The Boomerang Kids

My column in Monday's Diamondback deals with "boomerang kids", college graduates who go back to "Living with the 'rents". Here's the intro:

You might assume that an adult still living with his or her parents is a loser. The stereotype of a basement-dwelling comic book nerd or George from “Seinfeld” is not one most people aspire to be.

Yet many college students are doing exactly what you think they would dread after graduation: moving back in with their families. Monster, the job search company, reports in a 2007 survey that 48% of prospective graduates plan on becoming “boomerang kids”, i.e. returning home. Although many expect to just make a quick pit stop, Monster finds that “42 percent of 2006 graduates say they are still living with their parents”.

There are several good reasons to move back home. Foremost among those is that it allows recent graduates to save money. But in talking to friends and classmates who will enter the workforce soon, I have found that hardly anyone is returning out of necessity. So if affordability is not the issue, what is?

Click to read the rest of "Living with the 'rents".

On Elite Colleges and Success

In high school, I attended a prestigious magnet program where many of my fellow students were admitted to top-tier colleges like Stanford, MIT, and the Ivy League schools. On the other hand, I accepted a scholarship to my state school, the University of Maryland, where I just completed the second year of my undergraduate program. Although I am completely satisfied with my decision and I love being at UMD, I have often wondered what the impact on my life would be had I gone somewhere else.

I consider talent and hard work to be more important than any other factor as a determinant of success. Yet I can certainly see the advantages of going to a big brand-name school. Especially as a finance major I can see the benefits of having an established network, prestigious background, and a cohort of fellow successful students. That is why, I'll admit, I have long planned on getting an MBA from a Wharton or Harvard-level program.

It was interesting, then, to come across this article, which states that among "equally talented students who applied to the nation's most elite institutions", those who were accepted and those who were rejected and wound up going to less selective schools were earning the same income twenty years later! (Reader reactions to the article were also interesting; Laura Rowley also points out that only 10 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs have Ivy League undergraduate degrees. Though that number is not that small, and I would bet the total rises when including postgraduate degrees.)

The truth, as I see it, is probably that those of us who attend a school of lesser renown will have to work a lot harder initially to be on an equal footing with our colleagues at top-tier schools. After that, I trust, a successful career path is available to those who can seize the opportunity. There is where I hope the experience of having to work harder will give students like myself an advantage.

If I needed any further reminder of the importance of scoring a great job upon graduating, Aplia EconBlog discusses an article in Thursday's New York Times on getting a good start. According to the Times writer, "Graduates' first jobs have an inordinate impact on their career path and their 'future income stream,' as economists refer to a person's earnings over a lifetime." Aplia's William Chiu says that if you start out behind, you will perpetually be behind.

The central question remains though: what route offers the best method of landing the great job? More specifically, what specific advantages does a top-tier education have and are they a determining factor in assuring career success?

I'm interested in hearing from those of you who from both sides of the aisle. Tell me what you think.

So Long to Sodas in Schools

During my Wednesday morning commute, I came across this most unlikely headline in the Washington Post: "Sugary Drinks to be Pulled from Schools". The announcement that soda companies like Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Cadbury Schweppes are pulling their unhealthy wares from elementary, middle, and high schools was a huge surprise to me. After all, I recall that my high school had an exclusive contract with Pepsi. Our school was stocked with Pepsi vending machines and the scoreboard on the football field had a big Pepsi billboard. And the soda companies, which were raking in tons of money, didn't seem to be in a position where they needed to compromise.

(Interestingly enough, the University of Maryland also has a contract with Pepsi which prevents rival Coca Cola products from being sold in the diners. My roommate helpfully informs me that the McDonalds in our student union is one of only two locations worldwide to serve Pepsi products instead of Coca Cola, the fast-food chain's traditonal partner.)

Anyway, so the terms of this voluntary agreement appear pretty stringent:

The agreement calls for eliminating sales of sodas, diet sodas, sports drinks, juice drinks, apple juice or grape juice in elementary schools. Water and more healthful juices such as orange juice could continue to be sold, but in only eight-ounce or smaller containers, according to sources who were briefed yesterday. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan had not yet been announced.

In middle schools, the same drinks will be offered but in containers as large as 10 ounces.

In high schools, the drink size will be limited to 12 ounces. No sugary sodas will be sold, and half the drinks offered will be water or a low-calorie beverage, such as diet soda, diet lemonade or diet iced tea. Sports drinks will be allowed, as will juice drinks as long as they have fewer than 100 calories per serving.

