All Posts Tagged With: "post-secondary education"
Don’t let first-year university get you down
You may think you’re the only one feeling miserable, says this expert. You aren’t.
Many kids arrive on campus only to find, “This is way harder than I thought,” writes Dr. David Leibow in a new advice book for first-year students called What to Do When College Is Not the Best Time of Your Life. Usually, it’s a case of thinking, “I’m having trouble keeping up with my work. I don’t feel really close to anyone. I can’t fall asleep, then I can’t get up.” You may be looking around, thinking, “Everyone else is having the time of their life,” writes Leibow, a psychiatrist with years of experience treating college kids at Columbia University’s student mental health centre.
First off, you’re not alone. “Many of your fellow students go to the student counselling service or to private psychiatrists; they just don’t tell you about it. Which is a shame. Because it’s hard not to feel abnormal when you don’t know what normal is. Of course, it would be helpful if people were more open about what they really felt and thought. But, since no one wants to appear weak or inadequate, it’s unlikely a wave of honesty will sweep your campus soon.”
Homesickness is normal and so is feeling embarrassed about it, he writes. If you’ve come from a good home it makes sense that you’d miss the “cozy world of home” no matter how thrilled you were to leave your parents. In a section called “Two steps forward, one step back,” Leibow writes that “All human desire is riddled with contradiction: I want to eat two pints of cookie-dough ice cream but I want to stay slim so I look good in jeans. I want to outscore my best friend on the LSAT, but I want to be a generous person and root for her success as well.” With homesickness, it’s: “I want to become an adult and become independent of my parents, but I want to continue to have them as a safety net.”
His best advice is: befriend an adult on campus. An adult’s company will help correct the maturity deficit that exists in dorms. “Forming a relationship with a friendly professor, dean, adviser or coach can help make you feel more at home.”
To cope with a heavy reading load, Leibow suggests pretending you’re reading for pleasure. Don’t take notes while you’re reading an assigned book. Take notes later from memory. He gives the example of picking up Anna Karenina to read for fun in the summer. “You would probably be able to read it without putting it down.” But if you were assigned it by your comp lit professor, “there’s a good chance you’d be nodding off after a couple of pages.” Why? “Because when you’re reading something you’ve been assigned, you feel you have to learn every fact, theme and argument.” It’s exhausting. “Reading for pleasure makes it possible for you to absorb the important themes and overarching ideas of the book organically.”
To overcome laziness, Leibow tells students to think like a workhorse, not a thoroughbred. “These similes capture an essential truth. Like thoroughbreds, lazy people are very temperamental. They’re finely tuned. When all the conditions are optimal, they can turn in a good performance. But if anything is off-kilter—how much sleep they’ve had, how hungry they are, how quiet the room is—lazy people won’t get out of the gate. Workhorses get moving as soon as they’re put in harness and they keep going until the day is done.”
Set a routine and stick to it, he tells students. If you’ve established a schedule of starting work every morning at 10 a.m., you won’t have to ask yourself, ‘Should I work?’ You’ll already be doing it.”
“Getting organized” is just a time-waster, and not the same thing as doing work, he warns. “Get organized before you go to bed, and get down to work first thing in the morning.”
In university, “insomnia is virtually universal.” To block out dorm noise, Leibow suggests using a noisy electric fan over a white-noise machine. “Some white-noise makers simulate the sound of rain, the ocean, or the jungle at night. These sounds are never accurate and can become irritating.” Once in bed, try to imagine that you’re sleeping in the arms of someone you love, he suggests. “Don’t let this fantasy make you feel depressed or lonely. One day there may be someone who sleeps with you every night. In the meantime, you might also try your blankie or a teddy bear.”
The UC way
Could California be a model for Canadian research policy?
For all the erudition and scholarship that goes on at Canadian campuses, ambition is what really drives most colleges and universities. Colleges want to be small universities. Small universities want to be big universities. And big universities want to be Harvard.
Evidence of this aspiration is everywhere. In Alberta, a pair of community colleges just became universities. The same thing happened last year in British Columbia. In Ontario, Brock University in St. Catharines has embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign to rebrand itself from small regional university to higher-status research centre. And then there’s the recent furor created by the aspirations of five of Canada’s biggest universities.
In an exclusive interview with Maclean’s in August, the presidents of the University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, University of Toronto, McGill University and Université de Montréal outlined a controversial proposal to realign national post-secondary funding. Under the Big Five plan, a few schools would emphasize high-level research while the remaining schools would focus primarily on undergraduate education. That would allow a more efficient distribution of scarce research funding, vault the Big Five closer to their international peers, and tackle the issue of Canada’s underperformance in producing world-class university research.
