Northern Virginia Tutoring Service

How Can Students Be More Realistic and Parents Reduce Their Anxiety Level?

I am often asked this question when I give presentations and workshops. This may be the ultimate question. Parents wrestle with it constantly and kids pick up on parental “vibes,” which only exacerbates the problem. The most important thing to remember is that your child will be successful in spite of himself!

Most of the short-term, seemingly insurmountable obstacles facing your child as he or she progresses through elementary, middle, and high school will, in most instances, fall by the wayside as they grow to adulthood. After all, your child has caring, educated parents who will do whatever it takes to help them succeed, right? The likelihood of failure is slim, particularly in families where both parents are college educated. Research supports this assertion.

In addition, keep several things in mind. First, all of life’s decisions do not need to be made by the age of eighteen. Second, failing occasionally is not a bad thing. In fact, if you study some of the most successful individuals in history, failure was the norm for them before they achieved success. I have heard students in my sociology classes at the college state that their parents never let them fail and that they were always cautioned to avoid situations where they may not succeed.

When applying to colleges, students are told to prepare applications that make them seem perfect. This is not necessarily what an admissions officer is seeking. In fact, many admissions officers have written and spoken about the fact that they seek students who have experienced adversity, only to overcome it and go on to succeed. The ability to rebound from adversity is something we all admire – including college admissions officers. No one is perfect at any age, and certainly not at the age of eighteen.

Third, if the college of first choice does not accept your child, is that such a bad or catastrophic thing? You know that next year they will be somewhere studying in some college somewhere. There is a college for every student somewhere in America, and if your child applies himself to his studies, that college will be a good choice to launch him on to his career. The “first choice” college will seem an irrelevant distant memory in five years. And, let’s face it, when your daughter calls home a month after arriving on campus and tells you she loves college, finds her classes motivating and inspiring, and enjoys living with her roommate and, oh, by the way, has to run because she is supposed to meet a study group in 10 minutes, isn’t that exactly what you wanted to hear?

So, relax, be the best, most supportive parent you can be, but do it in a non-intrusive manner that is “acceptable” to your teenager. In most instances, any advice you offer will be rejected outright, even if you do have a doctorate in counseling psychology – because you are their parent! At some point in their adult life, they will realize you actually do have a brain and they will then ask for your advice. Until then, advise discretely from the sidelines. That is the first step toward reducing your anxiety level – and theirs.❖

This article points to an obvious disconnect between employment and education. I had two immediate reactions to the article. First, the role of the community college in addressing this matter is critical. It is the gateway for millions of Americans to enter (or re-enter) the middle class. President Obama seems to recognize this reality through his endorsement of community colleges as a major player in addressing the current and future employment picture in America.

The second thing that came to mind as I read the article is the value we place on education and our unwillingness to compensate teachers to reflect their market value. Is it any wonder that a young adult would choose a career in, for example, technical writing in the private sector at a starting salary of $65,000+ rather than a K-12 teaching position starting salary of $45,000 or less? America simply has not connected the dots between the value of an educated workforce, our future economic stability and global competitiveness, and fairly compensated, highly trained K-12 educators. We have never come to grips with the fact that we simply do not value the work of teachers nor do we compensate them in accordance with their value to society, but expect them to perform miracles for our children. In fact, rather than compensate (and respect) teachers in a manner commensurate with their value to society, America seems to have declared open warfare on teachers and public education, not to mention public employee teacher unions.

So, when Jeffrey Bergstrand states “But education is the key to the U.S. being able to take advantage of this opportunity One of the biggest issues that I hear from managers and executives is that they need to hire workers, but can’t find those who have the educational skills to be productive. This condition alone will lead to a permanently higher unemployment rate”, we should all take note of this critical factor in solving our long-term employment dilemma.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/opinion/bergstrand-factory-nostalgia/index.html?hpt=op_t1

This is a fascinating article. The thought that came to mind immediately was the sociology inherent in this issue, not the physical science. It seems that systemic gender bias and inequality in STEM areas of academia has been reduced but certainly not eliminated. Women have made strides in these fields, but are not yet on par with men in the percentage represented in the workforce.

