and I am sure I did not exactly follow all the rules about APA format (another area where the student gets pointed elsewhere to find out how to do something, as opposed to it being included in the syllabus handed out by the professor on day one) so I doubted that her next message to me would be quite so cheery. I did finally find the ”turnitin” box, but could not resubmit what actually was an early submission. Yes, I said that right.

Here is another comment from the professor: “You accurately summarized the main elements with sufficient details about the obvious and not so obvious issues of the aging workforce. You applied the concept of age discrimination correctly within your analysis when you described the demographics behind the aging workforce. Critical thinking was evident through comprehensive exploration of a diverse workforce and supported with sources; however, your reference page (Note: I never got the hang of APA) was missing. Keep up the good work!” My guess is that this set of words was generic and applicable to the majority of students.

Interestingly, the worst score I received on one of the little simulation exercises we had to do was concerning a Motivation situation. If I had been in a classroom, I would have argued there was no correct answer possible from the limited information provided.

At times, taking the courses seemed rather like a game: click on this icon/question/button and then, if correctly done, move to the next click. If the icon/question/button is intellectually provocative and/or elicited meaningful commentary from either the professor or other students, then value-added is created. Alas, not the case for these two courses. Note that this observation is not a complaint stemming from a low grade. Just the opposite. Below are the details on points received for my Global Entrepreneurship business plan.

“(24/25) Milestone submission and incorporation of feedback (25/25) Comprehensive final product (15/15) Critical Thinking (14/15) Research (10/10) Integration and Application (10/10) Writing (Mechanics/Citations) Bob, I have enjoyed watching you progress through this course with both ventures. The risk and competitors matrixes for these ventures were significantly different to one another. You have delivered a consistently high standard of work throughout the course and the final project reflects this. Thank you for your participation in this course.”

Well prof, it would have been nice to have had some pushback from you, like in any direction. When I put Yao Ming on my Board of Directors for a projected business in China, you might have said something other than, “you have put together a distinguished group of directors.”

EVALUATION OF ON-LINE HIGHER EDUCATION

The Teachers

Who are the teachers of on-line education? How can a student possess the information necessary to make quality judgments; essentially do they not revert to the brand—the name of the school—or to convenience, as stated seemingly the leading motivation for a student to go on-line. If the student draws a professor like the one I had for Global Entrepreneurship, an individual who does not care about his spelling, is there not an instant loss of respect, which then carries over to the content side of the deal (and which also speaks poorly of the sponsoring college). As with the first course, there was minimal real feedback on the weekly submissions.

The Objectives

What are the goals of on-line higher education:

• more low income young people taking college courses
• greater persistency by existing students through the Bachelor’s/Master’s cycle
• more college enrollees
• greater accessibility to higher education for international students
• tighter link between education and employability
• nice addition to existing academic resumes
• exposure to best teachers

What is the tangible document in the hand of the graduate of a random on-line course (as opposed to a complete curriculum through one education vendor):

• nothing
• certificate of participation
• certificate of accomplishments
• some college credits
• enough college credits for a diploma

Commentary

As is true in many areas, from sex to a publicly-held company’s reported earnings, the actual of on-line higher education inevitably is compared with expectations. Capital is raised and staffing established based on the latter—and so is the publicity.

The MOOC (Massive Open On-line Courses) development became front page news when glamour players like Stanford and Harvard took the lead, not the disreputable (to the college establishment) Phoenixes of the world.

What is the actuality of MOOC thus far. According to the “New York Times” Jeffrey Selingo, in his October, 2014 article “Demystifying the MOOC,” the average on-line user is a young white American man with a bachelor’s degree and a full-time job. ”Some 80% of MOOC students at the Universities of Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2012-13 already had a degree. Surprisingly, the same 80% ratio prevailed in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and in South Africa. The data are from a sampling of Coursera courses but are representative of edX as well.”

Drop-out rates for students swapping the classroom for on-line are much higher than for their counterparts who get dressed and go to a boxed physical layout with a talking head up front. Perhaps on class sizes should be limited. This could move discussion board posts from vanilla to at least pistachio, if not in a totally different direction, like tossed salad. Right now, they are bland, flavorless, not satisfying to the mind’s appetite. Which spills back to a basic question of the purpose of on-line: is it a quick checkmark thing, akin to a tourist in Rome going down his list of sites seen—Coliseum, check; The Baths, check; Vatican, check, what’s next.

I find myself wondering about the on-line business model applicable to the SNHU on-line courses. The school provides its name, takes care of G&A (general and administrative functions), is customer conscious, and—then what? What is the relationship with the adjunct professor who has no other contact or contract with the school? Is the professor paid a standard rate or with incentives based on graduation rate/drop-out rate, class size, student surveys? If the student is paying full rate, should exposure be required by the curricula to all manner of commercial websites with their get one free come-ons of no use to students. What part of the curriculum does the professor create; are they almost entirely implementers of an academic approach created at the home office?

