Archive for August, 2009

My first semester of college was an enormous wake-up call. For starters, the academic expectations were easily a shelf above those I had seen in high school.

But the greatest difference involved what I now call the level of hand-holding. As opposed to those wonderful and understanding high school teachers, my professors made only casual reminders of long-term assignments and they never postponed an exam simply because some students did not understand the material.

Simply stated, I made some mistakes my first semester that cost me dearly – by the time Christmas rolled around there wasn’t a single A to be found on my grade report and in at least two cases, classes that should have resulted in B’s had turned to C’s.

Fortunately, I had greater expectations for myself. I also was a relatively fast-learner – I say relatively fast because it did take me one full semester to figure things out.

Established students will likely find my missteps obvious but perhaps those of you starting your first semester can learn from my “Seven First-Semester Mistakes.”

Mistake 1. Failing to Realize You Are on Your Own

This one of course is one of those obvious ones for established students but it permeated my first semester of school.

The best thing about going to college is you finally are on your own. There will be no one nagging you about getting to bed at a certain hour or about spending too much time at the gym. No one, not even your resident assistant, will be hovering over you, asking you about whether or not your homework is done or when your next test is coming.

At the same time, the academic expectations begin with the very first class. Add to that fact that semesters are short on class time (much less frequent than in high school) and you soon learn that you have much greater work expectations between class sessions than you ever did in high school.

Still, the academics pale next to the expectation that you are, and will be, a responsible young adult. Ultimately, the nagging is replaced with a basic assumption that you are old enough to handle responsibilities without being reminded of them daily.

Mistake 2. Being Unorganized

Another major mistake I made was the failure to create a master schedule of my courses and the assignments for the semester. Though I did create a notebook with separate sections with each syllabus, I never synthesized the materials on one master calendar.

The bottom line was that many times I got caught not looking far enough ahead. On more than one occasion I found myself running out of time as materials became due or test dates arrived.

That first semester I learned the importance of taking the entire syllabus for each course and plotting all daily assignments, major projects/papers and exams on one master calendar. Doing so in future semesters helped me to understand that while this Tuesday I might have had little to do, next Tuesday the expectations might be so great I would need to be up half the night to complete all that was expected.

Every Sunday night I would review the upcoming week in detail, then scan the expectations for the following two weeks to see what I should begin working on ahead of time. Of course, creating such a calendar is a time-consuming first task – but it was a life-saver in future semesters.

Mistake 3. Being Unorganized – Redux

The second organizational aspect related to retaining all materials for the semester in their appropriate notebook. Those materials included all the original handouts, the additional ones provided during the semester and all returned assignments, quizzes and tests.

On many occasions I spent five, ten or even fifteen minutes searching for a certain document that was on my desk somewhere. On other occasions, I actually lost some graded materials, papers I could have definitely used in preparation for final exams.

I learned that first semester that I would receive and produce more materials than I ever did in high school and that taking care of those materials when I received them saved countless hours of time over the course of a semester.

Mistake 4. Multiple Course Sections Are Available

Another element I learned the hard way was that at college you had choices as to which courses and sections you opted to take. You can pick classes according to your learning style as well as quality of teaching.

For example, lecture-based classes were not my forte and taking them on Tuesday and Thursday meant longer class periods and an even greater test of my attention span. Such classes were far more manageable for me following a Monday-Wednesday-Friday format.

Perhaps even more importantly, the multiple sections of courses means you do not have to put up with a low quality instructor. That first semester I mistakenly sucked it up and stuck out two such classes, both to my detriment.

College is difficult enough without having to try to deal with poor quality instruction or a disorganized professor. In such cases, even first semester freshman can seek another section of the course immediately.

Mistake 5. Thinking Your Dorm Room Is a Great Place to Study

The need for a quiet place to do some real studying is essential. Yes, most times you can work in your dorm room or the lounge, but no matter how good your roommates or dorm-mates are, even at the quietest moments there will be distractions.

To get some real focused time you must find a place where you can truly disappear. I have heard some say you must find a cave somewhere on campus.

They exist – I found mine in the back stacks of the library. And you must use your place whenever you need to find some real quiet time.

Most importantly, you and only you, the young adult, can determine when such a time is needed.