However, the sociological reasons for the lack of women in STEM areas is far more intriguing. Motherhood (nature) seems to be an intervening variable that few anticipated thirty years ago when the push to get women into the fields of math, science, and engineering commenced. So, what do you think? Does this confirm what the sociobiologists have been saying for generations – that there is a biological difference between men and women and the roles they play (nature). Or, is it nurture – women and men are simply gender socialized to be what a culture determines is the appropriate roles for them to play and biology has nothing to do with it? And if so what, if anything, should government and industry do to address the issue?

http://chronicle.com/article/Gender-Equity-on-Science/130839/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

This is an interesting article on the use of technology in the classroom. I see it at the college often – young professors who use technology to try to either “fit in” and be cool with their students, or, worse yet, use technology as a crutch for limited instructional and interpersonal skills. I use technology in multiple forms in my classes (BlackBoard, Discussion Board, Youtube, on line instructional videos, PowerPoint, etc.) and believe there is a real benefit to it, if used judiciously. However, the author’s comment about “the bond between professor and student” is the crucial variable in the teaching process. Students need to see you as human first – a compassionate communicator – then the use of tech tools can supplement that greater quality. Some things just never will change. People, including students, need and want human connectedness.

http://chronicle.com/article/A-Tech-Happy-Professor-Reboots/130741/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

Michelle Singletary has written an interesting article in today’s Washington Post on the issue of matching college majors with the job market (see attached). Ms. Singletary makes some very good points. She very accurately points out that there needs to be a balance between the desire to seek an education and to become marketable and prepared for the job market in a very difficult economic environment. I, too, have written about this issue as recently as last year when I published “Matching College Degrees With the Job Market” (see our web site, www.nvtutoring.com and click “Articles” to access this essay). All parents and students need to keep practicality in mind as they pursue a college degree. In a globalized economy where competition in all fields has become a critical issue, not at least considering the marketability of a degree may be a decision that will have significant consequences in the future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/studying-the-purpose-of-college/2012/01/22/gIQANC0XYQ_story.html

This article that appears in today’s online issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education sheds some new light on an age-old controversy – is nature or nurture more at play when examining the disparity between men and women in the area of math aptitude and achievement.

My anecdotal observation (certainly not scientific, by any means) is that women have made enormous strides in the fields of math and science during the past several decades. When I began my business 17 years ago, it was virtually impossible to find a female who could tutor higher level math or science. Now, easily half, if not more, of the math and science tutors I have hired during the past 5 years are female. This study questions the validity of gender bias in math and science and at least implies that there may be more to the alleged inequity than can be explained by gender stereotyping. You be the judge. I welcome your comments.

http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.vccs.edu:2048/article/Stereotypes-Do-Not-Explain/130377/

The cost of textbooks is particularly acute at the community college where I teach. Students attending community colleges are often struggling financially and are working one or two jobs, juggling family responsibilities, and commuting by bus to school. It is a tough slog for many of my students just to get enough money to pay tuition, let alone $150 for a textbook – and for that price, the books are paperback! Will e-texbooks be the solution? Like most innovations in the digital world, the answer is unclear. Issues as complex as pricing and as simple as user-friendliness complicate the issue. It is not as simple as downloading a book and going off on one’s merry way. Many of my students also tell me that they like a physical copy of the textbook that enables them to write in it, highlight it, and otherwise engage in the textbook. The technology apparently is not there yet to permit that in the e-textbook world.

This article addresses some of the issues associated with this issue:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/new-study-shows-e-textbooks-saved-many-students-only-1/34793?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

I have published an article on the topic of early decision and have attached it here. I welcome your comments and responses!

Early Decision: Whose Interests Are Being Served?

By Dr. Ralph G. Perrino

 What is Early Decision?

Early admission programs are not all the same. Variations such as early decision and early action confuse students and parents alike. Students seeking early decision generally apply in November and receive an answer within a month. Under this scenario, applicants submit only one application to one school. Acceptance by the college is binding. Binding typically means applicants promise they will attend the school if their application is accepted. Schools expect admitted students to honor their pledge. Colleges share their early decision lists of admitted students and follow the practice of eliminating them from further consideration. If a student does not honor an early decision, it is unlikely competitive schools will accept the student. This differs from early action where a student is accepted by mid-December but is not bound to acceptance to the school. Unlike early decision, there is no penalty for not attending the college that has admitted the student. This article focuses mainly on binding early decision programs.

 Early Decision: Student Readiness and Family Income as Determinants

Some students and parents think early decision applicants have a better chance of getting into some of the most selective colleges. This notion is controversial and not everyone agrees. Part of the perception about early decision evolves from the small number of schools that use early decision. Approximately 400, or three percent, of colleges offering four-year degrees have early decision programs. These schools are concentrated in the Ivy League and very selective and expensive private colleges. Since early decision often applies to a group of schools that tend to be ranked among the “best” schools by U.S. News & World Report, the connection between early decision and elite schools may be enough for many people to see it as an advantage.