On reconstructing On-line methodology

My initial thought is that the starting point should be a definition as to what are one-time aspects of the course: syllabus, scoring rubric, etc. The idea would be to organize them in one place with a request that they be printed out by the student because following week one, they would come off the computer. After that, do every communication possible through the Discussion Board, including “here’s what you need to do this week.” There will still be a need for separate clicks for TurnitIn and Grading, but the overall net result would be a shifting of the education/navigation ratio in favor of the former, which–ignoring convenience–is what you signed up for in the first place.

The present system is like going to Bernie’s but having to obtain different parts of the meal from different places, when what you want is somebody responsible for delivering a good total eating experience—the student has already ceded by going on-line that physical ambiance is not the issue—but does he not still want an interactive classroom/professor dynamic?  What is the right role for technology, what part is about value-added education?  Again, note that the desired characteristics of an on-line learner start with being comfortable with the technical stuff, i.e, the marketing pitch is not about education.

Naturally I am not the only one rethinking what on-line is supposed to accomplish or who it is to be aimed at. In January, 2015, the non-profit Modern States Education Alliance (founded by Steven Klinsky) announced an initiative, “Freshman Year for Free.” It will be a collaboration with edX, a well-known on-line provider founded by Harvard and MIT.  Courses and exams created by university partners will establish a tuition-free route to the attainment of college credit. Clearly the target audience here is the financially challenged student.

Udacity, the MOOC often credited with paving the way for this concept, has already thrown in the towel on its original approach and is now concentrating on fee-based “corporate and vocational training.” Not exactly a paradigm shift in higher education.

 CONCLUSION

 The third choice in the Scottish judicial system—“not proven”—seems accurate with respect to any assessment of on-line higher education at this moment in its evolution. How’s that for succinctness!

Bob Howitt, Fall/Winter, 2014-15.

Notes:

The opening quote is from Griselle Baret, the Education Program leader at the Hunts Point Alliance for Children in New York City. Griselle, who has a Master’s, is less than half the age of Bob, who laughs out loud when reading the BBC book, “Grumpy Old Men. ”

For those who are not familiar with the culinary leader in New Jersey, it is the genre known as a “Diner.” Wherever it is located, and that seems like on every decent highway, the menu will be huge and the portions large, but not the prices. The pies and cakes will have more whipped cream, meringue, and frosting than is allowed by the AMA. The establishments are typically open twenty-four hours and are usually owned by Greeks, who hopefully are more inclined to pay their taxes here than is true of their home country compatriots. The servers look like they are from central casting, which is often true of the customers themselves. Thin is not in among these patrons, including yours truly.

In addition, a diner for me is a place where essay ideas often are born, especially when Bernie’s is actually in Barcelona, where I recently spent a total of five months.

The Poirot quote is from Agatha Christie’s 1924 book entitled “Poirot Investigates.”

I first became aware of SNHU because of its customer friendly approach to enrolling two-year college graduates directly into its four-year programs. A while later, in watching the NBA play-offs, I was reminded of the school. I decided to call its 800 number, with the resolve that if one component of the conversation was unappealing, I would bag the idea. Somewhat to my cynical surprise, everything went smoothly, including the adviser’s willingness to send me a year-old syllabus for a course I was signing up for and the school taking on the burden of tracking down my college transcript of fifty years ago.The fact that it was pure on-line, i.e. not a hybrid, was a must because of my travel bug. I know I should at least attempt some balance in my experience by enrolling on-line with a big name university—yes, I know I should.

ADDENDUM TO BERNIE’S DINER:

If I am really testing various on-line approaches, perhaps my upcoming third class at SNHU should be my last. Maybe attempting to make sense of Financial Regulations in ten on-line weeks will cause me to go in a different academic direction, perhaps social work.

Oops, the school advised me to withdraw completely! SNHU interpreted my several changes of schedule as being indicative of low resolve.  Uh, true!

Meanwhile, the world of higher education is rife with different sales pitches for graduate programs, what I refer to as “Get your Masters by Tuesday” marketing approaches, with a heavy emphasis on the courses delivered on-line.

In this context, it is interesting to enumerate the points made by a recent graduate of an Executive MBA program. With corporate world experience spanning five years a requirement to be enrolled in this particular endeavor, she found the classroom interaction with other mature individuals of great benefit. Backgrounds ranged from that of a surgeon to that of a nuclear engineer. Moreover, the professors were typically rooted in the real world of business and thus connected well with the students. Additional exposure to different careers and cultures was gained from a residency overseas.