Mistake 6. Asking for or Accepting Extensions

Because of my somewhat lackluster organizational skills, I remember struggling to complete one major paper for my Economics class. As I stated earlier, I simply had not plotted out an overview of the semester and all of sudden I seemed to be struggling to find the time to meet a group of expectations as final exams approached.

Naively, as the deadline for that major assignment drew near, I overheard a classmate discussing a possible extension with the professor. The professor offered some simple extension terms, one-third of a letter grade per class period (one period late, a B+ would drop to a B, two periods late that B+ would drop to a B-, etc.).

I convinced myself that the extension terms were reasonable and would help me. Given I had decent writing skills, I foolishly decided to take one additional week (three class sessions) to turn the paper in.

At the time I assumed my final product would earn an A or A- meaning at worst I would take home a B- or C+ for the paper, a good enough score to maintain the B average I had worked all semester for.

Evidently I wasn’t quite the writer I thought I was – remember the point about increased expectations earlier? The professor scored my original paper a B-, with the docking it became a C-, and because of the grading weight of the paper, my B average for the semester fell to a C+.

I learned the hard way to get my work done when it was due.

Mistake 7. Limit the Social Scene

At college, social events occur virtually every night of the week. From athletic events to open-mic nights to movies there is always something available to do that seems more enticing than your studies.

Add to that the Thursday night party group, the students taking a less demanding academic program (and content with earning Cs in those courses) and you always have someone trying to get you to take a few hours off for some social activity.

Taking time from studies is critical to maintain an emotional balance. But if you are not careful, it is all too easy to get pulled away by your roommate or other dorm-mates at times when you really should be getting some much needed work done.

Remember there is always something social to do and someone you know will be doing it – that simply means you can skip specific social opportunities when work demands prevail as there will always be another fun thing to do tomorrow.

Generally speaking, I love attending college sporting events. The atmosphere can be electric and the games certainly provide an opportunity for students to get a little rowdy with friends.

In sum total they can serve as a much needed-alternative to the stress of papers and tests.

But unfortunately, the college athletic model has succumbed to the same pressure that drives the professional sports world: money. The quest for the almighty dollar can lead to shameful behaviors, greed being what it is, and to situations like the recent one involving the Memphis men’s basketball program.

At the same time, the Memphis situation reveals the perverse world of college athletics, one where the two people most responsible for a problem, the student-athlete and the coach, somehow manage to earn greater sums after the incident, while the people least responsible, the player’s teammates, become victims of the greedy system.

Using an Improper Player

Under the current model, college coaches recruit gifted players, many who would not academically qualify for admission if not for their athletic talents. Even the best schools today adjust their admission standards so as to be able to compete in the financially lucrative world of college athletics.

The recent Memphis situation involved the immensely talented Derek Rose (in what amounts to the biggest sham going, Rose is not actually named as the culprit), a young man who had failed to reach the minimal ACT score for college eligibility during his first three efforts. Given that a college scholarship was on the line and a new professional basketball policy that prevented teams from drafting players directly out of high school, Mr. Rose apparently engaged a surrogate student to take and pass the SAT test.

As but one sign that the coach recruiting Derek Rose might think something was amiss, Rose lived in Chicago. But the passing SAT score was obtained in Detroit, some 283 miles from Rose’s home city.

That did not deter John Calipari from signing the marginal student. Thus, for the second time in Coach John Calipari’s career he took a team to college basketball’s biggest stage, the Final Four, using an ineligible player.

In both cases, the issues were revealed after the fact, and as a result the governing body of college athletics, the NCAA, expunged the team performances from the record books. In the case of Memphis, the team’s 38 wins were forfeited and the Tigers name removed from being a final four participant.

Rich Get Richer

While the school and the other players who were part of the team have seen their performance vacated, Rose and Calipari have simply shrugged their shoulders and moved on to mounds of cash. Rose of course became a first round pick of the NBA after his one tainted season at Memphis. The rookie earned a little more than $5 million in his first season with the Chicago Bulls.

Meanwhile Calipari has managed to secure a brand new position in Lexington where he will coach another legendary basketball program, the Kentucky Wildcats. His salary comes in just under that of Rose, in the four-million dollar a year range.

A few outside Kentucky have asked a rather simple question: was Calipari in a position to know better? One would think the answer was yes, that a prudent person would have had significant doubts about how Rose managed to pass his exam.

But the money involved in high-profile college athletics tends to make some coaches hesitate. In this case, Calipari did more than hesitate, he ignored the obvious.