It's about time. I remember seeing far too many kids in high school who needed a Mountain Dew just to get through the morning. These days, those kinds of unhealthy dietary habits are starting at an even younger age--just look at the childhood obesity rates. I wish that these sorts of measures were unnecessary, and that children were smarter about their eating decisions. But it's clear that at school and away from their parents, many kids just don't know how to make the right decisions.

I applaud this move by the beverage industry. Of course, the impact on their profits is negligible, they don't have to worry about brand recognition, and these companies can now push their juice and sports drink lines. They don't really have anything to lose. Now we'll have to see how kids react when they can't wash down their lunchtime feast of powdered donuts with a Code Red.

School without Schooling

School without classes, homework, or grades. It's a common wistful refrain from students of all ages, from elementary school to college. The whole "getting an education" thing sure does get in the way of socializing and having a good time with friends. Nonetheless, virtually every student realizes the practical value of having a structured, formal education.

The Washington Post today reports on the minority that don't believe in such a regiment. The cover story "Learning on Their Own Terms" looks at the Fairhaven School, a private school that offers no courses, grades, set daily schedule, or official state accreditation, and which audaciously charges $6,680 a year for enrolled students. The idea behind the school is to remove the constraints of a traditional education and allow students to do whatever interests them--even if that means showing up to school at noon and spending the day playing video games and . Ultimately, the school relies only on the threat of boredom to spur its students to actually do anything.

Nonetheless, I understand why this might seem like a good idea to some. As a lifelong participant in the public education system, I can attest to its many flaws. A lot of what I did in school was unproductive, uninteresting, or meaningless. Yet I always realized that my education was a practical requirement for a future career.

The kids at Fairhaven do not come out of their school equipped with the skills necessary to be an engineer, doctor, or investment banker. Fine, not everyone wants to be one of those, and there many career paths from which a traditional education is not a necessity. The article states that alumni include "a professional skateboarder, a waiter and a librarian". It just seems to me that schools like Fairhaven and others in the "school without walls" genre are doing a disservice to their students by narrowing their potential career choices from such an early age. Fairhaven's youngest students are 5 years old, far too young to have their life options so limited.

If anyone has any dissenting opinions or can explain the practical benefits of such a non-traditional education (keep in mind that even home-schooled kids follow a set curriculum), I would love to hear from you.

Middle School in a Maelstrom

In Sunday's Washington Post, columnist Marc Fisher took to task my alma mater Takoma Park Middle School for its supposedly exclusionary program of rewarding high-performing students with a chance to spend a week studying in Florida. I immediately wrote to Fisher and the Post editorial board to set the record straight:

I have twice participated in Takoma Park Middle School's yearly trip to Florida, once as a student, and again last year as a high school chaperone. Thus it is with grave concern that I read Marc Fisher's assault ("A Class Trip Into a Land of Questions," Mar. 13) on what is one of the best experiences the school offers its students.

Mr. Fisher seeks to characterize the program as one designed to shut out some kids while rewarding others. Nothing could be further from the truth. As he mentioned, the trip is open to all eighth-graders with good academic standing. This is no concerted effort to deny minorities or non-magnet students from going on the trip. On the contrary, this policy serves as incentive for all students to get good grades so that they can go to Florida with their friends. Rather than a symbol of oppression, the trip is actually motivation to many students to work hard in school.

When I first went on the trip in 2000, I shared a room with two African-American friends of mine. They were not magnet students; I was. Contrary to Mr. Fisher's claims, there was never the slightest hint of tension between magnet and non-magnet students. In fact, the trip had the opposite effect, bringing everyone closer together. I remember having many conversations about girls, sports, and Disney World--and none about racial or economic exclusion. We were just kids, out to have a good time while learning in a very non-traditional setting.

In light of the criticism that Mr. Fisher mentions the Florida trip has come under recently, it is my fervent hope that the program's value is not forgotten. It would be a real shame to no longer offer deserving students at Takoma Park this remarkable opportunity.

Even after acknowledging that the school has gone to great lengths to make the trip include as many students as possible, and that cost is not prohibitive--thanks to donations, the school offers aid to those who can't afford the trip--Fisher seems intent on railing at the straw man of racism or elitism or who knows what. I wish he hadn't done so merely for the purpose of filling a column.

