Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

The “College is For All” Debate: Addressing a Lot of Maybes

By Frank Burtnett, author of the Bound-for-Career-Guidebook and Bound-for-College Guidebook.

Maybe college…maybe not…maybe a 4 year college or university…maybe a 2 year community or technical college….maybe right after high school…maybe not until later in life. There are a lot of “maybes” that need to be tossed into the “college for all” discussion.

President Obama and Secretary of Education Duncan weighed into the discussion a while back by stating that the nation’s ability to compete on a global playing field requires an increase in the awarding of college degrees. The President has set a goal of sixty percent of Americans earning a postsecondary education degree by 2020. Counter arguments, however, are being bantered about saying that college graduates are finding it difficult to find jobs in current economy and students should be more focused on workplace knowledge and skills training that are immediately adaptable and marketable for the current and future crop of jobs. They argue that many of those careers and jobs simply do not require college.

What does this conflict in mission mean for American education? Should our schools place greater emphasis on the preparing students to succeed in postsecondary education? Should “college for all” be the mantra of the times? Should career and workplace skills receive greater attention? Can K-12 education do both?

The experiences of the economic downturn and recession have added fuel to the incendiary debate as many are saying that the college degree is no longer as attractive as it may have been five or ten years ago. Allow me to argue for education. Regardless of what the high unemployment figures are telling us, the fact remains that college graduates are less likely to be unemployed or underemployed and stand the best chances for achieving their career aspirations when the recession is finally over. They even fare better in other demographics like physical and mental health.

Allow me to suggest a middle ground. Schools, in my estimation, should be about the business of helping students achieve their full educational and career potential. No more….no less. Of utmost importance is the need to recognize and facilitate individual differences. College immediately after high school, whether it is the transition to an Ivy League college, a public university or a local community college, is a reasonable step for many who are enrolled in our schools. Others may wish to work and engage in more self-awareness and option exploration before taking that crucial next educational step. Quite possibly a stint in the military can serve to clarify the future and point the graduate in the right direction. There are multiple educational routes to the world of work and K-12 students need to learn about the viability of all of them.

In many respects it is about helping young people outline options while getting a better handle on the characteristics and traits that define each individually. When you have a better understanding or who you are and a clearer view of the future and the options it affords you, you’re better equipped to make good educational and career decisions.

K-12 education needs to prepare students with a kind of “readiness” for future study and entry into and about the workplace. Make no mistake---education is going to be a part of that future. Knowledge and skill acquisition will be necessary for everyone prior to their entry into any occupation or career in the workplace, and will be just as important for maintenance and growth in one’s work and the mobility to move about their chosen career.

Americans cannot escape the inevitable fact that one day, for many---sooner than later, they are going to find themselves in a college classroom. Stopping out of education after high school is the equivalent of career suicide. But let’s consider the outside chance that some of our current K-12 students never find themselves on a college campus. Is being “career and college ready” not a great parenting skill, one that they might utilize with their own children?

Essential to being “college or career ready” is a sense of self-awareness and being able to comprehend all of the options that lie before you. Equally important is having a life plan---a set of short and long term goals that will lead step-by-step toward a goal or set of goals out there that will become clearer with each move forward.

Teachers, counselors and all educators, along with parents, can play a critical role in helping students set realistic educational and career goals and then take the action steps that are needed to make those aspirations come true. Students need to have experiences in school and in life that will help them structure their exploration and decision-making and more effectively engage them in the transitions that take them from school-to-college and school-to-work.

The more students know about the educational and career development process---the more “ready” they will be to control those parts of it that are the most controllable. There are no “one size fits all” solutions or answers. There are just a lot of “maybes” that need to be addressed, today, tomorrow and way off in the future.

____________________

Dr. Frank Burtnett, President and Principal Consultant of Education Now, splits his life between Rockport, Maine and Fairfax County, Virginia. He is the author of the Bound-for-College Guidebook and Bound-for-Career Guidebook (Rowman & Littlefield Education).