A November 5, 2011 article in the The Huffington Post offers some of the advantages and disadvantages to students of early decision. Among the advantages are: they just want to get the college application process completed so they can enjoy the second semester of their senior year; early decision may afford priority housing preference for incoming freshmen; and early decision demonstrates commitment to a school and may facilitate acceptance of a student who may be a borderline candidate.

Some of the disadvantages of early decision to a student are:  they think they know their major, but realize later in the year that their goals may have changed; a student may simply change his or her mind about where they would like to attend college (for example an urban school may have seemed like the right thing to do until a student visits a small, liberal arts college in a rural setting); and the possibility of financial aid may be impacted because a college that knows you are committed to their institution may not give a student as much money compared to a situation where the school is trying to attract the student.

Christopher Avery and several others have studied and documented some of the early decision process in their book The Early Admissions Game, Joining the Elite. (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2003) Colleges that use early decision usually argue it is not an advantage for admission. However, Avery’s research indicates that applying early decision does, in fact, increase an applicant’s chances by as much as a 100 point increase in their combined SAT score. For some students, that doubles or even triples the chance of admission. Even vocal proponents of the fairness of early decision, like Princeton, admit two to three times as many applicants under early as opposed to regular admissions.

Students and parents would do well to remember that early admission implies decision-making for both the student and the institution. Completing the process early is more appropriate for some students than others. Early admission can be revoked if a student’s GPA drops precipitously, so an early decision is not a free pass to coast through the rest of senior year.

A major disadvantage for some students, states the Chronicle for Higher Education, is that, “A common criticism of early decision programs is that they hurt students from low-income families, who often decide to forgo early applications so they can compare financial-aid offers from multiple institutions during the regular admissions process.” The fact is that early decision programs limit choices for any family in need of financial aid. This inevitably widens the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged, or at least the privileged and the middle class, and impacts campus diversity.

In a study that appeared in the American Economic Review (December 2010), Christopher Avery and Jonathan Levin stated that early decision by elite colleges “tends to be captured by students who are well off and well informed” and that “some prominent academic leaders have argued that early admissions should be curtailed.” Recognizing the inherent inequalities associated with early decision, Yale and Stanford Universities changed from early decision to early action in 2003-2004. During the fall of 2006, Harvard University announced plans to end its early decision policy entirely. In 2007-2008, Princeton University followed Harvard’s lead. Harvard’s Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, William R. Fitzsimmons, stated “Early applications tended to be disproportionately white and affluent, and there was a growing perception that early admissions was becoming an exclusive club, to which somehow only a few were invited. That worked against the whole idea of access.” Given the visibility and reputation of Yale, Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton, these developments have encouraged other colleges to reevaluate their own early decision programs.

 The Dilemma College Admissions Officers Face

That was 2003-2008. Fast forward to 2009, in the midst of one of the most serious economic downturns in American history. The picture has changed significantly. The October 21, 2011 edition of the online higher education publication Inside Higher Ed reports that, “The recession appears to have been very good for the practice of ‘early decision’ in which applicants must commit to enroll if admitted. Not only are many colleges reporting increased interest from applicants in applying early, but 2009 saw a jump in the proportion of colleges reporting that they were increasing the number of students admitted this (early decision) way.” The economic pressure is clearly on colleges to admit a larger percentage of early decision applicants than regular applicants (70% vs.55%). Inside Higher Ed has also reported that “47% of colleges reported an increase in the number of early decision applications they received, about the same proportion as the previous two years.” Further, according to Inside Higher Ed, 65 percent of colleges that actively apply early decision policies reported that they admitted more students in 2009 than in 2008 through the early decision process.

So, although many admissions officers readily agree that early decision favors wealthier students, the economic tug associated with filling classes early in the year is too tempting to resist during economic hard times. Time is money, in the opinion of college admissions officers who are increasingly under pressure to eliminate the uncertainty of freshman class size as the academic year approaches. According to Insider Higher Ed, “”Many admissions officers say they agree with the critics (of early decision), yet can’t resist a tactic that allows them to fill a larger share of their classes earlier in the year.”

Changes in Early Decision, 2002-2009

Source: Inside Higher Ed, October 21, 2011

 Why Colleges Like Early Decision

Colleges like early decision programs because it is a good way to compete for the most talented students. Early decision eliminates some of the guesswork for college admissions directors. Colleges lose half or more of their admitted students to other schools so early decisions help smooth out the budget process. After all, in the end, operating a college efficiently and effectively is all about business management.  In the eyes of many college admissions officers, an early decision student is a low risk investment.

In an interview with writer James Fallows and Bruce Poch, Admissions Director at Pomona College, Mr. Poch reported that early decision for them becomes a measure of commitment. “It’s worth something to the institution to enroll kids who view the college as their first choice,” he says. “Fewer people are whining about transferring from day one. They turn out to be a lot of the campus leaders.”

