Dec. 20, 2014 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
How can they?
I mean really, how can they with a legislature, a governor and so many conservatives urinating on the public school system.
I mean the colleges right now have to teach the kids what they did not learn in under funded schools.
I am a example. I had the misfortune to go to USD 501 in Topeka. I learned to write in college (never really learned to spell) was published in college history publication, and made the law journal in law school. But, trust me, it was what I learned in college and on my own, not what I learned at any point at 501 (although I did learn to fight in that messed up public school system)
GOSH, IF THEY DID THAT, THERE WOULD BE HARDLY ANY STUDENT ATHLETES AT ANY LEVEL. ISN'T THAT WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT?
They can't raise admission standards ... they have increased tuition to the point they have to rely on foreigners and those on full ride federal government assistance!
And that prevents them from raising standards how?
Has anyone considered that raising addmission standards might actually encourage high school students (and younger maybe) to try harder? I don't think raising a standard is a bad thing - unless you don't like to challenge yourself.
As long as there's still a path to college for students who don't meet the initial standards - even if the path involves a two year stop at a community college - then I don't see raising admission standards as a bad thing. It's far more affordable to find out that you're not college material after two years at a less expensive school.
That said, we still need to concentrate on raising the levels of our k-12 students. That doesn't come cheap, Brownie.
Raise standards a good idea; but Kansas high school students that have graduated from an accredited Kansas high school should be accepted regardless. All Kansans who are taxpayers (and thus the owners of State institutes of higher education) should have the right to at least be given the opportunity to succeed or fail base on their own merit.. It has been proven many times that poor performers at the high school level do much better in a higher educational setting. Also, by setting some arbitrary acceptance standard that disqualifies a Kansas high school graduate, points out that there are serious flaws with what constitutes a successful high school education.
Kansas high school students or any student in Kansas with a G.E.D. should be admitted to KU. Period. I know many kids who performed beatifully at college when they didn't do so well in HS...some from homes that did not encourage education, etc. Stop excluding Kansas kids from KU!
...as of right now, they're not. If you graduated high school in the Kansas City Metro, or anywhere in Kansas, the only thing that's required is that you've taken an ACT or SAT. Not done well on, just taken (so that they know what math/engl classes you have to start in)
"...should have the right to at least be given the opportunity to succeed or fail base on their own merit."
They have that right for 13 years before college. Why should we be dumbing down the university system for those who can't reach a minimum threshold over such a long period of time?
"It has been proven many times that poor performers at the high school level do much better in a higher educational setting."
Um...no. No, it hasn't. In fact, quite the opposite has been proven. Students who consistently do poorly in junior high and high school have a much greater chance of not succeeding in college than those who do well in junior high and high school.
And your "arbitrary acceptance standard" isn't arbitrary at all.
Go crawl back in your hole, blindrabbit. If you can find it.
And yet again, there are many students who don't do well in junior high and high school that excel in college for a myriad of reasons--when we are talking about individuals...kansas kids...statistics and correlations just don't seem to matter since we are talking about individual people, and in this instance we need to recognize that even one can make a difference. There are so many factors that can affect teenagers, that can fade away during the college years...let's not deny our best natural resource, our kids, because we have to have an attitude about who gets an education to make the university look better.
It is difficult to trust a politician, especially Brownback, giving advice to a board of politically appointed, supposedly professional educators.
At this point, anything Brownback says has about as much credibility as a Texas Governor talking about economics.
Any recommendations should come from a respected assembly of proven educators with solid credentials and experience along with a comprehensive study not produced by a political lobbying group.
I guess that rules out anything we currently have available here in Kansas.
The one thing that caught my attention in the recent Republican debate was when Newt talked about implemented Sigma 6 quality standards in government. That is a conversation that needs to be continued.
I am sorry that the media did not think it very important at the time. I commend Newt for mentioning it.
Brownback is a perfect example of what happens when politics and religion are the main influences on decision making.
We had that period in our history. It was called the Dark Ages.
Agreed. But if you never learn about the Dark Ages in school, then its all good.
KU should raise standards. As long as K State, Pitt State, Emporia State, and Fort Hays State do not, then any Kansas high school graduate can go to a Regent's university. Just not KU.
Raise standards, raise tuition, raise expectations, and raise the reputation and quality of KU.
If KU wants higher standards than the other regents schools, it should become a private school. Then it can do whatever it wants. As long as it is funded by the taxes of all Kansans, then it is no better than any other publicly funded school and shall maintain the same standards as the rest of them.
I went to HS in a state with two different tiers of public universities. There was a place for just about every HS graduate, but the lower your grades, the less picky you got to be about where your options were. We all knew the deal going in to HS, so no one felt too sorry for those who didn't work as hard in class if they didn't get their first choice. In such a system, the costs for the students are similar, so your economic status didn't affect your options, but your grades did. As a taxpayer now, the whole thing seems pretty fair to me. I don't care if the smartest KS students cluster at one regent school or another, but I do think we can do a better job of distributing students through the regent system, as some schools are setting record enrollments, while others have plenty of excess capacity.
It seems to me that this is coming out of the playbook written by, "Americans For Prosperity", who believe college is for higher income families.
It sounded like they want to apply Darwin theory to their social reforms.
Not all costs are driven by the state and not all solutions are within the states purview - see:
well i be...don't get ridiculous
If you can't get a 2.0 in high school, you don't deserve to be in college. Real talk
If a student does not go to college, what will they do? We spend very little effort on vocations after high school. If colleges raise admission standards, we had better start thinking about vocational education. BTW, not all intelligent kids want a college education, and we want kids to learn trades. Nothing wrong with sharp auto mechanic.
Not as long as it is a public institution paid for by the taxpayers.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·