____________________

This message appeared originally in the Portland Press Herald on July 3, 2011. It has been modified for presentation here. FB

 

 

Too Big to Disclose

By Raymond Vickers

     Prior to the financial meltdown of 2008, America had the most elaborate bank regulatory system in the world. Despite eight decades of ever-increasing authority and regulatory agencies, the sheer magnitude of the recent banking crisis proved that the regulatory system, relying exclusively on regulators operating behind closed doors, cannot police the largest banks, which continue to threaten the global economy with a systemic banking collapse. The passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in July 2010 merely added to the already sweeping regulatory power.

     But once again the muscular lobbying of the banking industry continued to impose the prohibition of   transparency in the bank regulatory system. As Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, observed in a moment of unusual candor, in April 2009, “the banks—hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created—are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”

     Soon after the S&L crisis of the 1980s and then again after the Enron debacle of 2001, Congress reorganized the bank regulators and increased their power. During the most recent speculative mania, regulators were armed with the power to stop the corrupt practices at the nation’s largest banks. Because Congress failed to provide regulatory transparency, the bankers were able to continue the plunder in secret.

     The banking secrets of the 1930s, which are now public records, reveal how bankers and businessmen violated their fiduciary duties in a desperate effort to save their personal fortunes. Those records contain many lessons for today, the most important of which is the urgent need to provide transparency in the bank regulatory system. The bank regulatory records should be available to the public through the Internet, so that a depositor or investor has only to type in the name of a bank to have immediate access to its regulatory records.

     Fully disclosing reckless financing schemes and dubious loans immediately after bank regulators criticize them would accomplish far more than the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which failed to sound the alarm bell before the 2008 collapse. Posting their banks’ examination reports on the Internet would have a chilling effect on freewheeling executives who would breach their fiduciary obligations to their stockholders and creditors in order to enrich themselves.

     In this moment of anxiety, taxpayers have the power to force openness in the banking industry. Transparency would strike at the alliance between banks and politicians, and provide the necessary information to make the markets function properly. There is no doubt that releasing the secrets of the banking industry would provide a wrenching adjustment among insiders. But secrecy and the lack of information about the fraud and insider abuse in the financial system led to the 2008 fiasco, which caused the worst recession since the depression in the 1930s. Not addressing this problem now invites financial upheavals in the future.

 

Raymond B. Vickers, an attorney and economic historian, is the author of  Panic in the Loop: Chicago's Banking Crisis of 1932. He was formerly the top appointed banking and securities regulator for the state of Florida. As an attorney, he has represented more than a hundred financial institution.

A Night at the Supreme Court with fellow Courtwatchers

By Darcy Evans

Wednesday night was an eventful night for Rowman & Littlefield. Our Senior Executive Editor of Political Science, Jon Sisk, was recognized on the floor of the Supreme Court. No, he wasn’t presenting an oral argument, but he was there to hear one, or at least the reenactment of one. In celebration of our recently published book by Clare Cushman, Courtwatchers, and as part of the third annual Frank C. Jones Reenactment lecture, Mr. Sisk and about two-hundred of D.C.’s legal elite, watched as Justice Antonin Scalia presided over the reenactment of Texas v. White, a Supreme Court case from 1869 that dealt with the complicated issue of the legality of secession and the legitimacy of Confederate governments during the war.

                                       R&L's Jon Sisk, Darcy Evans, and Lynsey Weston

While the court case was intriguing, the book party afterwards is where all the fun was had. Clare was there to sign copies of her book which was sold at the Supreme Court gift shop. People were buying two or three at a time. That is exactly what her humble publisher likes to see! The party was very well attended. Sandra Day O’Connor even dropped in for a while. I suspect some people were there for the wine and fabulous food, but hopefully they bought a book as well, or at least thought about buying a book and will buy it later.

                               Darcy Evans, Gregory P. Joseph, and Jon Sisk

We are indebted to the Supreme Court Historical Society, not only for all their help with the book, but for putting on a wonderful event. Pictured here with Darcy Evans and Jon Sisk is the president of the Organization, Gregory P. Joseph, who was kind enough to present Justice Scalia and the Court with a copy of the book. Perhaps we will find the Justices reading it between cases.