In essence, it would also seem the NCAA felt likewise. Why else would it eventually rule that Memphis had to vacate its entire season including their Final Four Appearance?

But in yet another head-scratcher, a sign of all that is wrong, the folks who hired Calipari at Kentucky continue to stand by their choice despite the developments at Memphis. They insist that Calipari was not responsible for the issues related to Rose.

Indirectly, they also are conveniently ignoring that Calipari is now the only college coach in history to have two Final Four teams stripped of their accomplishments by the NCAA.

A Model Governed by Money

As with all legal cases that have huge financial ramifications, the ruling is being appealed by Memphis. Pending that appeal, Calipari has indicated he will not discuss the issue.

But he will start coaching at Kentucky irrespective of that appeal. That certainly has the folks at Kentucky hoping that what “happened in Memphis will stay in Memphis.” But as one more sign as to the flaws in the current model, consider the incentives, above and beyond the $4 million base salary, that Kentucky has placed in the Calipari contract:

• Reaching the NCAA Sweet Sixteen ($100,000).
• Reaching the Final Four ($175,000).
• Winning the NCAA title ($375,000).

College sports and money – how the model must change.

Students searching for the right college have a variety of sources available that help provide advice during the selection process. In recent years, a good many individuals have come to rely upon the U.S. News and World Report for its well-known college ratings guide.

However, incidents involving questionable reporting by the University of Southern California and the suggestion by folks at Clemson that the U.S. News data can be manipulated have raised concerns with the accuracy of the information provided by this publication.

So it is not too surprising to see the launch of a new site, WhatWillTheyLearn.com, which seeks to provide some additional information about the college landscape.

Interesting Focus

Touted as a guide to provide insight that other rankings and college guides fail to address, WhatWillTheyLearn attempts to determine the schools that “are making sure their students learn what they need to know.” Suggesting that most colleges and universities are using a do-it-yourself curriculum approach, a process leading to graduates “with a thin and patchy education,” the free website is designed to help parents and students determine which “colleges are preparing their graduates to succeed.”

To determine which universities are making sure their students learn what they need to know, institutions are rated on seven key areas of knowledge.

Former Harvard Dean Harry Lewis represents the public face of the site. He notes that the requirements that colleges impose, though specifically designed to make sure students receive a well-rounded education, are actually very misleading.

Lewis notes: these requirements “often simply call for one course in the humanities, one course in social science, and so on.” Unfortunately, according to Lewis, “On some campuses, it doesn’t matter at all what courses are chosen, as long as they are in the right categories. Other schools limit the courses so that they meet some special criteria, but there is little sense of how each individual course relates to the others.”

Lewis is not pleased with this development and goes on to add, “This is deplorable … at its best, general education is about the unity of knowledge, not about distributed knowledge. Not about spreading courses around, but about making connections between different ideas. Not about the freedom to combine random ingredients, but about joining an ancient lineage of the learned and wise. And it has a goal, too: producing an enlightened, self-reliant citizenry, pluralistic and diverse but united by democratic values.”

As for one very specific example of the hodge podge nature of college curricula on college campuses, Lewis touts the studies that reveal many “college graduates are ignorant of the basic principles on which our government runs.” According to Lewis, it is easy to understand why “most cannot identify the purpose of the First Amendment, what Reconstruction was, or the historical context of the Voting Rights Act.

“The vast majority of our colleges have made a course on the broad themes of U.S. history or government optional. This is especially dangerous in America, where nothing holds us together except our democratic principles.”

Grading System Used

WhatWillTheyLearn focuses on a couple of pieces of information often provided in other catalogs including how much schools will be charging and how many of their students earn a degree. But the site also provides information on what a college will expect graduates to study outside their majors.

Essentially, to determine the state of a respective school’s general education program, WhatWillTheyLearn examines whether or not a school requires seven key subjects: English composition, literature, foreign language, U.S. government or history, economics, mathematics, and science. These are subjects, according to the website, that have become “mere options on far too many campuses.”

To provide a rating for a school, WhatWillTheyLearn looks at very specific course elements. For example, in Composition, the expectation is an introductory college writing class focusing on grammar, style, clarity, and argument. For Literature, the expectation is a course featuring a broad comprehensive literature survey and cannot be simply “narrow, single-author, or esoteric courses.” In the area of Foreign Language, there is a demand for demonstrated “competency at the intermediate level, defined as at least three semesters of college-level study in any foreign language.”

