Tales from a University: Why Say Yes, When You Can Say No?

Noah Gentele presents a case in The Yale Herald that has received quite a bit of publicity over the last few years: the increasingly hyper-selective nature of elite universities. Anyone with a chance to glance at the New York Times or with a family member or friend going through the college application process is well aware of the harsh reality that is now college admissions. This is, of course, not to suggest that this is a new revelation. The number of colleges high school seniors apply to has been increasing for years, but the last four years have produced a massive escalation not seen by admissions officers before. The advent of online applications is most certainly a contributing factor in this development, but there is one actor that stands well above the rest: there are far too many qualified applicants out there these days, and college is more accessible to people who may not have considered it ten or even five years ago.

Accompanying the grand influx of college applicants is the problem facing universities throughout the country: what to do with all these applicants. According to Gentele,

"Last year, Harvard rejected more than a thousand students with perfect scores on the SAT math section...The same is true at Yale."

Sentiments being echoed by admissions officers suggest that this trend can be seen at many institutions throughout the country. The key question is what is being used to differentiate between candidates who are seemingly equal on paper? In many cases it may be interviews, but perhaps the recent development of universities striving for a more "diverse" academic community intimates that nationality or race may play a factor. The fact is that we can posit all we want about what drives admissions decisions to no avail. What is essential to take away from this issue is that a bachelor's degree is becoming the standard. No longer can a high school diploma offer what it did fifteen or twenty years ago. Despite the potential for limited access for a great deal of people, I see this as progress (inevitable progress, yes, but progress nonetheless...). The fact that more people are determined to attend higher-education facilities and further their education is always a positive in my eyes. The negatives (lack of accessibility to minorities, costs, cutthroat admissions practices and processes) clearly need to be addressed. Simply stated: the risk of taking the first step towards progress is stepping on toes.

Op-Ed: The Gender Gap

A recent article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette discusses an "imbalance in the number of male and female college graduates." I feel compelled to bring this dialogue to the attention of others, as the tone of the article suggests that academia must scramble to either balance the aforementioned "imbalance," or return things to a male-dominated world of higher-education. Both notions are not only ignorant but detrimental to hundreds of years of female progression in society.

The article goes on to suggest ways to "counter the gap" and ameliorate the situation going on on campuses throughout the nation. The only shining light in the article is presented by Linda Sax, an associate professor at UCLA (Sax is also affiliated with their Higher Education Research Institute). Sax is quick to refute any inclination that 'the gender gap' will result in fewer marriages, which it appears is a major concern for the author of the article and her audience. In addition, the author touches on an idea presented by Tom Mortenson, a higher-ed analyst that gender-specific teaching is necessary to amend the gap. Thankfully, Linda Sax is able to nix this thought, arguing that better preparing men for college is a cause worth taking, any sex-specific education initiative may be detrimental to the progress experienced by women.

My main concern with some of the sentiments posted in this article are that there is some level of concern simply because women are now in the majority of degree-holders:

"In 2005, women made up 57 percent of the 17.5 million students enrolled in degree-granting institutions throughout the country...In 2005 there were 213,000 more bachelor's degrees awarded to woman than men nationally."

This should be a cause for celebration, or if nothing else further study. Is this such a dangerous problem because it threatens the male-dominated hierarchy that has subsisted in this country for so long? Perhaps. What is alarming is that such a great deal of emphasis is placed on marriage. While it may be noteworthy as a hypothesis for an externality of 'the gender gap,' why not explore more? Maybe 'the gender gap' will result in more stay-at-home dads. I'm sure that would please the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette audience. What I feel is most outrageous is that this article is written by a (wait for it) woman. What's more is that a simple search returns quite a few articles written by Ms. Tubbs for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Wouldn't it make sense for a professional woman to want the most for not only herself but for future generations of women? Why produce an article that, in my opinion, offers no semblance of progress for women?

Stephen Feldman, editor

"The untouchables of academia"

Higher education in America is yet another member of the suffering contingent of those realms of being in the country that is underfunded. A recent New York Times article addresses the concern that the tenure-track position is on the decline, as universities can cut corners (read: save money, hire and fire much easier) by instead hiring professors part-time. Many of these professors, like Elaine Zendlovitz, end up teaching a number of courses at more than one institution, often ending their days at 10 p.m. Zendlovitz teaches at both the University of Michigan, Dearborn, and Oakland Community College, among others-- she actually teachers "six courses at four institutions." In addition, she occasionally has a 10-hour teaching day.

Teachers like Zendlovitz are complaining that because they are forced to spread themselves so thin, "It's harder to spend time with students. I don't have prep time, and I know how to prepare a fabulous class." The fact is that these professors are at quite a disadvantage. By not having the freedom and time to publish, tenure-track positions will remain out of reach for most in situations similar to Zendlovitz. In addition, according to a letter to the Times in response to the article from a former adjunct professor in New York City, adjuncts are provided with "no health care, [or] retirement benefits..."

In the end, the students are the ones who lose. By providing students with teachers that aren't available to discuss items from class or adequately prepare for one of their myriad of classes, a void grows in the education of the students subjected to these conditions. According to the New York Times, a psychology major enrolled at Florida International University can go their whole academic career without attending a class taught by a full-time faculty member. Plus, students can tell when a professor is part-time. Mike Brennan, a sophomore at Michigan argues that because "[t]hey have so many classes that they give tests that are easier to grade." Carly Matkovich, also at Michigan, states that she feels "cheated" because "[t]hey're never around."

What is to be done? Perhaps the tenure-track position is dying. Perhaps security is simply a casualty of the times, and underfunded public universities will eventually ax them altogether. Some believe that raising salaries or at least offering benefits will offset the damage done to the adjunct professor contingent. Eventually, the effects of this will certainly be felt. Most noteworthy of all is the fact that the elite universities like Harvard and Princeton are the least likely to have adjunct faculty, while the lower-tiered public institutions (and community colleges), FIU for example, are naturally put in the position where underfunding forces the position they take. Regardless, it is quite apparent that the effects of this higher education epidemic will be felt soon enough.