It’s clearly an ambitious plan, as far as the Big Five are concerned. But is limiting the ambition of every other college and university the best plan for Canada? And what would such a plan look like?
You have to look elsewhere for an example. In the U.S., many states set out explicit expectations for all public post-secondary institutions, and California’s Master Plan for Higher Education, created in 1960, is one of the best known.
At the top of the state hierarchy is the University of California, which boasts many of the world’s most famous campuses, including Berkeley and UCLA. Its nine institutions receive the bulk of research funding, focus heavily on graduate students, and are the only public universities in California allowed to grant Ph.D.s. UC accepts the top 12 per cent of all state high school graduates. Next come 23 California State campuses. Cal States are primarily undergraduate institutions. Professors teach twice as many classes as their peers at UC and do much less research. The top third of California high school graduates are guaranteed a place in the Cal State system. Finally, more than 100 state community colleges act as feeders for Cal State. They are required to offer a spot for every high school graduate in California. “The two key aspects of the master plan are a clear differentiation of which students go where, as well as which schools do what,” says Todd Greenspan, director of academic planning at the University of California office of the president. “Everyone knows their place.”
Reality check for a big idea
What the provinces think of the Big Five’s revolutionary ideas for university reform
Diane McGifford, Manitoba’s minister of advanced education and literacy, has a bone to pick with Canada’s “so-called big five” universities. She’s not alone.
Last month, the presidents of five of Canada’s largest universities approached Maclean’s for an interview. Over the course of a 90-minute video conference, the presidents of McGill University, the Université de Montréal, and the universities of British Columbia, Alberta and Toronto, outlined their vision for a veritable revolution in Canada’s post-secondary system—one that could, they claimed, launch our universities to the top of the international ranks. The one-size-fits-all-mentality that governs higher education policy, they argued, must be replaced with a model that funnels research dollars to top-performing schools and lets the rest focus on undergraduate education. And to get there, they went on, Canada needs an aggressive, national innovation strategy.
These bold propositions, coming from five of Canada’s most distinguished academics, have created a buzz, not least among other universities who are unwilling to cede research hegemony to a handful of large schools. But one thing is clear: without support from the provinces—which, more than any other sources, fund post-secondary education—the Big Five’s big ideas are unlikely to be translated into action. So Maclean’s asked provincial education ministers to give us their impresssions of the proposals.
In short, they’re not impressed.
All the ministers interviewed were adamant that no “strategy that zeroes in on just five” institutions is likely to be championed by the provinces, as John Milloy, Ontario’s minister of training, colleges and universities, explained. But the degree of opposition ran the spectrum from more to less muted criticism. Milloy “has trouble with the idea” that Canada has fallen behind in the first place. Rob Norris, Saskatchewan’s minister of advanced education, employment and labour, finds “the specifics [of the proposal] a little bit adrift.” And Manitoba’s McGifford is “skeptical” of what she feels, quite simply, is “not a very good idea”: the division of universities into research and non-research institutions.
For McGifford, the proposal reeks of too much federal influence. A cohesive national strategy on post-secondary innovation, she says, would allow the feds to encroach on a domain that constitutionally belongs to the provinces. “It would almost demand a federal education minister,” McGifford explains, “and that would be a huge political problem.” She concedes that those provinces with a Big Five school might be more inclined to back the proposed reforms. But in her case, the call is clear: “We don’t want a federal minister dictating or directing us in this field of post-secondary education.”
For Saskatchewan’s Norris, the source of discontent is not that the plan entails too much federal co-operation, but that it allows for too little. He wants “a pan-Canadian approach” built on more “inclusive dialogue” among all provinces. A two-tiered initiative that focuses on just a few schools, he says, can’t serve as a foundation for a national crusade. Instead, he adds, we need “shared objectives” that jurisdictions can address together.
Reactions from the Big Five’s home provinces were decidedly more mixed. Ministers from B.C, Alberta and Ontario (Quebec’s education ministry declined to comment) were in agreement that universities are not the breeding grounds for innovation that they could be. B.C.’s minister of advanced education and labour market development, Moira Stilwell, summed it up with the example of Finland—“the poster country of national innovation.” “They hire 16 R & D [research and development] people per 1,000 workers,” she says. “In B.C., we hire about 4.5.” The ministers also concede that a more focused national discussion would be helpful.