In theory, each of these attributes can be garnered through the on-line modality. In practice, however, it appears that aspirational student are as likely to be disappointed as satisfied. A cautionary note to myself in forming any opinions about on-line; everybody I know who has taken such a course did so for convenience, not for its educational attraction.

http://BobHowittBooks.com/?page_id=22

For nearly a decade, my foundation has had a Wall Street Committee, typically consisting of a half-dozen members. There is a live portfolio of about $75,000 at this time, one-third in cash and two-thirds in common stocks. Some 14 well-known American companies are represented, virtually all of whom derive substantial percentages of their business from international operations, which is an attractive characteristic most of the time.

The committee meets two or three times a year to eat pizza, drink beer, and talk about the stocks in the portfolio and new ideas, the state of the economy, and life in a world which often seems to be spinning off its axis.

None of the committee members were born in the United States, and they ganged up on me to provide thoughts on the geopolitical topic in the heading above. The date of these observations was 2010; I have appended some 2015 thoughts in italics. All blushing aside, the points of five years ago mostly ring valid today; maybe it is because they were obvious, simplistic, no-brainers, nothing regarding expert insight.

*The American consumer has revised downward his prior pattern of excessive consumer expenditures, typically financed by unhealthy debt levels, but the overall domestic economy continues to be the largest market in the world. This means that, periodic financial/economic upheavals notwithstanding, the USA is still the magnet country for people seeking job opportunities not available in their home countries. This gives power to any American leader.

No change. (The growth of multinational companies works both ways, creating and eliminating jobs in different markets/countries.)

*The controversial aspects of President Obama’s tenure have not obscured his broader impact, that of bringing about a better relationship between the United States and other countries than was true with his predecessor. In fact, it would not be surprising to see a woman or a second minority male follow in Obama’s groundbreaking footsteps and become president at any time.

Still mostly valid, with the caveat that many of those military/political historians steeped in the Kissinger “realpolitik” mode of thinking now believe that Obama’s alleged “softness” internationally has cost him support from some erstwhile allies.

The political stability of the United States is well above-average; this fact, plus the credibility of its legal system, fosters sufficient international respect to overcome its occasional large mistakes.

No change, but note the somewhat conflicting preceding point in italics. In addition, the periodic idiocy of government shutdowns, real or threatened, does not exactly enhance the status of this country.

The openness of American society in terms of a person’s ability to speak their mind and pursue ideas–whether political, artistic, or in business–is unparalleled.

No change.

*China of course has become far more important as a growing, diversified economy but its average citizen is not yet in great financial shape, and the society is still closed to a large degree, i.e. its financial dealings and political process are not as transparent as desired. India has not yet put its whole economic/political act together and remains a country with major income inequality. Russia is still evolving, trying to get past its centuries of totalitarian rule, its corruption, and an addiction to alcohol and tobacco which puts the average life at only 57 years of age.

Some shifts required in these particular observations: China has entered into the international financial arena in a manner not true five years earlier, Russia has become more aggressive externally, and uh, I did forget about Japan–but that’s okay, its focus is mostly internal.

South America remains relatively provincial, needing to resolve national problems before attaining international leadership. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez was a victim of his overreaching program, which resulted in inflation, an outflow of currency, and disgust at his moves to imprison his critics. In contrast to the above two comments, Brazil has achieved enhanced stature, a function of government stability, the benefits of the Olympics (2016) and the World Cup (2014), exploitation of its natural resources, and the benefits of sheer size.

*Whoops, Brazil has blown it: huge corruption scandals reaching to the top of the government structure, an economic downturn, and unsafe water for the upcoming Olympics. I believe it was Lord Acton who said that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

No European nation has become a viable candidate for leadership. The large and multifaceted African continent has not produced any candidates either; in some ways, its situation is similar to that of South America. The 2010 World Cup in South Africa provided insufficient leverage to that country’s economic outlook, and despite its many attributes, high unemployment and a heavy AIDS impact hold the country back.

No change.

When you think about other possible leader nations, those in the Mideast are not terribly relevant because the region’s economic base is focused on one product (oil) and treatment of its citizens on average is not appealing to the world community.

No change.

Hence, from a pragmatic standpoint, the United States keeps its leadership position in part because there is not a truly worthy competitor.