Courtwatchers is now available. Click here to learn more.

X Factor? Or American Idol redux?

By Amanda S. McClain, Ph.D.

     The new American version of X Factor debuted this fall on FOX.  While it purports to be a different show than American Idol, for all intents and purposes it might as well be called “American Idol: Fall Season.”  The differences between the two programs are minimal: on X Factor there are contestants as young as 12, group auditions are permitted, and competitors may be age 12 and up (and up…).  The similarities abound: a focus on attaining your dreams, awful auditions, and a lucrative prize.  While other disparities may exist, the similarities dramatically overshadow the contrasts.

     One difference, which casual viewers may not notice, is X Factor’s lack of American emphasis.  Throughout American Idol, flags wave, iconic American cities are visited, the lighting is red, white, and blue, and the dialogue consistently references the American Dream.  On X Factor, the contestants discuss attaining their own dreams, with no mention of America, or hint of patriotism.  In a way, this personal emphasis is American as well.  After all, the traditional American Dream is to attain success through your inherent talent and skill, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.  While the X Factor contestants may not explicitly label their dreams American, by dint of appearing on an American Idol knock-off, they may as well.

     Of course, Simon Cowell is one crucial element X Factor’s first season shares with the first eight American Idol seasons.  On American Idol, Simon represented the Other, the caustic Brit unfamiliar with American civil norms.  On X Factor, his Otherness is absent and his caustic comments are expected.  Indeed, he hasn’t been nearly as scathing as in the past.  His timidity and lack of astringency have made him boring.  He’s no longer novel and audiences have grown accustomed to nasty reality TV characters.  Instead, the interactions between wacky Paula Abdul and moody Nicole Scherzinger are more interesting, as are L.A. Reid’s references to past pop hits he helped to cultivate.  In fact, L.A. Reid appears to be more like bland Randy Jackson, or Randy Jackson’s more articulate and boring relative, missing Randy’s flavor while adding more gravitas and heavyweight music industry experience.  No name-dropping Journey from this new guy.  Instead, he name-drops contemporary stars like Justin Beiber.

     Like American Idol, X Factor offers a sundry mixture of contestants: country and urban, black and white, male and female.  Like American Idol, the X Factor contestants are the most fascinating element of the program.  Over the years, American Idol featured more and more of the contestants’ back stories, strengthening audience connections with the participants through shared elements: poverty, families, and religion.  While already following the American Idol format, it behooves X Factor to follow Idol’s lead in this as well.  While Simon may have been the original draw, the contestants are what make the program worth watching.   The contestants represent America, in all its forms, and audiences enjoy watching versions of us.  The contestants on X Factor are us at home: hopeful, anxious, awed, and determined.  And American.

     What do you think?  Do you watch for the judges or the contestants?  Is one show more compelling than the other?

 

Amanda Scheiner McClain is assistant professor of communications at Holy Family University in Pennsylvania.  She is also the author of American Ideal: How American Idol Constructs Celebrity, Collective Identity, and American Discourses available now.  Learn more by clicking here. 

 

 

Holy Megabucks, Batman! The Astounding Popularity of Superhero Films

By Timothy McGettigan

“The first person to live to 1,000 is already 60 years old.”—Aubrey de Grey, Chief Science Officer of the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS) Foundation

Has anyone noticed a pattern in recent summer film seasons? Maybe it’s just me, but lately it seems like one out of every three blockbusters is about a superhero. Spiderman, Batman, Iron Man, the Hulk, Wolverine, Captain America…need I go on? A review of any one of these films would be very brief: mind-numbing eye candy. If you like big muscles and even bigger explosions, then superhero films are for you. If, on the other hand, you prefer films that are slightly more sophisticated than WWF throw-downs, then you might find the burgeoning popularity of superdude sagas a wee bit puzzling.