Still, the ministers tempered those concessions with the more politic observation that each institution is special and has a place in Canada’s post-secondary family. Sure, big universities, with their more extensive infrastructure, are likely to attract research dollars. But Alberta, B.C. and Ontario argue that the best strategy for directing funds is still the current peer-review system, which evaluates every research proposal on the basis of its merit (and under which, by the way, the Big Five already attract a substantial portion of funding). “I have trouble with the idea of somehow carving out a sum of money for particular institutions,” Ontario’s Milloy cautions. “I prefer to have the situation that’s in place.” The three also touched on a range of other concerns: that specialization would diminish the quality of undergraduate education, for example, or that a national innovation strategy would threaten universities’ intellectual autonomy.
Lose this, and forget about your future
We’re told that education is more than a piece of paper. Not everyone has that luxury
Imagine going to school for 18 years and having no proof of it afterwards.
That’s the situation some Chinese university graduates are currently facing. As the New York Times reports, losing your ‘file’ in China (a sealed envelope handled by Chinese government officials containing the sole existing record of all of your credentials) can mean losing your future.
In this case, Xue Longlong, along with 10 or so other college graduates with once-bright futures, had their files “lost” (they suspect they were stolen and sold), thus losing proof of their university education and any hope of finding well-paying jobs. Now, they’re struggling to pay off their student debts while working low-paying gigs.
Xiaomei, Longlong’s sister, is quoted as saying that although she once thought that she, too, would go to university, she’s now reconsidering because of what happened to her brother.
“I want to quit,” she said during a school lunch break. “My brother graduated from college. What good did it do him?”
Here in North America, we’re always being told that postsecondary education is about higher learning, and not just a piece of paper. We’re always reminded that our motivation should be a desire to learn and expand our minds, rather than simply to get a good job.
Elsewhere in the world, this story reminds us, not everybody has that luxury.
What’s the real difference between men and women?
When it comes to career and life, the sexes make similar choices — but at different times
Question: What’s the real difference between men and women?
Answer: It’s all in the timing.
Based on the results of Statistics Canada survey released today, although men and women follow similar pathways from school to adult life, the main difference is in the timing of when they make certain transitions.
Studying more than 22,000 young people over eight years, researchers found that the most common sequence of events after formal education was pretty much what you might think: leave school, find a full-time job, leave the parental home, form a relationship, have children.
However, they also found some interesting facts: men were leaving school and working full-time earlier than women, while women moved out of their parents’ homes, formed relationships and had children earlier than men. Over those eight years, from 2000 to 2008, more men worked full-time and still lived with their parents. (Does this remind you of anyone? If so, that’s why.)
Respondents, who were 18 to 20 years old in 2000 and from all 10 Canadian provinces, also provided information about higher ed. When the survey started, about 55 per cent of both men and women had participated in some form of college, university or private post-secondary education. In 2008, by time they were 26 to 28 years old, this proportion had increased to 81 per cent.
Colleges edged out universities in terms of attendance, with 43 per cent of student attending college, and 42 per cent attending university. Overall, though, more women were going to university (8 per cent) and college (7 per cent) than men by the time the survey ended in 2008.
But women didn’t top all the lists. Over the full eight years of the study, a smaller proportion of women than men were working, and a smaller proportion were working full-time. In 2008, 80 per cent of men had a job and were not in school compared with 72 per cent of women. And about 75 per cent of men were working full-time compared with 63 per cent of women.
When the survey started, in 2000, 8 per cent of both women and men didn’t have jobs, but eight years later those numbers were drastically split. Thirteen per cent of women didn’t have jobs, which is almost double the six per cent of men who also didn’t have jobs.
Most obviously, the report’s authors say the reason why women between 26 and 28 had a lower rate of participation in the labour market could be directly related to the fact that more women were in a relationship and had children earlier than men. In 2008, 57 per cent of women were (or had been) married or common-law compared with 42 per cent of men. Almost twice as many women (32 per cent) than men (18 per cent) had children at the same age.
- photo courtesy of daniel.julia
Despite controversy, N.B. premier will accept university degree
About 100 staff and faculty sign letter of protest
Premier Shawn Graham says he is humbled by the University of New Brunswick’s decision to give him an honorary degree, despite protests about the honour in the university community.
Graham says the debate around the degree is what universities are all about.
Robert Whitney, a professor at the University of New Brunswick in Saint John, is one of the authors of a protest letter, signed by about 100 faculty and staff from the school’s Saint John and Fredericton campuses.
The letter states it would be “impossible” to forget Graham’s proposed changes to post-secondary education.
Graham’s government was forced by widespread protests to back away from changes recommended in a controversial report, including changing the UNB satellite campus in Saint John into a polytechnic institution.
Some of the recommendations would have seen major changes to the structure of the University in New Brunswick in Saint John and the University of Moncton.