Probably there should be a comment here, for those fixated on the so-called Western world, that the putative competitors for world leadership—England and Germany, while functioning more effectively than their European counterparts, are not about to jostle the United States from its top spot. Moreover, China’s stock market and economic comeuppance has removed the cloak of invincibility from the country which has been driving half of the world’s growth. Commodity currency countries which had thrived selling stuff to China have seen the value of their currency brought down sharply, the flip side being a stronger USA dollar.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

In 1992, I left a great job on Wall Street and, having raised a bunch of money, established a foundation to provide “educational assistance to financially disadvantaged young people.” My new must read became Education Week, whose typical subscriber probably has jaundiced views about my prior life. What is not in dispute in the world of academia, which prefers ph.d types to the ps.d (poor, smart, driven) profile favored by many on Wall Street, is that the intellectual functions performed in the stock market are child’s play compared with those involved in educating a child. Hence, it took me many years to overcome this deficit and gain the insight and courage necessary to issue fearless forecasts.

Finally, about two decades ago – I could safely predict the following:

*some charter schools will fail, an escape route from perpetual embarrassment apparently not available to traditional public schools with comparable credentials.

*some students involved in voucher programs will do poorly in reading and math, apparently not realizing that all youngsters are supposed to blossom when they move from one governance structure to another.

*students in “private” schools will continue to demonstrate more indications of public/civic engagement than those enrolled in schools dedicated to “public” education.

*school choice will continue to attract educational leaders who are basically optimistic entrepreneurs, and who, if they cannot have this outlet for their educational energies, will not transfer to conventional education positions.

*affluent suburbanites will be shocked when .value-added analysis of their children’s

schools reveals they are not as good as previously thought; only the test scores are good.

*said individuals will reduce their whining about charter schools and their foaming at the mouth when the word voucher is mentioned; they will think more kindly about tax credits.

*the statement of leading school choice advocate Howard Fuller that the school choice debate is “not about research, it’s about justice” will resonate throughout the land, leading to a spreading of educational democracy among the currently disempowered .

*there will be more publicity for polls showing that younger members of longstanding minority organizations disagree with their elders and are very much in favor of school choice.

*professorial and graduate student research alike will continue to prove to the sixth decimal point that school choice amazingly does no academic harm to the students who are subjected to such endeavors, which makes school choice worth pursuing if you believe in the aforementioned democracy thing.

*the market share represented by school choice students will double, to 25%, and then flatten out because the traditional school system will have adjusted with more rigorous standards, increased teacher development, enhanced ·leadership training, and greater parental involvement

*people will calm down; discussions will focus on “and how are the children?” not which type of school are they attending.

At this future point, people will notice that, whoops, “undereducation” continues to be a major problem, seemingly impervious to the impact of any and all educational reforms, and they will be forced to pay incremental explicit attention to a variety of more difficult, and therefore almost inevitably, underdiscussed issues:

*Is it economic poverty which creates educational deficits in incoming students, or is it  the poverty of non-family, non-structured living  arrangements  that establishes  a deficit  literally on day one? If bringingging children into the world  without  accompanying  parental  commitment  is  an antecedent negative to subsequent education, should not those in favor of educational enhancement  be  speaking  out on this  underlying issue?

*Do teenagers work too much, no, not on homework, but at paying jobs that have no educational content beyond learning to push the right button on the computerized cash register?

*Are schools unwittingly stopping their educational mission short by pushing kids to think about their time in the building as simply preparation for a life of earning money?

*Ouch, is it possible that all this dialogue about educational governance has zero to do with education and is entirely about power, and that the teachers union does not wish to convey power to urban minority parents, even as it teaches the latter’s children about self-esteem?

*Ah yes, those after-school programs are all so compelling, giving incremental attention to the educational needs of students, but should not the providers of band-aids for broken legs be speaking up about the need for change in the most proximate cause of these deficits, the school where the child just spent six or seven hours?

*Does not the issue of excessive television viewing have to be put front and center, not softened with semi-nonsense about “some shows are good”? Do students really need to be transfixed by series of eight-second images which give them the subliminal message that such a pace of stimulation is to be the leit motif of their lives?

Excluding the advent of iDevices and social media, and their impact on education – which thus far is non-existent actually – the above forecasts do not look half bad.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

 

 

… as drawn up on the back of a New Jersey diner placemat in January of 2012.

Enactment of a true DREAM Act

Balanced federal budget on a rolling four-year basis

Decisions on gay marriage and abortion legislation retained at the state level

Removal of all American shooting troops currently stationed on foreign soil

Implementation of a Progressive Consumption Tax, with higher rates than at present

Elimination of the corporate tax on dividends

A minimum cash tax rate for all companies

An inflator for all federal sources of college financial aid

Extend unemployment benefits to three years if one year used as a grant for documentable retraining

Increase community access to public school buildings, with payment to offset incremental costs

Partially privatize social security, by individual choice, make it fully funded

Shift prison spending for drug offenders to rehab facilities, including basic education

Make GED classes mandatory for all prisoners without high school diplomas

… at first blush four years later, I would not change anything above.

