I’ve always been interested in starting companies. Ten years ago I was an undergrad at Penn State. I was told by professors, my parents & the press that the best way to start a company was to go to graduate school, become an expert in your field and start a company with a classmate.   Ten years ago grad school probably was the best place to meet potential co-founders. That’s what Larry and Sergey did.  That is how Filo and Jerry met.

So I went to grad school.

I did not love my time stuck in the dark corners of the control systems lab at the University of Maryland.  The opportunities to evaluate and work with potential co-founders were lacking. Note* I realize this concentration would have been higher at a place like Stanford or MIT. Luckily I met Adam Smith on Craigslist during a summer internship, we became roommates, did a lot of brainstorming over hot pocket dinners and eventually started Xobni together.

From the outside Y Combinator may simply look like a new disruptive venture fund. And it is. But the secondary effects may be even larger.

I often say Paul Graham doesn’t do YC for the money, he does it to teach.  He is a professor in a new type of university. And as an entrepreneur himself, of course it is a university he founded.

Read it all  YC: The new grad school | The Blog Of Matt Brezina.

 

This is the future!

OK, this one get’s a new tag: “no duh.” The brilliant and prescient Walt Mossberg has caught up with 2010. From the CHE.

Expert Predicts a Deluge of Tablet Computers on Campuses
Cloud computing will also be a major trend in higher education, says the influential “Wall Street Journal” technology columnist Walt Mossberg.

For the record, this is not being a “futurist” or even an astute industry observer, this is recognizing what is already occurring.

“Furthermore,” said Mossberg, “I see a future where students will access information available in what I call ‘the ether’ and will use that information in an uncritical manner.”

Visionary, that’s what he is.

 

The findings can help anyone, from a fourth grader doing long division to a retiree taking on a new language. But they directly contradict much of the common wisdom about good study habits, and they have not caught on.

For instance, instead of sticking to one study location, simply alternating the room where a person studies improves retention. So does studying distinct but related skills or concepts in one sitting, rather than focusing intensely on a single thing.

The article goes on to relate how numerous studies have shown that we, everyone, gather and retain knowledge best we when learn it in smaller doses in various contexts. Alternate studying vocab, reading, and conversation when learning a new language, for example, rather than spending a long time trying to memorize that vocab list. Moving locations can help as well. Study ancient near eastern creation myths in your room for a while and then the next day study it again, in a completely different location. Our mind apparently takes in the ambience of our learning environment and by varying the backdrop our mind is able to highlight the commonalities of the two situations, bringing the subject matter out in relief, as it were.

This latter point really resonated with me. As my job has required me to travel more in the last four years I have been flummoxed as to why I have so much better retention of articles read on a plane or in an airport than when I am sitting in my comfy office. (And I can often remember where I was in addition to remembering the content.) Now I know why that is so and having it explained means that I can be more directive in my study habits…and those of my children. Read the article, I think you will learn something as well.

UPDATE: Someone on facebook linked to the abstract of one of the key studies discussed. This is very interesting to read. They concluded:

We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all. Further research on the use of learning-styles assessment in instruction may in some cases be warranted, but such research needs to be performed appropriately.v

 

The University of Illinois is receiving a lot of flak right now over the decision to not reappoint a lecturer of Catholic thought. From Inside Higher Ed:

The way the University of Illinois teaches Catholic thought has attracted widespread attention in the last week with the news that a long-term instructor, Kenneth Howell, was told that he would not be rehired, following complaints about an e-mail message he sent to students, which many viewed as misinformed about homosexuality, and as hostile to gay people.

The full piece is worth reading as it presents the arguments and concerns quite clearly. It seems that for decades UI has had an arrangement whereby St. John’s Catholic Newman Center vets, approves, and pays the salary for this instructor who then teaches courses within the religious studies department. Needless to say, this has brought up questions of separation of church and state (UI being a state school) and academic freedom.