Apart from costume changes – for example, the star of Captain America also played the role of the Human Torch in the Fantastic Four – most superhero films are pretty much identical. The stories revolve around a central character, who is often a loser, and who experiences some sort of tragedy. The plot thickens when the luckless everyman gets juiced up with some sort of superpower. The story builds to a climax when the super-charged hero dashes off to vanquish a bad guy who has really got it coming. OK, so if that about sums it up, then why do superhero movies set box office records year after year?

Hollywood producers have long known that a film’s success depends on forging a personal connection with its audience. But what connection could there possibly be between real people and comic book fantasies?

Ever since people invented anthropomorphic  gods—such as Thor, the star of a recent superhero blockbuster—it’s fair to say that humans have been fascinated with superhumans. The coolest thing about superhumans is that they are sublimely untroubled by the mundane problems that plague mere mortals. Compared to the gods, humans are puny, weak, and insignificant. However, humans are also similar enough to the gods that, if we permit our imaginations to run wild, we can privately entertain fantasies about wielding their superpowers:  “There, but for a thunderbolt from heaven, go I.”

 This leads us back to Aubrey de Grey, the Chief Science officer of a foundation that is devoted to finding a cure for death. Yes, you read those words correctly. Now, what on earth would inspire an otherwise level-headed scientist to claim that humans might be on the verge of achieving immortality? Such an outlandish fantasy would certainly seem to fall well outside the pale of serious science; however, it still falls well within the bounds of human aspirations. Keep in mind that Albert Einstein once said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

 In other words, fantasies often lead where science fears to tread. Crazy as it may seem, today’s fantasies are often tomorrow’s realities. If you want a glimpse of what the future might hold, then I recommend that you catch the inevitable sequel to Thor or Captain America. And don’t be surprised if you spot Aubrey de Grey in the front row of the theater.

 

Tim McGettigan is a professor of sociology at CSU-Pueblo and he is also the author of Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth and the Evolution of Reality.

 

 

From Obstacles to Options: The Rhetoric of The Women on The Supreme Court Has Expanded

     Armed with her Stanford law degree in 1952 Sandra Day O’Connor discovered that no law firm in California wanted to hire her.  Just one firm offered her a position as a legal secretary. Ironically, a senior partner of that firm, William French Smith, helped O'Connor's nomination to the Supreme Court years later as the Attorney General. Failing to find suitable work in private practice, O'Connor turned to public service.  Years later, upon her nomination to the Supreme Court, President Reagan tried to ease the public’s mind about the first woman by assuring everyone that she was “a person for all seasons” and of good “temperament.”   In her most often quoted speech, she warns: “This ‘New Feminism’ is interesting, but troubling, precisely because it so nearly echoes the Victorian myth of the ‘True Woman’ that kept women out of law for so long.  It is a little chilling to compare these suggestions to Clarence Darrow’s assertion that women are too kind and warm-hearted to be shining lights at the bar.” 

     In 1991 she gained a sister on the court in Ruth Bader Ginsburg, by then already an historical figure for her spellbinding Supreme Court advocacy on behalf of the ACLU.  Ginsburg noted that when she made her arguments in the 1970s to the Supreme Court, it was comprised of  “men of a certain age” who needed to be “kept in good humor” so she appealed to their personal side by reminding them of their wives, sisters and daughters as she argued for gender equality.  Ginsburg’s life’s work is the rhetoric of enactment as she broke down barriers for women and argued for new laws that would allow men and women to avoid stereotypes.

     Eighteen years would pass until another woman, Sonia Sotomayor would be appointed and in just a year another woman, the academic and political powerhouse, Elena Kagan would take her seat.  In that span of almost two decades, women’s options opened up in America and the change is evident in the rhetoric of the two newest members.  For Sotomayor, her Latina heritage, more than her gender takes center stage in her speeches.  Unlike previous newcomers to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor has spoken often and passionately since her appointment.   In her speeches she repeats the themes of ethnic pride, education and pro bono work and her eagerness to share her own inspiring biography combine to offer a moving message of an American dream realized.