… on second re-reading, maybe I should be required to add a couple of thoughts, like a comment on Obamacare or immigration beyond simply a DREAM Act or the naming of a new Supreme Court Justice or gun control.

Nah, it is too much fun simply watching Trump and Sanders push the envelope of pragmatic sanity, confuse and irritate the elites of both coasts, and make one think warmly about that inexpensive house in Nicaragua if either dons the Presidential robe.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

In choosing a school, the prospective collegian often has multiple “helpful” people in his or her ear: mother, father, best friend, sibling, high school counselor, teacher, outside education advisor, and, of course, oneself.

Assume the student’s final decision is among three colleges with different characteristics.

One way to put together the inputs from different sources is to assign scores for each of the voices in the student’s ear. In other words, the reflective student is analyzing how each of the voices would react to certain variables.

The scoring system goes from 5: which means maximum confidence in a positive outcome for the student if he attends the school listed, to 1: the least confidence in a positive outcome.

These scores are applied to a list of variables relevant to the student and each of the schools being seriously considered by the student. Here are a few factors, in alphabetical order:

Academic rigor … Availability of contemplated major … Distance from home … Extracurricular opportunities … Net cost of attendance … Networking reputation … Time management

When you go to a high quality restaurant and pay for an expensive meal, but it is great food, drink, and ambiance, the price fades from memory. While the financial impact will reappear on the next credit card statement, the overall experience remains positive.

If you go to a college which scores high on all the non-financial characteristics, it probably is worth it, even with the debt that will become totally evident when the monthly repayment schedule commences.

To state the obvious, the summary score on the inputs from various voices is not meant to be a conclusive “answer” for the student. It is more like a stimulus to the student doing methodical thinking about the selection of a college.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

 

 

 

 

All my life I have wondered about “Somebody”.

Is “Somebody” a man or a woman, or perhaps a mythical combination of both? Does “Somebody” rent their residence or own a house with a mortgage and a picket fence, 1.9 kids, and a dog? Did “Somebody” complete four years of university education or drop out after eighth-grade or inherit enough money that education was irrelevant?

You see, I need to know these things because many times when I ask a person where they learned what they have just told me, their reply is, “Somebody told me.” Since the reason I often ask about the source is that I am not persuaded by the logic of the underlying information, I need to find this “Somebody,” the repository of great, albeit unexamined truths.

If I cannot find “Somebody,” I shall shift my attention to “That Guy.” My suspicion is that we are probably talking here about a college professor, but then again he could be a priest or a sanitation worker. I ask a person how he or she knows something and the response is, “That Guy told me.” No name or address or description or cell phone number; how do I Google “That Guy” so I too can learn truths which just ain’t so.

Aha, I’ve got it! Forget “Somebody” or That Guy.” Such individuals are veritable know-nothings compared with the penultimate source of revealed truth, the person to whom all turn to ascertain answers to life’s multiple puzzles.

I am referring to the ubiquitous “They.” Want to know why a course of action, at school or work or in a relationship, is considered advisable by the individual with whom you are talking; simple, “They” said so. Want to better understand the peculiarities of certain people or organizations in which you are interested? Check with “They.”

“They” can say anything about any person or subject and their statements are irrefutable; “They” can never be caught to be quoted directly, and “They” are never around to do a post-mortem on the consequences of their advice. Nonetheless, the accuracy of their pronouncements surely must be extremely high as people every day answer question after question with the succinct repeated declarative, “They said so.”

The beauty of “Somebody, That Guy and They” is abundantly clear: the real-life person involved is able to off-load individual responsibility for truly understanding the course of action that is outlined to you. He or she can place accountability on the shoulders of anonymity and evade any necessity for an “I” statement.

Too bad this approach does not work.

Take ownership of your thoughts and your actions will follow. The only person in the morning mirror is you.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

 

Everybody wants the ability in their job to earn enough money to meet basic needs, even if we tend to forget that truism in a country afflicted with both overall affluence and huge disparities in income: a roof over one’s head, some clothes (let’s not have a debate here about “needs” versus “wants”), and food on the table, hopefully not of the portion size which eventually brings big health bills. These are the tangible essentials, made more enjoyable of course by the presence of a supportive family and good friends.

Would it be helpful to put this simple, honest imagery in the guidance counselor speech to incoming high school freshmen? Would it not be preferable to have that message replace what seems to happen at present, either no message at all or a collection of words which convey the impression that it is college or bust for every single student?

Why not offer up the mother of all education information spreadsheets: an array of alternative routes and some inputs on the variables associated with each. (I am told that posting such a spreadsheet would look sloppy, and, as a non-techie, I am following said advice.) The headings at the top would not only range through every level of higher education, but would include entrepreneur, marketable skills (aka career/technical), and military columns. Every cost category would be on the left side of the spread sheet, plus numerous other variables: the number of years required to gain the eventual piece of paper if relevant, family support, networking, debt, scholarships, grants, risk, and the degree of independence.