But the Florida Trip isn't the only reason Takoma Park MS has been in the crossfire recently. A Post article earlier in the week reported that a group of African-American parents are pushing for the school's magnet program to be shut down or radically altered (see: "Parents Protest Magnet Makeup"). Their complaints are based on the fact that a fewer percentage of African-American student applicants are accepted than white or Asian applicants. That said, the article does not mention that those students rejected from the program do not meet the requirements (i.e.: grades, test scores, activities) for entry into the program.

If I were in the position of those angry parents, I would not focus my energies on trying to close the magnet program or establish affirmative action in middle schools. The real problem here lies with the preparation of minority students in grade school for standardized testing and other barometers of academic performance. Those parents should demand that the county work to prepare all students--not just white and Asian students--for academic success. Then let Takoma Park's selection process do its job of finding the most gifted and promising students in the county.

Cosmetic Changes Make the New SAT

Sunday's Outlook section of the Washington Post contained the must-read article "New SAT? We Know the Score" by Patrick Welsh.

I'm a freshman at the University of Maryland now, so these changes come too late to affect me. But having been through the gauntlet before, I've been following with interest the attempt to revise a sacrosanct part of the college admissions process. Initially, I welcomed the idea of updating what seems to everyone an old-fashioned test that wasn't really successful at guaging academic ability. Welsh refered to University of California President Richard Atkinson's 2001 speech recommending that his school system drop the SAT as an admission requirement. That suggestion drew shockwaves--but Atkinson was right on when he described the "overemphasis of the SAT".

The SAT is a test designed to measure instrinsic aptitude and thus is supposedly a good predictor of a student's ability to succeed in college. But really, most high school juniors and seniors can tell you that success on the SAT is directly related to test-taking skills, not academic ability. This isn't an assertion coming from someone embittered by their experience--I offer my own SAT experience as an example.

In my junior year of high school, I took the test with a minimal level of preparation, figuring that I had a high level of ability in English and Math. I came out with a score of 1460, a very impressive performance by any standard, but actually among the lower-end range of students in my hyper-competitive high school. I took the test again the next year, and without the aid of any new math or English classes relevant to the test, I improved my score to 1560. This time around though, I prepared by becoming intimately familiar with the test and its structure, through the aid of the uber-helpful "10 Real SATs" and other practice tests on CD. Anyone can experience significant improvement in their SAT score thru mindless, repetitve preparation. It's no small wonder that the Kaplan and Princeton Review and Co. all make a fortune off of their test preparation courses, which can be a big benefit to those who can afford their steep cost.

That said, I was hoping the new SAT would bring the change Mr. Atkinson said was "long overdue". But like Mr. Welsh, I'm not impressed with the largely cosmetic changes that have been made. The famous analogy questions were removed to transform the "Verbal" section into "Critical Reading" only. Quantitative comparison questions were eliminated from the Math section and Algebra II material was added. The biggest change however, is the addition of a "Writing" section to the test, a 25-minute essay followed by multiple choice questions on grammar and syntax. If this sounds exactly like the existing SAT II: Writing test, you're right. It appears the College Board has pretty much appended that test to make the SAT even more bloated.

I'm not quite sure what is the purpose of adding the writing section to the SAT. In the past, colleges that wanted to look at that aspect of a student's ability would require the SAT II writing test--but Welsh points out that it is hardly a universal requirement. Had I been around late enough to take the new SAT, I'm guessing from my 800 score on the SAT:II Writing that I would probably have benefited from the changes. But I still feel it's a bad idea, namely because it introduces too arbitrary an element into the equation.

"By increasing the size of his handwriting, Luo was able to stretch a one-page essay into a two-page essay, creating the impression of a student with plenty to say. He also made sure to sprinkle his draft with such words as "equivocal" and "esoteric," conveying the sense of a sophisticated vocabulary."

The grading system as Welsh described is atrocious, especially prone to subjectivity. The writing section has always been hit or miss, especially with regards to the topics assigned. While I was writing this post, my roommate recalled his experience having to write an essay comparing "style vs. substance". I've had friends with even more frustrating stories.

But my biggest complaint, personally, is that the format of the essay in the new section is yet another encroachment of the cookie-cutter writing standard that is already too prevalent in public education. Think five paragraphs (intro, three body, conclusion). Body paragraphs must have topic sentence in predictable location. Clearly defined thesis, stated in the first paragraph, restated in last paragraph. If on the surface that sounds like teaching kids good writing, believe me, it's not. Years of suffering through my county's rigid adherence to the formula for writing essays--or "Extended Constructed Responses" as the school board's technocrats had us call them--showed me how woefully ineffective the technique was at teaching good writing.

