By CandidProf, who teaches physics and astronomy at a state university, shares his thoughts and experiences teaching today’s students anonymously every Thursday—anonymously because that’s the only way he can be truly candid. Read all of CandidProf here.It’s all about the numbers.  Sadly, that is how many college administrators see the students: as numbers.

The college has an enrollment figure.  In my state, one of the key measures that they are now implementing to rate college performance is the increase in enrollment figures.

For a long time, as a public institution, we have been funded by how many students are enrolled, so the administration has been actively recruiting students.  It has not mattered whether or not the students are ready for college.  That was not important.  It did not matter if they had the skills to succeed.  That was not important.   Whether or not they enrolled was important, not whether or not they learned anything while here, nor even if they passed any of their classes.

Another key measure for the state is in access of college to minorities and Hispanics.  We are advertising in Spanish.  The college’s web site can be viewed in Spanish.  The registration can be done in Spanish.  But all of the classes are in English.

Students who don’t know English are up a creek.  They have little hope of passing the classes once they get here.  No matter.  They enrolled, they were counted by the state, and that was all that mattered.

Going hand-in-hand with enrollment is retention.  College administrators go to conferences with other college administrators, and they all talk about retention policies.

The idea is that getting students to enroll is not sufficient.  They want them to enroll again next semester.  So, if they flunk out, then they won’t be enrolling again.

The first strategy used by many colleges is to simply change the rules on what constitutes flunking out. When I was a student, a single F or D, or too many C’s, was sufficient to get a student put on academic probation.  If you repeated a bad semester, then you were placed on academic suspension.  That wasn’t meant so much as punishment, but rather to give you time to reassess your educational goals and strategies.  I never had to go through that, but I knew some students who did.

Now, you can fail a class every semester, and have a whole semester of D’s and C’s, and keep that up for semester after semester.  A depressing number of our students graduate with a GPA of less than 2.0.  But the students keep signing up for classes and that is all that counts.

The next step in retention is to put pressure on faculty to give higher grades.  After all, the administrators reason that if students get too many poor grades, they might get discouraged and drop out.  If they drop out, then they won’t be registering for classes and that means, of course, that there will be less state funding for the college.  So faculty are encouraged not to grade too harshly and to give higher grades.

This has been going on in the K-12 education for years, but it is now becoming more common in colleges. I have a number of colleagues who are teaching in a climate of that sort.  Many faculty just give up and quit upholding standards.  They just give out grades.  The students don’t learn. We have a few part time faculty here who do that, too, because that is expected at other places in the area where they teach part time.

But students who take the classes of a faculty member who just gives out grades without the students learning seldom do well in the follow-up classes.

Worse, this strategy makes a college degree pretty much worthless.

Holding to standards is hard, particularly when others don’t hold to those standards.

Holding to standards is hard when funding is tied to numbers that can be improved by relaxing those standards.

But an effective leader will hold standards, even if it is the hard thing to do.

I see this getting worse.  My state is now looking to change the funding formula for its public colleges and universities.  Rather than giving money for the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the semester, they are looking to fund the number of students enrolled at the end of the semester.

That changes things.  It means that simply getting students to sign up is not enough.  Now, we need to keep them in the class all semester. It is pretty obvious that there will be extreme pressure on faculty to limit the students dropping.

That means making the classes easier.

That means giving up on tough and difficult standards and setting the bar as low as possible to make it easy for students to pass without ever having to do anything.

That means giving up on teaching.

And this is what is coming down the pike from state legislatures all over the country.  They have done this sort of thing in K-12 education, making a high school diploma pretty much worthless.

Now they are working to make an undergraduate college degree worthless as well.

A lot of faculty are planning on retiring when these changes are made.  I have a few years to go until retirement, and I am not looking forward to what I see in our future.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit

It is the rare leader who leads beyond what is expected of him.Those who do are often labeled as unfit to lead and dismissed.

There are not that many examples of such rare leaders.  General MacArthur was certainly one.  He stood up to President Truman, who was quite happy to play at war in Korea without winning it, which cost many thousands of lives for no real gain.  Gen. MacArthur’s dismissal by the President was a terrible blow to his honorable record of service throughout World War II, an embarrassment to the Army he commanded, and the beginning of an approach to conflict that has plagued us ever since.  But his dismissal was also completely rational, because he was not working to expectations.

Leaders, who wish to keep their jobs, work to satisfy expectations.

Understanding this is critical to our understanding of what has recently happened in the financial and mortgage markets.

The key here is understanding that leaders lead only with the support of their constituency (i.e. stockholders or boards of directors in the case of corporate leaders or voters in the case of politicians).  A leader cannot get away with major strategic direction that his constituency does not approve, such as running full-bore into selling sub-prime mortgages.  This is not a matter of a few rogue leaders who ran ahead of their organizations without oversight or accountability.  Every head of every organization caught with their mortgages down was in that position with the full knowledge and support of his constituency.  That includes Wall Street, banks, and both GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

Even the criminal actions of overstating balance sheets in order to gain the huge bonuses being offered had to be done with the knowledge and approval of a constituency.  For instance, Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae could not have gotten away with overstating his balance sheet repeatedly to gain the $90 million he earned over 6 years (as the organization was actually failing) without both his board and the Congressional oversight committee assigned to watch his actions approving of it.  In fact, in 2004, when Armando Falcon, the chief regulator who “blew the whistle” on these shenanigans, went before the Congressional oversight committee, he was all but tarred and feathered for his efforts.  No one seemed interested in hearing about anything untoward, because the objective of increasing mortgages to low-income families was being addressed.  End of subject.