This spreadsheet would have the sole purpose of providing information. It would not be used to either promote a particular course of action nor to suggest that a freshman typically knows his exact future path. Instead the spreadsheet would be used as a reference point, perhaps with a scheduled check-in date, e.g. every six months as a freshman or sophomore, every three months as a junior and every two months as a senior.

The guidance counselor would use the student’s spreadsheet commentary to enhance the latter’s dialogue with the counselor, a marked improvement over current practice.

Such a combination of changes could produce a more thoughtful, smoother decision-making process, distinctly different from today’s stress-producing modus operandi when it comes to thinking about life after high school.

Moreover, there could be a collateral benefit of this attempt to somewhat de-stress the incremental education decision, namely a reduction in the high school drop-out rate. The proposed changes address some of the most common reasons behind the decision to prematurely exit high school:

Negative behavior, regardless of reason, that brings expulsion.

• Inadequate attention given to the marketable skills path to economic sustainability.
• An inferiority complex triggered by the message that “college is for everybody.”
• The family budget requires another wage-earner.
• Because of documentation issues, aspiration is diluted or defeated.

Within the category of higher education per se, in today’s environment of high tuition rates, burdensome debt levels for college graduates, and a persistently sluggish job market for recent graduates, a cooler look at the numbers is advantageous. While 70% of high school graduates pursue some type of incremental education, only 30% earn a four-year degree and 10% a two-year degree. Does it not therefore make even more sense to devote additional attention to all of the metrics of enhanced education, particularly those pertinent to the under-analyzed 60%.These thoughts are not laid out because of economic ignorance. There is full awareness that the lifetime income benefits of greater education are substantial: a Master’s degree-holder can earn twice what a high school diploma commands. To put the data another way, assuming a 40-year working life, the economic difference between a high school drop-out and a Bachelor’s is about $25,000 before taxes per year, unadjusted for debt. Obviously, this is a big differential.It is less clear that the steps from high school diploma to associates degree are life-changers; a foregone positive income differential of $10,000 per year before taxes could be acceptable to a person who develops a marketable skill in a much shorter period than is characteristic of college and incurs minimal debt in doing so. Note that oft-quoted income data does not usually provide a comparative calculation for earnings of individuals with marketable skills not directly tied to the level of educational attainment, e.g., those gained through apprenticeship programs.There are of course other benefits associated with more education: for example, a high school drop-out is three times as likely to be unemployed as an individual with a Bachelor’s degree or more. Unemployment rates for those with an Associate’s degree or who have only completed some college courses are roughly double those with a four-year degree or higher.

Muddying the analysis about the right path for a given student is that because of employer skepticism over the quality of education on the nation’s campuses and the pervasive penetration of technology in the workplace, there is a demand for greater academic credentials. These are estimates of workplace composition based on the education required (% of jobs):

1973                            2020E

• Bachelor’s degree or more                                16%                             35%
• Some college                                                    12                                30
• High school graduate                                        40                                24
• Less than high school                                        32                                12

The education world is in a state of change. Common Core standards (a good and necessary idea, poorly implemented), revised SAT, evaluations of teacher performance, scrutiny of college graduation rates, pressure to hold down college inflation, major concern over the level of student debt, and the advent of on-line courseware are all part of the current scene.Bringing all the macro and micro inputs together is not the point of this essay. And it is not to dissuade high schoolers from attending college. The financial attraction of this route speaks for itself; besides, college graduates smoke less, are healthier overall, and live longer. Instead, the suggestion of “One Goal…Multiple Paths” is to move away from the inadvertent message that a singular option fits all and, instead, seek to put in front of prospective high school drop-outs (including those who literally leave the school and those who mentally leave while still occupying a seat) clear and consistent information about different paths.

Better decision-making and planning should be the procedural goal of everybody concerned, from high school administrators to parents and students.

An Inarticulate Request for Reflection

This essay may be misunderstood and not totally well-received by some of the people I love.

Maybe my negative view on so many things in contemporary society is overriding common sense—

having family and friends is so precious how could one ever put them at risk.

Why would anybody think negatively about the American situation?

Could it be our rank in the world with respect to education. Or our total lack of both perceptiveness and plan when it comes to foreign policy, except for trade agreements that is (see God of consumption). Or our unwillingness to resolve the challenge of immigration and prepare for being a nation of multiple minorities. Or our losing battle with racism. Or our utter stupidity regarding gun control. Or our on-going, unsuccessful struggle with drug addiction. Or our distorted income and opportunity inequality. Or the fact that an important percentage of the workforce is making no more money than twenty years ago or more. 