College admissions officers are less likely to talk about the U.S. News & World Report rankings but there is suggestion that early decision can improve a school’s statistics. The US News rankings procedures have changed over the years of publishing their national rankings lists of the nation’s best colleges. The statistical measures that matter here are a college’s selectivity and its yield.

Selectivity measures how difficult it is to get into a school. A school that accepts one applicant out of four is more selective than one that accepts two out of three. A college’s yield is the proportion of students offered admission who actually attend. In practice yield measures “takeaways”; if one school gets a student that is admitted to several other universities, it scores a takeaway from each of the other schools. The higher the yield and the larger the number of takeaways, the more desirable the school is thought to be. Under this process, early decision provides a way to improve a college’s selectivity and yield simultaneously, thereby elevating the school’s national ranking. This, in turn, attracts more of those low risk students a college can count on to graduate from their school.

So, while it is admirable that administrators like Harvard’s William Fitzsimmons see the inherent inequality of the early decision process, economic forces often force elite schools to balance principle with practicality.

 A Final Thought

Despite Harvard’s decision in 2006 to drop their program, and Princeton, Yale, and Stanford’s decisions to follow suit, early decision is probably not going to disappear anytime soon, particularly during a period of serious economic decline. Possible reforms would assure more consistent aid packages and limit the number of students accepted. While early admission can help the bottom line of colleges and universities, it holds the inherent risk of creating a two-tiered higher education system that excludes those of lower socioeconomic status. This cannot serve the greater interests of a fair and equitable higher education system predicated on merit, not wealth and privilege.

Dr. Perrino is Owner and Director of Northern Virginia Tutoring Service, LLC and an Associate Professor of Sociology at Northern Virginia Community College. Dr. Perrino can be reached at 703-534-5779 or via email at DrPerrino@nvtutoring.com. The website for NVTS is nvtutoring.com.

One of my students from the college wrote to me today to tell me she had read an interesting article by Richard Florida and she wanted to share it with me. We had studied Max Weber’s theory about the evolution of the modern bureaucratic state in my Introduction to Sociology course this past semester. She clearly demonstrated an ability to transfer classroom knowledge into reading outside of the classroom. Florida references Weber’s work and extends the thought to embrace the advantages of cultural diversity as a determinant of economic prosperity.

I told my student that I was exceedingly proud of her for taking the time to read such a serious analysis of the issue and that I would take some credit for planting the seed! I also told her that I am currently reading a book by Fareed Zakaria titled “The Post-American World.”  I just completed chapter 3, “A Non-Western World”, that discusses much of what the article by Richard Florida (below) points out.

Max Weber’s theory of the rise of the West in the context of the Calvinist movement and the values it projected throughout Protestant society applies here. Zakaria points out that by the 15th century, the East had pretty much abandoned any attempt to reach beyond its borders, although for centuries prior to that, it dominated the world stage during the Ming Dynasty. That all came to a sudden halt by the early 1500s. By the time the Qing Dynasty came to power in 1644, China had been relegated to a backwater society.

The result was a dramatic explosion of commerce, technology, art, engineering, medicine, and multiple other areas in the West. This ushered in 500 years of Western dominance of just about everything. And now, the West has been handed a golden opportunity to lead even more in the area of cultural diversity and acceptance of people of all races, religions, and cultures. This article points to the importance of embracing diversity in American society for the long-term health of the economy. All indications are that this will be the key to future success in the United States where people continue to flock to seek freedom and opportunity.

Europe, for example, has not embraced cultural diversity to the extent that the United States has. China, North Korea, and Iran (to cite just a few) are not places where freedom-loving people flee. The result is that the trend that has been in place since WW II will most likely continue. That trend has brought the best and brightest minds in music, art, literature, science, medicine, and other areas to America. This was true during 1930s Germany when the brightest in science (von Braun, Oppenheimer, et. al.), the arts and music (Toscanini, et.al.), and literature fled to America to seek freedom and opportunity. It will continue to be the case if America is wise and continues to embrace cultural diversity to strengthen its economic fabric.

Richard Florida points out the importance of this issue in the following essay:

Skip to Content

Economic growth and development has long been seen to turn on natural resources, technological innovation and human capital.  But a growing number of studies, including my own research, suggest that geographic proximity and cultural diversity—a place’s openness to different cultures, religions, sexual orientations—also play key roles in economic growth.

Skeptics counter that diversity is an artifact of economic development rather than a contributor. They argue that diverse populations flock to certain locations because they are either rich already or are fast becoming that way.