It's hard for students to show creative thought when they're hamstrung by the rigid mentality that grades them--emphasizing adherence to a standardized grading rubric (easier for teachers to grade) rather than a focus on content and strength of argument. Now it seems that the very practice I decried during my years in secondary education have received a seal of approval from the ultimate authority of the College Board. Might as well codify their approach into law, because which teacher is going to teach otherwise when the SAT asks differently? None, unfortunately, and the result will be telling.

Still, despite everything, I know it won't be long before everyone gets used to the new SAT, and life (or at least the college admissions process) returns to normal. I never thought that the old SAT was fundamentally flawed, just that it had its weaknesses. The SAT has long been a useful standardized method of evaluating students--the only problem is that its results have become too overvalued. I was hoping to see greater reform than was taken by the College Board in producing the new version of the exam. but nonetheless I can't imagine a future without it. So while there may be no more "sanguine:optimism :: tenacious:persistence", teen angst, parental pressure, and prep books remain very much a part of the new SAT!

Dude, Where's My Freedom?

Politically Incorrect was an entertainment-and-politics show that ran on ABC a few years ago. Despite its popularity, it was cancelled shortly after the 9/11 attacks due to a controversial remark made on-air by the show's host, comedian Bill Maher. Maher, while condemning the horrific attacks and mourning the tragedy, drew the ire of many for disputing the popular notion that the hijackers were "cowards." As he pointed out, "Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." The ensuing outrage got him effectively blacklisted. (For a while at least. He returned in mid-2003 on HBO with a new show, Real Time with Bill Maher. The show airs on Friday nights at 11--watch it, it's great!)

As evidenced by his LA Times op-ed from Friday, Maher is still miffed about his run-in with the thought police. The news that America's youth aren't sympathetic isn't helping his mood. (See: "First Amendment no big deal, students say"). In his column, Maher comes out swinging at the climate of fear and intolerance that has replaced openness and rational debate in America.

"We're seeing the beginnings of the first post-9/11 generation -- the kids who first became aware of the news under an "Americans need to watch what they say" administration, the kids who've been told that dissent is un-American and therefore justifiably punished by a fine, imprisonment -- or the loss of your show on ABC."

Maher raises an excellent point. Just think of the controversies that have been in the news of late. Harvard's Larry Summers drew an astounding amount of criticism for speculating on why women may be less successful than men in science and math. You can disagree with his reasoning and conclusions all you like, but it is unfair to do what his his critics have done and slam him as an anti-feminist bigot. A Washington Post editorial correctly postulated that any disciplinary action taken against Summers would have a "chilling effect on free inquiry".

Controversies surrounding negative reaction to comments made by Eason Jordan have lost the CNN chief his job and put Professor Ward Churchill in danger of losing his. While I disagree vehemently with the ideas expressed by both, I realize that they have the same right as I do to call it like they see it. Regarding Churchill, I find his comments loathsome, insensitive, offensive, and barbaric. But he has the right to make those statements, and have the American public completely reject his arguments. That's what the First Amendment is there for, to be used by all.

Thus it's troubling to learn that more than one in three students think First Amendment protections go "too far". This news has scared me more than Loony Kim's nukes, cell phone viruses, and Bill Cosby's double standards ever could. One half of students believe newspapers should need government approval to publish their stories. I expect those type of numbers from a poll of the Politburo, not America's Gen X!

Small wonder then that Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) has pushed for a law requiring schools to teach about the Constitution on September 17, the anniversary of the document's signing. Although I disapprove of Sen. Byrd's law because it could open the door to all kinds of federal curriculum mandates by any legislator with a pet cause, there is no question that the problem Byrd was trying to address needs to be solved. Frankly put, kids today don't know nearly enough about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. Schools need to integrate more information about civil right and liberties, personal responsibility, and good citizenship into their curriculums. Else we risk creating a generation of Americans who are severely out of touch with the nature of what our country represents.

It may come as a surprise to many grade-schoolers that freedom isn't just something we're trying to spread in the Middle East. Its roots are here at home, where it is more important than ever before that we are aware of our rights and responsibilities as citizens. A significant part of America's greatness lies in its status as a safe haven for ideas, regardless of how controversial they may be. Our freedom is dependent on our ability to be able to express ourselves without fear of recrimination. And yes, this includes the right to be "politically incorrect". We should never be afraid of free speech, because by its very essence, it can never be anti-American.