- The Canadian Press
N.S. Tories promise post-secondary tax credit
Tax plan would save families a whopping $88 every year
Nova Scotia Conservatives are promising to provide a tax credit to match registered education savings plan investments.
Campaigning in the Bedford area on Monday, Premier Rodney MacDonald outlined a proposal he says will give families a head start on the cost of post secondary education.
Under the program, parents would receive a non-refundable tax credit, to a maximum of $1,000, made in the first year of their child’s life.
The premier estimated that would mean up to $88 in actual tax savings for a family.
Asked how much difference that would make to the average family, MacDonald responded that it was “an affordable” promise, and put it in the context of a variety of tax credits now available in areas such as recreational expenses and home renovations.
“Every dollar makes a difference. When you’re out buying groceries or buying diapers for a young child, or investing in your home, or saving for a child’s education, every dollar counts,” he said.
The premier said his hope is that the program will help thousands of families start preparing for their children’s education.
As the province turns towards a more knowledge-based economy, he said a post-secondary education will provide many more opportunities for young people.
“As a government, we lowered 10 taxes and took the provincial tax off of home heating costs to help families make ends meet,” he said.
Energy Minister Barry Barnet attended the news conference in his riding, and argued that he believed the tax savings could allow some students to attend college who might otherwise not be able to afford the cost.
“Eighty-eight dollars is a lot of money to many people, and sometimes it makes the difference between whether somebody can or can’t go to a post-secondary education,” he said.
Federal Liberals vs provincial Liberals on PSE
Will students believe the federal Liberals after McGuinty’s broken promises to them?
The Liberal Party of Canada is promising more funding for post-secondary education and by the sounds of things, they include increasing student support in that envelope.
Meanwhile, the Ontario Grits have decided their election platform wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. On Friday, the McGuinty government announced over $100-million in cuts to student financial supports.
It will be interesting to see if students will believe the federal Liberals after McGuinty’s broken promises to them.
Student loan debt: it’s a good thing
Billions owed to the government proves many people benefit from student loans
The Internet was flooded today with reports that Canadians collectively owe billions and billions of dollars to the federal government, borrowed to finance postsecondary studies. Seriously, this is a good thing. A few reasons? Sure.
1. It shows that students believe that they will be able to find good jobs in the future. Let’s face it, most people aren’t struggling into 8 a.m. introductory calculus for the sheer joy of it, but because they need it to get their degree, which they hope will in turn pay off later in life with higher wages. If students are willing to borrow a lot today, that means they collectively believe that their income tomorrow will be even higher. The odds of the collective being wrong are always low.
2. Choice is a good thing. Suppose you have just graduated from high school in two different versions of Canada. In one, your only option is to enter the workforce or fund your education yourself. In the second, our version, you have an extra choice: enter the workforce, pay your own way, or get a good deal on a government loan. Nobody is coercing people to get student loans. In fact, the only rational reason to get a student loan is because it’s a better alternative than anything else. The fact that the program is so heavily subscribed only indicates the government has been very successful at providing people better alternatives than anything else they can find.
3. Consumption smoothing is a good thing. Suppose you are faced with two choices: Live off $50,000 every year of your life, or live off $90,000 for half the years and $10,000 for the other half. There are no savings instruments. Most people would take the constant income. The student loan program allows people to smooth their consumption over the life-cycle where banks fear to tread, consuming more as a poor student and less as a productive member of society.
Neither of these points have addressed what is implicitly being called for in many of these articles, namely to give students even more money to attend university. This is a question economists are ill-equipped to directly judge, since it is mostly a moral one. Is it correct to forcibly take money from the rest of society via taxes and give it to students? I will leave that to philosophers, but I can say some other things.
4. Over a quarter of student loans in Canada fall into default, i.e. are not fully repaid. So effectively we are giving lots of people grants under the current structure anyway.
5. Government transfers have bad incentives. When the government raises tax rates, it reduces the incentive for people to go out and earn more money – if the tax rate was 100 percent, how much would you work? How much would you thus pay in taxes to fund the educational system? Higher taxes make us collectively poorer as a whole, so if you want to use taxes to fund public projects, you should be sure it is worth it.
6. No-strings-attached grants have bad incentives. If the government decided to fully pay for all costs of education – in the extreme case, living expenses as well – I would not be surprised if I chose to remain a university student for life. Unfortunately, there’s a real cost to hiring professors and maintaining universities, and someone has to pay for it. I’ve also had professors argue that higher tuition fees keep poor students out and thus enhance the academic experience for the dedicated students. I am personally just shy of willing to go there.