For U.S. Government or History, the expectation is a “survey course in either U.S. government or history, with enough chronological and topical breadth to expose students to the sweep of American history and institutions” while “narrow, niche courses do not count for the requirement, nor do courses that only focus on a narrow chronological period or a specific state or region.” In the field of Economics, the requirement is an introductory course covering basic economic principles in micro- or macroeconomics and to be valid it must be taught by faculty from the economics or business departments.

In Mathematics, the requirement is for a college-level course (advanced algebra, trigonometry, calculus, computer programming, statistics/probability, or mathematical reasoning at or above the intermediate level). And in the Natural or Physical Science field, the expectation is a college-level course in “astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics, or environmental science, preferably with a laboratory component” (and must be taught by faculty from within the school’s science department).

Using these criteria, a school is assigned a grade based on how many of these seven subjects students are required to complete while earning their diploma (A: 6-7 core subjects required, B: 4-5 core subjects required, C: 3 core subjects required, D: 2 core subjects required, and F: 0-1 core subjects required).

Liberal Arts Proponent

Some may see the site as having a specific bias as it is sponsored by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), an independent, non-profit organization that was launched in 1995. According to their website, ACTA is “committed to academic freedom, excellence, and accountability at America’s colleges and universities” and to ensuring “that the next generation receives a philosophically rich, high-quality college education at an affordable price.”

That said, it must be noted that ACTA is a huge supporter of the liberal arts education model. Yet it is interesting to see a proposed model that does not demand a full liberal arts approach, just a more focused curriculum in the general education courses.

Since one can never have too much information, we suggest students check to see how the schools they are considering stack up on this new site. Again, this is not your U.S. News and World Report version (it was astonishing to see Bowdoin College receive an F). Just be forewarned, the site is still in the early stages with only 125 or so schools rated.

It was with a great deal of disappointment that we read the recent Tracy Jan post at the Boston Globe. With colleges cutting services and programs in the midst of an economic meltdown of epic proportions, Jan decided to do a little investigative reporting regarding a rather touchy subject.

In “Strapped Colleges Keep Leaders in Luxury,” Jan examines the current housing arrangements of a number of Boston area college presidents. The descriptors she uses to describe the residences certainly contrasted vividly with the non-stop news of employee layoffs, program cuts and tuition increases.

Opulence Reigns Supreme

Jan refers to MIT president Susan Hockfield’s home as a “stone mansion,” a luxurious beauty with wonderful views of the Charles River and its nonstop parade of sailboats moving up and down the waterway.

In the case of Northeastern president Joseph Aoun, it was a mammoth “five-story brick town house” featuring 9,000-square-feet and 7.5 bathrooms. It too had a location to die for, sitting just across the street from Boston Common.

Jan notes that these two leaders are not alone in their good fortune, that their “counterparts at other private colleges reside in luxury as well, many on centuries-old estates surrounded by well-tended gardens and lawns cared for by loyal staffs.”

But it was interesting to note the response of the schools when Jan sought to visit some of these residences. Only Wellesley president Kim Bottomly was willing to allow a Globe reporter and photographer to get an inside glimpse of one of these palatial homes (Jan notes Bottomly’s bedroom overlooking Lake Waban and speaks of at least two servants at the president’s disposal).

Jan is nothing short of realistic when she speaks of an opulence that stands in stark contrast to the current mood on campuses.

The “homes, many provided by universities as part of their presidents’ compensation, are the ultimate perk in this college-rich region, but one that increasingly appears to represent a bygone era.

“While the houses often serve an important ceremonial role and it is questionable how much money could be saved by their elimination, the very mention of them has elicited low-level grumbling on campuses and anxiety among university officials over the Globe’s request to tour them.”

Not a Simple Issue

Jan is right. It is truly debatable as to what savings might be available but the contrast with the current situation of others who work on campus is reminiscent of the blindness of those firms on Wall Street, especially those awarding bonuses just after being given a government bailout.

And the fact that most declined to allow the homes to be viewed added to the feelings that college leaders were out of touch regarding this issue. In fact, the answers used reeked of amazing ambivalence. According to Jan, school spokespeople indicated the presidents at MIT and Harvard simply were “not around” while their counterparts at Tufts and Boston University “should be afforded a measure of privacy.”