     Elena Kagan writes and speaks with an eloquence and natural humor uncharacteristic in modern communicators.  In her only speech as a justice she urged the graduates of University of New Mexico School of Law to “do what you think matters.”  Speaking as though she were in a college lecture hall, she remarked: “This profession is one in which you can make an enormous difference in the lives of individuals and the welfare of society as a whole.”   Quoting Thomas Jefferson, she said, “There is a debt of service due from every man to his country proportioned to the bounties which nature and fortune have measured him.” Like Sotomayor, she urges her audience to give back.  Sotomayor and Kagan’s speeches do not focus on gender, instead they focus on the quality of the work that can be done as a lawyer and the tremendous difference it can make in society.  The rhetoric of the women of the Supreme Court has shifted from a focus on obstacles to include greater rhetorical options. 

Nichola D. Gutgold is associate professor of communication at Penn State – Lehigh Valley Campus and author of Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton "Won" in 2008, published in 2009, and co-author of the forthcoming Gender and the American Presidency: Nine Presidential Women and the Barriers They Faced, December 2011.  She also wrote Paving the Way for Madam President and Almost Madam President.    This essay is from her forthcoming book:  The Rhetoric of Supreme Court Women: From Obstacles to Options (forthcoming Lexington Books, 2012).  

TMI: Are You the Biggest Loser?

By Jelita McLeod

When it comes to self-absorption, Americans have no equal. We pour our hearts out on talk shows. We create blogs to share minute details of our personal lives. We elevate dieting to a primetime spectator sport (see “The Biggest Loser”) and post status updates on what we’re having for lunch. Through stickers on our cars, signs on our lawns, slogans on our shirts, we publicize our political, educational, social, and religious affiliations.

Broadcasting this information is perceived as an extension of our freedoms—the freedom of speech, of expression and choice. The tell-all society, in which no detail goes unshared, shuns anonymity. What we forget is that information can be a valuable asset to criminals.

A skilled con artist can ascertain a lot based on simply looking at someone. From an individual’s age, clothing, gender, comportment, and other characteristics, general assumptions can be made about how he or she will behave. Imagine then what a scammer can do with the vast amounts of information we willingly provide.

Cons differ from other crimes in that they are theft with a twist, stealing with a storyline. Scammers use stories to lure their victims in, and every piece of personal information provided can help them craft their pitch to make it more credible and appealing.

How does this work?

Miranda is the working mother of three. Her youngest, Robbie, plays trumpet in his middle school band. While the band was out of town at a regional competition, she received a phone call from someone claiming to represent the event sponsor. Miranda was told that Robbie had filled out a form to buy tickets for the awards banquet but had failed to provide a credit card number. Could she help?

The caller chatted with Miranda, discussing the band’s chances and the challenges of being a band parent. Without hesitating, Martha gave the caller her credit card number. It wasn’t until Robbie returned two days later and had no idea what she was talking about that Miranda became concerned. By then, her credit card had been used to buy thousands of dollars of electronics.

But how had the caller known about Robbie? The band? And the trip? Everywhere around her, there are clues. The band maintains a web site and a public Facebook page listing concerts and trips. Robbie appears in photos on the page, tagged with Martha’s name. Her car sports a window decal identifying her son as a member of the school band. By the front door is a yard sign with the band’s logo, and Robbie’s name and instrument.

There’s nothing wrong with being proud of our accomplishments or wanting to share news of our lives. But we should be aware that once information goes into the public domain, we no longer have control over it. Exercise caution and limit your audience. Consider this your Miranda warning that anything you say…may be used against you.

For more information on scams, see Jelita McLeod’s book The Con: How Scams Work, Why You’re Vulnerable, and How to Protect Yourself, co-authored with identity theft speaker and deception expert James Munton.

Jelita McLeod is an award-winning writer who has worked in marketing, advocacy and public relations for more than a decade. Her work has appeared in numerous publications, including The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, International Educator, The College Board Review and Vital Speeches of the Day. Her commentary has aired on the National Public Radio program All Things Considered. Currently a freelance writer, she has served as a full-time speechwriter and as director of external relations at the Fulbright Association. She previously worked at the British Embassy in Washington, D.C., at Georgetown University, and overseas in England and Japan.