Nah … everything is cool. This is the United States, the country that people gravitate to, not escape from, and with good reason.

**

The good people exiting the church go to work every day, brush and floss their teeth regularly, respect the flag and country, love their parents, and cherish their children ….and they are the problem. The good people see, at least on the surface, nothing negative or unsustainable in the relationship between how they live and the long list above of societal challenges.

They listen to the gentle push from the pulpit and take it for what it is—a friendly nudge to divert a few dollars from consumptive column A to “do-good” project B. There is no thought of it being, because it is not, a call to change the course of one’s life. When the orator of the day repeats the bromide that “all people are equal,” there is perhaps one parishioner in ten who both  believes and lives it. Instead, there is a shared disposition by all within the building to avoid that which is terribly difficult for everybody, including those outside the building, namely thinking through a personal response to any of the negatives outlined at the top.

This avoidance — of that which is unpleasant — is hidden by being securely in the hands of good people, in contrast to, e.g., drug or alcohol addiction, where the negative is classified, discussed, and confronted—with a clear change in behavior required to achieve sustainable health. (In this regard, note that the good people are purportedly healthy, thank you, leaving aside any comment on the implications of their medicine chests or therapy bills. And ignore the common thought that addictions in suburbia are treated as mostly health issues, whereas in the cities, the same behaviors are labeled as crimes.)

The definition of a good person here is unconnected to a philosophical or ethical point of view; highly intelligent people elsewhere write massive tomes on said subjects. Instead, it becomes a collection of absent negatives, i.e., non-addiction to drugs (the illegal variety anyway), alcohol (the leading legal drug), or sexual activity outside of the marriage. It should be added that the good people by definition (i.e., on paper, and not to be confused with reality) are non-discriminatory in their attitudes toward those of other ethnicities or persuasions.

For the sake of discussion, and to have some analytical fun with a few generalizations, assume the population is comprised of good people, 60%; irretrievably stupid ones, 10%; evil-doers, 15%; and hypocritical, 15%. (Some would argue persuasively that we are all in the last category.) Whatever the exact numbers, if there are many more good people than those under other headings and we still have the opening list of negatives, does this mean that (a) the good people do not want to invest time, energy, and/or money in bringing about the substantive changes needed in American life or (b) the good people truly are hypocritical or (c) evil individuals are so disproportionately powerful that it is fruitless for good people to attempt being change agents.

For sure, a high percentage of the good people, presumptively comfortable with their largely unexamined lives, are reluctant to embrace major change, whatever the specific issue. In contrast, consider another group, creative/artistic people: are they not less likely to be religious while being stereotypically associated with a disproportionate number of “bad” habits (e.g., how many great writers have gone through phases of being alcoholics), and yet, are they not more apt to be change agents.

A third sector, that of business, quite often has its practitioners clustered in the hypocritical column, their workplace amorality often coupled with piety elsewhere. However, in fairness, if not for the entrepreneurial, inventor category of business people, the world would still be characterized by some blend of long work hours (making 9am-5pm sameness seem like a walk in the park) and short lives. Such individuals make their own environments, which admittedly are often costly in terms of personal relationships, including within the family. In this sense, they are similar to many in the creative/artistic category.

A fourth category, that of advocates, is excluded here, as by definition, those individuals seek to be change agents. Perhaps the necessity for legal redress is an impediment to a grouping of overlapping issues, but unfortunately the targets for change are often single issues. Rather like pick your poison and seek to eradicate it — whether it be capital punishment or anti-gay discrimination or impossibly low minimum wages – without the handicap of having to formulate a comprehensive philosophy.

Where in this confusing picture are the theoreticians of a big picture debate: e.g., consumption as central to life versus whatever might be considered an alternative. Is there a philosophy which tackles this overriding challenge while mixing together the many attractive elements of American society: rule of law (particularly property rights), free speech, an opportunity to make mistakes and not be penalized generationally, the relative ease of establishing a business, the chance to rise or fall that is still more on one’s own merit than is true in the majority of countries from which immigrants come, and a level of diversity which puts other countries to shame.

The perception by good people of individual politicians, who naively might be expected to be involved in discussions of major philosophical import, almost never as initiators but as followers when they pick up the scent of success at the polls, instead is along the lines of, “my representative might be okay, but yours is a crook/buffoon/fool, etc.” The more strident would argue they all are borderline thieves, some deals taking place in broad daylight and some in backrooms with transactions brokered by highly-paid lobbyists. These characterizations stand regardless of which political party has won which election.