Those same spokespeople also attempted to put a positive spin on what others would categorize as a tad excessive, insisting that the homes served as a space for entertaining luminaries, hosting visiting dignitaries and wealthy donors, and even welcome students and neighbors.

Given this amazing perk, it is easy to see why so many have suggested that “presidents could take a pay cut to reflect the free housing they’re receiving.” Certainly, given the current college fiscal environment, one might expect schools to take a look at the cost basis for these buildings and the salaries of college presidents.

As tuition soars, in many cases beyond the means of the average student, more and more reporters will be placing pressure on schools to examine what might be deemed excesses. If schools are to handle that pressure, they will need to think twice about limiting access.

It sends the wrong message and only reinforces a view that colleges remain ambivalent to the cost concerns of the average student.

It seems that nary a day goes by without yet another study supporting alcohol consumption as long as it is done in moderation. This time the study is by the Spanish, involves beer and the study group is women.

Some will say, forget those calcium supplements and head on down to the pub. But as with all those studies related to wine, it seems the positive elements come from something other than the alcohol.

For the beer study it was deemed that the plant hormones in the beer may well be the critical element.

Somehow we think that aspect may be overlooked by the college party crowd.

As high school students contemplate college and their choice of major, they would do well to consider some of the current buzz about the future of higher education. Many experts are questioning the failure of these institutions to adapt to a changing society.

Last November, Kent Pitman, was one of those folks raising some concerns. In “College: An Overpriced Monopoly” Pitman offered some excellent points as to why the current system may well be outdated.

More importantly, he offered some suggestions for the next generation of students, ideas that reinforce the growth of the online education model even as he suggested the eventual demise of the traditional on-campus, four-year program.

Too Much About the Sheepskin?

The first interesting Pitman assertion is that colleges today are selling degrees to students. But he is not talking solely about those diploma mills that provide a worthless sheepskin for a few dollars.

No, Pitman is suggesting that all colleges are guilty of this endeavor. The only difference is that the established schools ask for a significant commitment from the student before providing that diploma: four years, 120 hours of coursework and tens of thousands of dollars.

Pitman notes that in theory, during those four years students master certain skills and gain the requisite knowledge necessary to be successful in their field and future career. But what has come to matter far more is something other than the knowledge gained.

Instead, all of society has come to support the notion that it is the degree that matters, that without it your future will be far more limited, your earnings far lower, and your chance at a long successful life almost nonexistent.

At the same time, as Pitman notes, we are seeing a very extraordinary development. In what is considered an incredible opportunity for the public at large, “MIT has made its online courseware of about 1800 courses available online for free.” Several other highly-thought of institutions have followed suit.

Now everyone has free access to the curriculum of some of our nation’s finest schools. Learners with an Internet connection have been given the chance to develop significant competencies without so much as shelling out a dollar.

But there is one thing missing. Completing the MIT courses (or those of another school) at home leaves you without the critical component valued by society, a degree.

Pitman insists that this “is a cue that something is amiss.” Looking deeper, Pitman has this to say about the move by MIT: “At the same time as it (MIT) offers knowledge to many, it seems to me to also say, ‘we’re secure in our understanding that our value is in our name, and we’re keeping that just as scarce as it was before, even if the understanding we offer is made ubiquitously available.’

“Of course, they might be saying that the lectures just aren’t good enough to get across the course material and that the real value of their program is in the ability to ask questions interactively. But I somehow doubt that. I think it’s about the brand.”

The Purpose of College

While it may be easy to knock the current structure, there is one thing that must be made clear. Society has come to value the bachelor degree credential so much (right or wrong) that aspiring workers must play the game if they are to have an opportunity in today’s challenging job market.

At the same time, one might ask, what ultimately is the purpose of attending college? Is it solely to earn that sheepskin or is it about a series of life experiences that helps one develop as a person? Should it be all that and more?

Here Pitman speaks bluntly: “The first goal of college must be to get a proper basis for getting started with a job, and preferably a career.” Yet he goes further: “anything beyond that is great, but is not a basic educational requirement.”

Therefore, while it may be nice to be able to set four years of one’s life aside to “really think and grow in ways that don’t even relate to work,” that perhaps has become just too costly for a large number of American families. Today students need credentials; they do not necessarily need the peripheral experiences associated with college.