An important new study by economists Quamrul Ashraf of Williams College and Oded Galor of Brown University should help put many of the skeptics’ claims to rest. “Cultural Diversity, Geographical Isolation and the Origin of the Wealth of Nations,” recently released as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, charts the role of geographic isolation, proximity and cultural diversity on economic development from pre-industrial times to the modern era.

It finds that “the interplay between cultural assimilation and cultural diffusion have played a significant role in giving rise to differential patterns of economic development across the globe.” To put it in plain English: diversity spurs economic development and homogeneity slows it down.

Ashraf and Galor examine the “Great Divergence” in economic development. During the Industrial Revolution, Europe and the New World developed a rate of economic development that far outpaced the rest of the world. “The gap in per capita GDP between the richest regions of the world and the poorest increased from a modest 3 to 1 ratio in 1820,” they note, “to an astounding 18 to 1 ratio in 2000.”

Many of the most important economists, sociologists, geographers and other social scientists have grappled with the factors that shaped this great leap in economic development. Max Weber famously attributed this divergence to the “Protestant ethic,” which emphasized thrift and hard work, propelling entrepreneurship and productivity improvements. Other classic studies attributed the West’s rise to distinctive cultural norms and values which favor individual effort, freedom and the spirit of enterprise.

Still others suggest that its institutions hold the key. In their classic The Rise of the Western World, Douglas North and Robert Thomas argued that the institutions that arose under the aegis of democratic capitalism, turning as they did on respect for individual property rights, enhanced the rate of technological innovation and economic development. Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel put geography front and center, attributing the West’s economic vibrancy to the serendipitous advantages of easy access to raw materials, abundant rainfall, temperate climate and lower disease burden.

Ashraf and Galor acknowledge these factors but argue that what really propelled Europe and the New World’s economic ascendance was their relative openness to other cultures, which they measure in terms of greater or lesser geographical isolation. To get at this they develop a “Geographical Isolation Index,” based on the travel time to 139 Old World capital cities. They use this measure to gauge two things. The first is the effect of geographic isolation on cultural diversity. The second looks at the effects of geographic isolation on the level of economic development from the 19th century until 1960.

Their findings overwhelmingly suggest that cultural diversity and geographic openness matter significantly to economic development across the board. They draw three major conclusions:

• First, geographic isolation served a positive role in pre-industrial times (aka the agricultural stage of development). But it turns substantially negative as industrialization kicks in. “Societies that were geographically less vulnerable to cultural diffusion benefited from enhanced assimilation, lower cultural diversity, and more intense accumulation of society-specific human capital, which permitted them to flourish in the technological paradigm that characterized the agricultural stage of development,” they write. “However, the lack of cultural diffusion and its manifestation in cultural homogeneity and rigidity diminished the ability of these societies to adapt to a new technological paradigm, thereby delaying the onset of their industrialization and, thus, their take-off to a state of sustained economic growth.”
• Second, societies that were geographically isolated all the way back in pre-industrial times continue to be less culturally diverse today.
• Third and most significantly, they found that cultural diversity has a positive impact on economic development in the process of industrialization, from its inception through modern times.

It’s time for diversity’s skeptics and naysayers to get over their hang-ups. The evidence is mounting that geographical openness and cultural diversity and tolerance are not by-products but key drivers of economic progress. Proximity, openness and diversity operate alongside technological innovation and human capital as the key engines of economic prosperity. Indeed, one might even go so far as to suggest that they provide the motive force of intellectual, technological, and artistic evolution.

Photo credit: Jon Nazca/Reuters

Keywords: economic development, Diversity, Creative Class

Richard Florida is Senior Editor at The Atlantic and Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. He is a frequent speaker to communities, business and professional organizations, and founder of the Creative Class Group, whose current client list can be found here. All posts »

Take a few minutes to read Jay Mathews article in today’s Washington Post titled “Who – and what – helped you become a better writer? Jay offers some very interesting stories about the people who influenced him (and his wife) to become better writers. His advice will surprise many of you. In the end, it all boils down to two simple processes – read more and write prolifically. There is no simple solution, no silver bullet, to developing good writing skills. It takes time and hard work, and it takes patience in the process. There is a reason why one of the first teachings of the Koran is to read. The ancients knew something many students today have forgotten. Reading develops thought patterns that then lead to writing patterns that develop uniquely within each individual. I tell my students to read everything they can possibly find time to read. That may include the sports page of the newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, magazines, professional journals, film reviews, theater reviews, anything that interests the reader. And, oh, by the way, they also need to read the textbook and related assignments for my classes!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class-struggle/post/what-made-you-a-better-writer/2011/11/23/gIQAuOtJqN_blog.html