Meanwhile, the growing heterogeneity of the country’s population, inevitable regardless of the pushes and pulls (and politics) of immigration, will bring more diffusion of political power, more cultural uncertainty (tell me again what are the unique American values), and increased technological connectivity (which thus far should not be equated with improved communication, unless the latter is defined as knowing that your friend just changed his profile). Ethnicities will be so intermixed that maybe somebody intelligent will suggest dropping the enumeration of different skin colors. There will be questions as to the sustainability of having half the population continuing to own nothing – their assets are completely offset by their debts.

Will the good people, so-called “conservatives” and “liberals” alike, react to the long list of seemingly insurmountable problems by fleeing to physically gated communities. Already, residential segregation is high and growing, accompanied therein by even more commonality of political thought than heretofore.

Will the good people look inward, but without the deep dive which would reveal hypocrisy. Will the good people “act out” as the therapists say, endorsing politicians who do not recognize the underlying cause of many of the negatives listed at the outset—a consumerist country which has no other benchmarks than economic by which to measure its health. Will big picture questions continue to be avoided?

Maybe my emphasis on the ills of America will in time be considered a reasonably accurate picture, but ultimately only relevant to a defined phase in our society. On the other hand, maybe the good people will not rise to the occasion and work to resolve, or at least ameliorate, the lengthy list of situations at the open. Maybe there will be a bloody confrontation as the sector of our society which has enjoyed uncontested power since the creation of the United States finds it no longer enjoys that luxury. In any event, the fundamental challenges of American society cannot be addressed without a changed approach by the good people.

At this point, it does not appear that the reluctance of the good people to address fundamental issues is beneficial, at least not when it comes to these three rather important measures of progress: is the economy better—not for the average person, even with the recent macro improvement; are people happy—the polls say not; are we at peace—you answer it.

There is a saying, “you know you are growing as a person when you feel slightly uncomfortable.” This essay is simply advocating that more good people become a touch uneasy, okay, more than a touch.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

No, we are not talking about an Easter song. Instead, the third day is that time in your family vacation when sometimes everyone is mad with each other, kids with kids, parents with parents, parents with kids–every combination possible. People fighting over the slightest annoyance, like a shovel in the sand–as if it was a matter of life or death, or whether to have lunch at 12:00 or 12:30, or play board game x versus y. Everyone becomes childish, even the children–wait, they are supposed to be children, not knowing about boundaries or the meaning of “no” unless these concepts are explained and enforced. As the arguments come to a slow boil and then erupt, crying people retreat to one of the many rooms in the large house by the beach, only to discover that the person they are arguing with is already there. “It is not raining in Tennessee” says one such combatant, a totally visible attempt to not talk about anything meaningful in order to avoid further stress.

“Yes,” the other person replies in a tone which says, “I really do not want to be dealing with you right now, I would much rather be in Tennessee instead of grey, dismal, wet (location deleted upon orders of the local Chamber of Commerce!). An outcome of this insanity is not being able to decide on anything except the need for tissues. And nobody can think or see clearly anyway, even after a good wipe. If you were to enter one of these “third days” as simply a friend dropping by as a surprise, you would be greeted by a storm of fake hellos and awfully nice behaviors. You would not see any kids around; they would have all been sent to their rooms. Later, the sparring partners stumble toward peace in our times, with hugs and mumbled apologies. But still an awkwardness fills the air, and there is a silent sweeping of the issues under the proverbial rug. Eventually, despite this nonsense, the wine bottle is uncooked, the dinner prepared, and everything returns to normal. It is family after all. Besides, the vacation ends tomorrow.

Very early the morning of the prospective departure, the oldest one of the bunch, who surprisingly had stayed almost completely clear of the vitriol, was able to recall a dream he had that night. With a torrential rain coming down a few feet from his bed, he put his dream to paper. It went like this: A number of squabbling family members were in a car; the aforementioned fellow was not driving. Eventually, he became so irritated with what was going on that he asked the car to be stopped. When it did so, he got out, but to his shock, the driver then left, to continue arguing presumably! He shook his fist in frustration, to no avail. Looking around, he noticed an old jalopy. It had no key and no gas, but he was able to get it to coast into town at the bottom of the hill. He attempted to make a phone call, only to be frustrated by his complete packing job of the night before–his wallet, a few bills and coins, and cell phone were all in his “carry-on,” which was in the departed “family” car.

As the senior member of the family sat stewing outside a little country cafe wondering about what should be his plan, a local resident came over and asked, “you know anything about that car behind the garage—it’s leaking fluid and all the people seem real mad?”

At that point, a loud clap of thunder and the sound of crackling lightning woke the patriarch from his dream. He thought about its meaning: Should he have intervened in the family arguments, risking adding fuel to the existing fire. Should he simply ignore the whole thing under the “this too will pass” theory of life. Or should the elder make sure that he always has his own car?!

bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22