Corporate executives also are being whipped for the “outrageous” sums of money they earn, primarily as a reward for pushing stock prices ever higher.  As I have written many times, the tactics they use to accomplish this are more often than not the death-knoll for the long-term success of the organization, but that doesn’t stop the board of directors and stockholders from applauding their efforts.

The problem comes down to, “Who really cares before the damage starts to show?”  Top executives are not stupid.  Neither are politicians (the few years I worked with Washington politicians proved to me that almost all believe they have the best interests of their constituency in mind).  They know exactly where their support comes from and what that constituency wants from them.  Despite all the worries about sub-prime mortgages that were voiced over most of the past decade, no one really cared.

Why?  Because expectations were being met.  The deceit was in hiding the truth from the constituency.  What made the sub-prime fiasco possible was the fact that risk was being “diluted.”  Every time a package of mortgages was sold to investors, the real hidden risks were lost in the mass.  That effectively removed the effect of what would have been the most vocal constituency: those who would have spoken up by keeping their checkbooks closed had they known the real risk.

The only constituency that really knew what was going on in most cases was the one gaining from it.

The same thing is going on in corporations across the country.  Decisions about how companies are being run are coming from the wrong constituency.  The expectations are being driven by boards of directors and stockholders, who care little about the long-term health of the company as long as short-term gains are good enough to increase their personal portfolios.

So, what is the answer?  Can we expect companies to survive and do the job for which they were created, i.e. job and wealth creation for those who invest their time and money into it, when persons with no long-term interest are defining the expectations for corporate executives?  Can we expect government-overseen organizations or programs to have positive long-term effects, if those defining expectations are only interested in narrow outcomes that can create far greater damage but that provide personal gain for them (even if it is only in terms of pandering to the base desires of their constituencies)?

Leaders lead to expectations.  Isn’t it time we started setting expectations that don’t just “use” an organization for personal success and instead start expecting long-term success that builds the organization creating that success?

We are being asked to take a greater personal role in addressing climate change.  Can’t we also take a greater role in demanding corporate responsibility? If not, we may be witnessing the end of the independently-run corporate model in America.

We are delegating far too many decisions that affect us as long as things seem to be “going right” (no matter how obvious the risks are), and then expecting someone else to make things right.  Isn’t now the time for the real constituency to stand up and make its voice known?

We can do it through our investing.  We can do it through our voting and regular conversations with our political representatives.  We can do it in through an unwillingness to let others speak for us, while we sit back and demand that everything go perfectly right for us.

How would you address this without giving even more control to a constituency that would drive the wrong expectations?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

What a difference a day—or in this case a couple of years—makes.Here are quotes by and about four of the leaders whose vision helped lead us to our present situation. These are the same guys lauded by universities, the media, leadership pundits and themselves just short time ago.

“Bad behavior is aberrational…never is a big word…the chances of [the company] getting into trouble again are virtually nil.”— Chuck Prince Citigroup Dec. 16, 2005 at the annual Citigroup Investor Day,

“We’re sticking with [Angelo] Mozilo because he has built a top-notch organization with strong risk controls that could emerge even stronger from the current subprime meltdown.” Barron’s, April 18, 2007

“The vision is to hire terrific people who will be the next generation of leaders and the people who will take this firm to the next level.” Richard Fuld, Knowledge@Wharton, January 10, 2007 (link includes his five qualities for leadership)

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit

Yesterday I shared three stupidities with you, so today it seemed appropriate to pass on some great commentary on stupidity from some truly brilliant minds.“Stubborn and ardent clinging to one’s opinion is the best proof of stupidity” –Michel de Montaigne (Yup, and proof is in the Wall Street pudding.)

“It would be easier to pay off the national debt overnight than to neutralize the long-range effects of our national stupidity” Frank Zappa (Very true—but why do we need to keep proving it over and over?)

“It is occasionally possible to charge Hell with a bucket of water, but against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain” –Doris Fleeson (Damn! We don’t stand a chance with stupidity in charge of the asylum.)

And two brilliant minds with but one thought that says it all…

“Earth has its boundaries, but human stupidity is limitless” –Gustave Flaubert

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” –Albert Einstein

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: digitalemu  CC license

The economic meltdown and political action has pushed other stupidities to the bottom of the page, so I thought I’d offer up three that I’ve found over the last month or so.First up is a sad story about a guy who has been forced out of his normal ride because of high gas prices—familiar enough that you feel his pain?

Don’t. Because the guy is Sean “Diddy” Combs and the ride is his private plane.

Poor Sean. It used to cost only $200,000 to use that plane, but when gas prices escalated this summer he was forced to fly commercial—first class, of course. (See his video plea “for free oil from his “Saudi Arabia) brothers and sisters””

Next up is another little gem about what sets the rich off from the rest of us when it come to gas.

In an effort to be green Cadillac has built an Escalade Hybrid that, according to a print ad in Business Week, gets a whopping 20 city/21 highway. Whoo hoo—but it’s all relative. The non-hybrid version gets 12city/19 highway.

The the stupidity I’ll leave you with will, hopefully, encourage changes in you and those you care for—especially your kids.

The cause of the tragic train crash September 12th that killed 25 people and injured 130 more has been traced to texting.

“The engineer of a commuter train that collided last month with a freight train here, killing 25 people and injuring more than 130, was sending text messages on his cellphone seconds before the crash, federal investigators said Wednesday. …the final one he sent was at 4:22:01, just 22 seconds before the trains, traveling at about 40 miles an hour, collided.” The engineer never applied his brakes.

This should be a seminal lesson to all of you who text while walking, driving, working with machinery, whatever. You wouldn’t read a book while doing any of those things, so why would you text?

Show the story to you kids and friends that text, talk to them (and yourself) and choose not to be stupid.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL