Colleges still have one issue with racism and they will never solve this problem until administrators grow a spine. Students can accuse a faculty member of racism without the fear of being confronted.

Back in May, a basketball-loving computer science major turned in a failing project in a website programming class. His second semester  project, a site about the Lakers, would not have passed a first semester final exam. The failing project, coupled with mediocre assignments earned the student a "D."

Why I have a D in the class. i dont think that's a fair grade... my project didnt need all that stuff you was doing in the class...

His computer language skills are not greater than his English language skills. The teacher explained the inadequacies of his project. The database-driven web site contained only 6 data records in total.

The student had an assessment of his own. "You racist."

That happened in May. Now, in September, the student wants to return to finish his degree, showing up during the second week to enroll. The Dean explained the faculty member's concern - bad grades lead to charges of racism - was not unique. Together, the Dean and Vice President of Student Affairs conferred. The student would not be allowed to return.

"He doesn't have housing, transportation, or financial aid," she told the faculty member. "We'll deny his request to enroll on that basis."

In other words, we will not educate the student and let him know that charging racism where none exists is unacceptable behavior. And what when he solves his housing, transportation and financial aid issues and finds he is still denied admittance? He will, understandibly, cry "racism."

Oh, I got really mad listening to Alan Chartock at an upstate New York community college lecture. He is a political commentator and a hard-core left wing guy. I'm okay with that. You can vote... politically... for whomever you want and for whatever reason. College kids, those who listen, are likely to soak up whatever drivel Mr. Chartock is selling. He makes no bones about his left-wing world view, including that Obama is "the smartest man" without offering an ounce of evidence. However, economically is a different story. There, the facts must speak for themselves.

He said Obama was lucky as compared to governors like Patterson because the Federal government can "print their own money." This is a lot like saying "jumping out of airplanes without a parachute is not a problem..." The landing might be a bit difficult, but that's another story. I would like to see Mr. Chartock play the game Monopoly with someone who introduces extra cash to the game. Prices will sky rocket.

He also reiterated 2 of Obama's planned promises. First, he said said that Obama is going to "spend and spend and spend until the recession is over" and he stated that "Obama is going to balance the budget." Sane people recognize that these statements are mutually exclusve and the first statement is economically irresponsible. If spending would get us out of a recession, then the overspending during the Bush years surely would have kept the recession from ever happening in the first place. Remeber, a spending orgy, by any other name (i.e. stimulus plan) would smell just as foul.

This recession is nothing more than an economic hangover and the proposed cure is nothing more than another drink. And left-wing talk shows hosts (NPR, of course, means your involuntary tax donations at work) who "drink the kool-aid" are the last to see it coming. But this election wasn't about economics. That said, we bought more than we bargained for.

During the campaign, Barack Obama mentioned Warren Buffet’s support in order to add credibility to anything Obama said economically. Buffet is a gazillionaire, so it employs the "smart money" and “intelligent by association” arguments. Of course, since the election Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway has reported profits are down 77% and the stock lost 25% of its value. With his kite sinking fast, it’s time to consider Buffet more closely.

Obama described some of Buffet’s beliefs in the "Audacity of Hope." There was the following Warren Buffet discussion about the estate tax.

“When you get rid of the estate tax,” he said, “you’re basically handing over command of the country’s resources to people who didn’t earn it. It’s like choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the children of all the winners at the 2000 Games.”

Buffet is afraid the elimination of the death tax would lead to a wealthy aristocracy with the rest of the people poor. Those wealthy people would not have earned it. Buffet and Obama want success based on merit. Sounds good, but passing the sound test doesn’t mean it will pass the smell test.

First of all, putting the money in the hands of politicians to spend as they please is – from a moral point of view – even more wrong that allowing it to pass to the heirs. People are far more inefficient with someone else’s money than they are with their own, regardless of how they came to acquire it. The next generation would at least have the self interest of preserving their “goose that lays a golden egg” rather than a politician who is serving goose dinner to his friends and supporters.

Secondly, the money belongs to the old guy. By the sweat of his brow he worked and by the strength of his spine he took risks. The rewards are his and not the government. Warren Buffet can pass all his money to the government if he pleases, but that is no reason to force everyone else to do the same.

Thirdly, the children of said rich man did earn something. The little girl who got up after her father left for the morning commute and only saw him when she was ready for bed in the evening paid dues so that the family fortune could grow. The successful business owner arrives before the first worker and stays after the last one leaves. The price of making all that money is a certain loneliness that comes wondering where you fit into your father's life.

Fourthly, with the death tax in place, the government would be discouraging economic growth. A successful businessman in his late 50’s or early 60’s would have no incentive to keep growing the business or start a new one.

If there was limited passing on of wealth - or I should say the potential to pass on wealth - then the successful businessman who dreamt of “hitting a home run” would never have invested in a new idea. He would have been an involved grandfather. He would sit on a beach and drink martinis all day. Economic activity in the nation would have been reduced to busier golf courses.

Lastly and most importantly, there is the notion of "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations." The premise is simple. From the generation that moved from working class to upper class, it will take only 3 generations to return to working class. The first generation moves to the cultured city and enjoys all the trappings of a big-city executive. The second generation inherits both the illusion of grandeur and the resume that lacks merit-based achievement. They won’t understand the risk, reward or the value of a dollar. When the money is all gone, the third generation returns to the working class roots.

Rather than the Olympic analogy, Warren Buffet should think of kite-flying. The first generation may get the kite off the ground and hand the kite to succeeding generations, but those generations need to be able to fly a kite. Sure, inheriting a kite that is already flying is easier than starting from scratch, but the government should not go around snipping the tether lines of every kite in the interest of being fair. Even someone who inherits a kite needs to figure out which way the wind blows. The free market corrects the allocation of inheritances as swiftly and certainly as an “invisible breeze” separates the kite flyers from the rope holders.

There is a reason so many politicians can’t solve the financial crisis. They are not smart enough and for that matter neither is the publicly schooled public who elected them. However, there is a way to solve both problems at the same time. Privatize education.

In the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, they wrote a list of ways to bring about communism. Their “Top 10” list included “Free education for all children in public schools” as Number 10. It is time to teach the Communist Manifesto and stop living it. Imagine the investment capital flooding into the government coffers when the sale takes place and again every year when the corporation is taxed on its profits.

School districts could sell or lease schools to private educational upstarts. Competition is the key ingredient in defining and determining quality. Centralized planning has proven a disaster though it is doubtful that high school students – most born after the collapse of the Soviet Union- would know. It is individuals making personal decisions en masse that move the market in the direction it needs to go.

Let’s do the math. A 400-student elementary school would generate $4 million in annual sales. How many people would quickly invest in a business that instantly began with million dollar sales? Finding investors would be simple. Keeping clients would be a bit more difficult. That is the essence of competition.

Schools would have to find their niche. The math school, the technology school, the special needs school. Every school would do what it took to be successful and school success would be defined by the number of students who return satisfied that last year’s education was worthwhile. Sure, schools would fail, but unlike government-run schools they would be allowed to fail gracefully and swiftly. They would not linger in failure from one generation to the next.

Profit is the sterling-silver word caked in mud as if profit from a child is heathen, dirty and untouchable. Profit motivates hard work and customer service. This would eliminate the half-day parent-teacher conferences where contractual language bargained to unions allow every parent to be inconvenienced so that one teacher will still get to leave at 3 PM every day of the year. Profit motivation would add those days back to teaching and learning.

The opposite of profit-driven schools is not non-profit schools but non-efficient schools. Spending other people’s money rather than their own, the schools bungle through projects that are more whim than cost-effective, customer-driven, value-added programs.

Regardless of what the local teacher union president says in the newspaper, a guaranteed income and job security for life never made anyone a better teacher. Quality comes from incentive. If President-elect Obama can choose Sidwell Friends school because it is the “right fit” for his children, why can he not see that it is competition that helped create the right fit?

It is time to allow students and parents to make their own choice about their right fit. And their decision should be "Private."

Concerned about elementary education? Consider reading (but not buying) "The Dot" by Peter Reynolds. Published in 2003, it won the Irma S and James H Black Honor for Excellence in Children's Literature Award.

This book was read at back-to-school night at Rosendale Elementary by the newly hired principal. The principal likes the book because of a single line of text. When the teacher finds a student at the end of class who has yet to start the project the teacher suggests "make a mark and see what happens."

The child makes the mark and the teacher accepts the work. The teacher - and the book - celebrates mediocrity by framing in gold a half-hearted splotch of ink... Once the teacher set such a low bar, the child thinks "I've got talent" and proceeds to create large quantities of mediocrity.