The key element is that students must first carefully consider how much they are willing to expend to earn the credential. But at the same time, students must determine for themselves what experiences are essential to preparing them for that career of choice.

Pitman notes: “I think the solution is to get more serious about packaging the education part in a way that doesn’t force you to bundle in all the extras.

“Yes, it will be sad for some people to miss out on all the extras. But it will be sadder still if you hold rigidly to the elitist line that college must be all or nothing. Because that kind of statement is spoken by someone who’s used to getting the all, not the nothing.”

The Future of Higher Education

Pitman insists that higher education must change its format moving forward, that the acquisition of knowledge and skills has to become the thing that matters. If he is right, then the time has come for us to determine a way to figure out how to measure whether or not a student has acquired that intellectual background.

But the vast majority of schools are not currently seeking such a path. Instead, according to Pitman, most colleges today “seem focused on selling a particular type of hand-holding at a premium price rather than on maximizing the amount of learning per dollar.”

In contrast, the future will belong to those schools that can deliver their product at a price students can afford to pay.

Add to that notion a rather different development, the notion of a very different, 21st century working world. Whereas once upon a time a single four-year period of education might prepare a person for a lifetime of work, the general consensus today is that future jobs will last only a few years.

With people potentially changing careers several times, the idea of attending school once in one’s younger years seemingly will have to give way to a pattern that features frequent returns for further schooling. That will also mean the development of additional credential forms, a format other than the traditional bachelor’s and master’s degree program, to distinguish this move towards life-long learning.

Online Education Flourishing

Given the developments noted by Pitman it is easy to see why online education has become the choice for so many students. First, it eliminates those bundled extras, focusing instead on the learning. There is no costs for room and board and no athletic fees.

Second, while professors design courses and hold students accountable, there is no hand-holding. Credit comes from demonstrated mastery of the curricula, not some time sitting in a classroom. Students progress at their own pace and do their coursework at a time and place that makes sense for them as individuals.

Lastly, online education is far more attuned to the needs of those with multiple interests and responsibilities. If new credentials are to be earned, most workers are not able to simply stop working to attend classes. Family and work demands are not conducive to on-campus classes or four-year commitments.

Meanwhile, one would think that other models would soon emerge that provide similar flexibility. Such models would need to be constructed with input from a number of different constituent groups: students, business leaders, government officials and college administrators.

Collectively, these groups must create new models that address some very valid Pitman points, particularly the need for new methods of measuring the attainment of knowledge and skills. Most importantly, those measures must lay to rest the basic premise that a four-year bachelor’s degree is somehow the primary yardstick.

Meanwhile, future high school students will likely face some difficult decisions as new forms emerge that seek to compete with the current models. According to Pitman (and others), the current situation is nothing but a monopoly, an overpriced one at that.

Unfortunately, current structures are likely to remain resistant to change unless students begin voting with their feet. If students were to begin to heavily opt for schools that are more in line with the 21st century, perhaps the impetus would be in place for traditional college programs to evolve accordingly.

But if students continue to buy into the current format (such as they currently do) then we can expect very little in the way of changes from higher education.

Now that I am blogging regularly I have become a news junkie. I am always on the prowl for interesting ideas to write about, so the computer and the Internet are now my life.

I bop from Google Top Stories to the BBC to the Boston Globe, links from each taking me on sometime endless journeys. It is a process that has me much more aware of the big issues facing our country as well as some sense of what is happening around the world.

Like this BBC news flash: Paula Abdul Quits American Idol.

Confused World

Yes, it is a strange, no make it confused world we live in. One where there seems to be no definition as to the term real news.

It was a couple of weeks back, I guess, when I was surfing, this time reviewing Google Trends for story ideas. I was surprised to see a name again and again, one I was unfamiliar with.

Erin Andrews.

The name came up about a dozen times. First Erin Andrews. Then Erin Andrews, ESPN. Then Aaron Andrews (yea, the trends include those people who can’t spell and I guess there are a lot of them).

Then Erin Andrews Peephole Video. Ouch.

Suddenly I knew what was happening. I just had no idea who Erin Andrews was.

But of course that is the beauty of the Internet. Very soon I did know who she was and why she was all over the Google Trends page.

And before I was done, the newshound had spent 30 plus minutes on a worthless tid bit that somehow passed for news in certain sectors.

BBC Latest Headlines, Not Google Trends

Which brings me back to Paula Abdul Quits American Idol: number nine today on the BBC latest headlines.

It was a list that started strong:

Defiant Iran President Takes Oath

Freed American Reporters Return Home to US

But soon turned to:

Zambia Reporter in ‘Porn’ Trial

Ancient Spiders Yield 3D Secrets

And the real biggie:

Paula Abdul Quits American Idol

They of course represent three separate categories: some real news followed by a story or two with the proverbial hook to try to draw a reader (porn trial, spiders) to yes, the ones featured on Google Trends (Ms. Abdul). Got to have the stories that match the hot search terms or you won’t get Google hits.

You have to try and grab those readers that did not know there is an ongoing crisis going on in Iran or that we had some captive reporters that had finally been reunited with their loved ones.

For some, today was a big day.

Yes indeed, a very big day.

It seems that Paula Abdul Quit American Idol.

We see where a New York woman has taken the extraordinary step of suing the college where she earned her bachelor’s degree. Trina Thompson, 27, recently filed a lawsuit against Monroe College seeking to recover the $70,000 she spent on tuition.

Thompson was awarded a degree last April in information technology. She is suing the school based on her failure to attain employment in her field of study, insisting that the college’s Office of Career Advancement did not provide her with the leads and career advice the school had promised.

According to her mother, Thompson is “very angry at her current situation.” Indeed, being without work and with student loans now coming due, Thompson finds herself in a real predicament.

Expected Response

Not too surprisingly, Monroe College took strong exception to being sued on such grounds. College spokesman Gary Axelbank used very strong language in responding to the claim, stating that suit was “completely without merit” and did not deserve further consideration.

We suspect that the response of many other school spokespeople would be similar if their school were to be served with such a legal claim. We also have to say that Axelbank is essentially right on legal grounds.

Certainly a college cannot be held liable simply because one of its graduates cannot find employment. Even if the student successfully completed her academic program and was awarded a diploma, a degree is not a job guarantee, certainly not in this job market.

But while Monroe’s response might be expected, it is interesting to note that there are colleges who take this matter to heart. In fact, one small college in Maine, Thomas College, has what it calls its “Thomas Promise.”

Yes, this school stands behind the education it provides and insists that it will help graduates find a job in their profession. And the school backs it up with real dollars.

The Promise

Thomas College is in Waterville, Maine, sharing the town with one of the nation’s top small liberal arts schools, Colby College. For ten years now Thomas has made a special promise to its graduates: a guaranteed job after graduation.

And we are not talking about summer fill in, part-time work. We mean a real job in the student’s chosen field of study.

If a student is unable to find a job by graduation, he or she continues to meet with a college career advisor to find a permanent job. If the student does not find such a job within six months of graduation, then Thomas College will pay the first year of the student’s subsidized federal loans or until they find employment, whichever comes first.

Perhaps even more amazingly, if a graduate finds employment but does not like their chosen profession, he or she may return to Thomas to study tuition-free. The offer includes the costs of up to two additional undergraduate years to take more courses or half of the graduate courses required to complete a Master’s degree program.

The school does set forth two criteria that students must meet to be eligible. You do have to earn at least a 2.75 grade point average and you must, during your undergraduate years at school, do an internship.

Both requirements make sense. You cannot simply skate by, you need to show decent academic progress. And doing an internship just might be one of the most valuable aspects of any college program as it gives students first hand experience working in their chosen field.

Colleges Should Deliver the Goods

The promise represents an amazing commitment but clearly the school works hard on behalf of graduates. Thomas has a placement rate of better than 90% for the ten years of the program. In 2008, in a normal job market year, the school’s placement rate was 96 percent.

Of course, Maine is a bit unusual as only one in three Mainers has a college degree. So, graduates certainly have enormous advantages when it comes to applying for work.

Though the school is the only one we know of making such promise, the steps taken by Thomas are definitely more in line with what one would expect if colleges were to operate within the business sector. Standing behind a product is something we have come to expect especially if that product represents a significant purchase dollar-wise.

Monroe might be okay with its response in a legal sense. And it may be a bit unfair to pass any judgment on the suit; certainly it must be a collaborative effort between the student and the school when it comes to the job search process and we cannot fairly comment on the efforts made by the plaintiff.

But given the cost of a college education, the overall matter deserves serious thought. In fact, we think that it is time that every school stands behind the product it delivers.