As someone who has always taught religious subjects in secular schools, both private and public, as well as having directed both Jewish studies and religious studies programs, I have very strong and clearly formed views about such hirings. I can certainly understand the origins of such a position and payment situation. It was a common scenario in Jewish studies as well where the college or university had its roots (or assumptions) in Protestant traditions and the only way other religions were to be taught was through external funding. Such funding often comes with pressures and guidelines from the donors. But that is not where UI is anymore. They have a well established department of religion with top-notch faculty.

In order for religious studies to maintain its integrity and for the proper academic (as opposed to apologetic) teaching of the subject matter, it is imperative that the department and faculty make hiring decisions according to appropriate guidelines. In such a manner the process can be assessed and put under the usual rigors of the hiring and tenure process rather than being at the capricious whims of the donor. (I wonder what the outcry would have been had St. John’s not renewed Howell’s contract?) Catholic thought is certainly a field that is appropriate for a department of religion and I hope that UI funds a permanent tenure-line appointment within the department of religion.

 

While I understand your argument in terms of the economics of it.. just a thought: What is potentially lost in terms of the thinking capacity of our country, if the pool of those in the humanities shrinks further to only include those who fit your categories?:

“You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else. You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere. You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household. You are earning a credential for a position that you already hold — such as a high-school teacher — and your employer is paying for it.”

Yes, it is competitive, and often based on connections and etc., but how is shrinking that pool going to assist with that problem? It may be better for that individual, but something is lost when the diversity of the pool of thought is smaller.

Thanks a. I should have clarified that, like Benton, I was referring to PhDs (not just any graduate degree). I actually do not believe that this would result in a loss of our county’s “thinking capacity.” A PhD program does not necessarily make someone a better “thinker” (although I hope it does!) but its main goal is to educate students in a very specific area of study. Just because someone is not achieving a terminal degree does not mean they are not still thinking and learning. Consider think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Many of their members have PhD’s but certainly not all (and I think not even most). Yet they are some of the sharpest and best thought leaders in our country today.

I am certainly in favor of greater education and our secondary system in particular needs serious attention. But my point was two-fold. (1) One should only go for a PhD if they are serious about and understand the costs, both in financial expense and potential for job opportunities. (2) Do we always need PhDs? We are seeing degree inflation just as we have grade inflation. People should not get degrees just because everyone else has them. They can still be smart, thoughtful, and contributing significantly to our thinking capacity without that piece of paper.

 

As I sit with my cuppa tea this morning and read the Chronicle of Higher Ed and Inside Higher Ed a few stories caught my eye.

• Sartorial Study Suggests Professors Should Wear What They Want (subscriber link, this is a free link for 5 days)- A psychology instructor at North Hennipin Community College came to this conclusion after a brief study with four sections of a class. The study clearly has its limits and as the scholar points out, context is everything.

“I work at a college where professors wear a variety of things,” she says, “Some wear suits and ties and others wear shorts, so regardless of which class I was dressing for, I didn’t really stand out.”

That would not be true at every institution, Ms. Konheim-Kalkstein observes. “My husband is going to start teaching at West Point,” she says. “If he showed up in sneakers, I think he would have a much stronger reaction there from his students.”

• Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship by Christina Hoff Sommers – This one is charged and no doubt is raising lots of comments on the interwebs. Basically Sommers, who has criticized feminist scholarship before, is pointing out that there are many “facts” put forward in the feminist canon that simply aren’t true. I paid particular attention because at a recent workshop we had here we too were told that “20 to 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of domestic violence.” Not true apparently. The CDC reports that it was 0.02% in 2003 and 0.01% in 2005. That is not just statistical error. Sommers is not anti-feminist however. She simply wants to see good scholarship.

All books have mistakes, so why pick on the feminists? My complaint with feminist research is not so much that the authors make mistakes; it is that the mistakes are impervious to reasoned criticism. They do not get corrected. The authors are passionately committed to the proposition that American women are oppressed and under siege. The scholars seize and hold on for dear life to any piece of data that appears to corroborate their dire worldview. At the same time, any critic who attempts to correct the false assumptions is dismissed as a backlasher and an anti-feminist crank.

… False assertions, hyperbole, and crying wolf undermine the credibility and effectiveness of feminism. The United States, and the world, would greatly benefit from an intellectually responsible, reality-based women’s movement.

• The Evidence on Online Education – A new meta-analysis by the Department of Education suggests that online learning has distinct advantages over face-face instruction. Its findings were inconclusive for elementary and secondary ed, they said, but consistently positive in higher ed.

Notably, the report attributes much of the success in learning online (blended or entirely) not to technology but to time. “Studies in which learners in the online condition spent more time on task than students in the face-to-face condition found a greater benefit for online learning,” the report says.

The note above in the IHE summary pointed to something that I have been wrestling with in terms of online education. The question has come up as to whether or not an honors course could be offered online. My instinct is to say “no” but I am not so sure. One of the key elements to an honors seminar is discussion and I have often found in my online courses (I have taught Intro to Hebrew Bible online many times) that because students are required to post to the online discussion board where they have to compose a message the discussion is often more thoughtful and everyone has a chance to be heard. Still mulling on this….

Finally, the Chronicle has “What They’re Reading on College Campuses.” No real surprises here. I had thought about #2 for our college’s summer reading project: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith

 

COMMENTARY

CHRISTOPHER HARPER: THE SAT IS A POOR TOOL FOR MEASURING STUDENT
POTENTIAL: Do standardized tests do a decent job of assessing
students’ knowledge? An associate professor at Temple University
took both the SAT and the ACT last winter in an effort to find
out. Suffice it to say that he’s not sold.
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i39/39a03001.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

ROBERT J. VANDERBEI: THE SAT IS AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF
ABILITIES: A professor at Princeton University also retook the
SAT, and he emerged with a more favorable impression. (Scoring
an 800 on the math section probably didn’t hurt.)
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i39/39a03001.htm#yes

From the “no” position (it is not stated, but it is implied that he took the regular exams with high school students):

I found that the tests emphasized speed and stamina over knowledge, and they failed to provide an adequate measure of what a student might actually understand.

The SAT comprised 10 sections that haphazardly whipsawed the mind from writing to reading to math. I started by writing an essay, then spent the remainder of the test zigzagging back and forth among mathematics, reading, and grammar. Just as I’d fallen into a mathematical groove, it was time to move on to the reading section. A second math section, or perhaps a grammar test, might follow a reading section. Moreover, I had about one minute to answer each question — almost no time for any form of critical analysis or contemplation. What went through my mind? Keep up the pace.

From the “yes” position (this professor only took the practice exam in his office rather than sitting for a proctored exam):

What did I learn from the experiment?

For one, the scores seemed to be a good reflection of how I stand in comparison with when I was in high school. (In other words, I think I’m much closer to Princeton students verbally than I was then.) Also, it seems correct to me that I scored lower on the reading part than on the writing part and performed best on the quantitative part. But mainly what I learned is that the SAT is a challenging, well-thought-out exam.

Of course, the test is limited in scope, as it must be given that it requires only a few hours of one’s time. It is simply impossible to measure every dimension of a secondary-school education in so short a time. For example, the math portion tests only the most elementary topics of algebra and geometry. With only 54 math questions, it simply can’t assess all levels of mastery. Given the limited scope, however, the SAT raises a well-conceived set of questions.

Prof. Vanderbei, the faculty member in favor of the test, seems more impressed with the test as a construct than as a diagnostic tool, able to predict the ability of a student. Prof. Harper, who believes the tests are deeply flawed, pointed out that in high school he scored highest on the math and only switched to English and journalism in his sophomore year. Had he stayed with the test’s assessment of himself he believes he would have been a disgruntled “number cruncher” rather than a very sucessful journalist.

 

The exercise showed just how challenging it is to write a college essay that stands out from the pack, yet doesn’t sound overly self-promotional or phony. Even some presidents say they grappled with the challenge and had second thoughts about the topics they chose. Several shared tips about writing a good essay: Stop trying to come up with the perfect topic, write about personally meaningful themes rather than flashy ones, and don’t force a subject to be dramatic when it isn’t.

Perhaps next year I should do the same thing with our essay questions. What do you think? You can read the full article here.