It's all part of the dumbing down of quality and a feel-good educational system that rewards the smallest of effort. The child ends up with walls full of framed art... each "painting" just a different color and size dot of ink. To say that the teacher elevated the dot to be equal to a quality painting is not accurate. The "dot" replaced any quality painting. The bar of quality was so low that changing the size and color of the dot represented a "new and improved painting." The child did not go on to explore other shapes or the combination of shapes.

The yellow dot is just a splotch of ink. A few more simple strokes would have made a sunrise. A feeling of excitment that greets a new day or a new talent. A few more splotches of white could have been clouds and a blob of blue spread over the bootom of the page could have represented water. The picture, a sunset over water, could have represented a calm, relaxed feeling one feels watching the setting sun - a feeling of well deserved relaxation after a long day's work. With just a few simple strokes and splotches, the child could have learned that every painting - however simple - has meaning. The ability to add effort and change the meaning would also be a profound message.

Instead of taking a splotch and teaching the child how to earn well-deserved pride in one's work, the child goes on to make dozens of paintings and each one has the same message: celebrate mediocrity.

Need a reason to support the abolition of public schools? Then you need to know about New York State Board of Regents Rule 19.6. It states "Direct solicitation of charitable donations from children in the public schools on school property during regular school hours shall not be permitted. The commissioner shall develop and disseminate guidelines on the interpretation of this rule."

It's a simple rule that requires teachers to teach and not solicit donations from students for charitable organizations. It might make a child feel uncomfortable. Besides, as a public entity, the school should be using time wisely and not for non-educational purposes. It's easy to agree with these ideas/. However, in order to implement the rule, the school PTO falls within this guideline. Suddenly, the school cannot work toward its own benefit.

Private schools are not subjected to such limitations. This means they can raise money for their PTOs, but more importantly they can teach community service. They can demonstrate how children can take part in something greater than themselves.

The concern, of course, is students asking part in fund-raising for things they do not wish to support. Rather than being a concern for the existance of private schools, the solution is for all schools to be private. One school could fund for Jewish causes, another for Muslim and a third for the Salvation Army. The free market - extended to schools - is all about choice.  If we are defined by what we can't do instead of what we actually did do, then we are failing.

After serving on and even chairing some dysfunctional search committees for new college faculty, I jumped at the chance to see how my local school district selected a new middle school principal. For starters, they allowed one community representative on the selection committee. After serving, I can't see how that policy can continue.

I arrived on Day 1 at the requested time to find 6 pre-selected candidates and only 20 minutes to peruse their resumes. I was 1 of 8 on this committee, though this committee was only half the full committee. Candidates were asked similar questions by another group of stakeholders.

As a parent and a taxpayer, I'm a stakeholder, but the committee largely consisted of people who would call the principal boss. Only in education can you hire your own boss.

Three candidates were worth mentioning, though not for the same reasons. The "outsider" gave an example of how he worked. A state report came in duplicate and he asked the principal what the school did with the reports. "We put one on the shelf over there and give the other to the department chairs," the principal said.

The candidate, working as the Assistant Principal, did as he was told. When he brought the report to the department chairs he asked what they did with it. "We put it on the shelf over there," one of the chairs answered, pointing to a shelf with stacked reports.

The candidate, let's call him “the Natural,” took the report, reviewed it, downloaded data into Excel and massaged the data until he found some meaningful information about student success. He sought among the faculty a willing ear – someone who said “It takes me 3 days to do what you can do in a few mouse clicks” - and suddenly he had “buy in.” One department after another, when presented with a simple way to personally analyze their programs strengths and weaknesses, did so.

The contrast of the Natural with the insiders could not have been more stark. The “young insider” eventually got the job, despite the only question she had for the group: “Will my past year count toward tenure if I take the promotion?” The “old insider” had a pat answer for every situation. “We'll get together and talk and create some structures to handle it.” After 10 years in the district, no one had taken her aside and explained a “track record” is more than a list of job titles. And no one really knows what the word “structures” means.

Despite the strikeout performance, the “old insider” was brought back with the others for a second interview. It turns out – she admitted in the interview – she got her present job because she knew the former Superintendent. Plus, she'd had 10 years without a job change because she failed every interview both internally and outside the district. But, all agreed, she's a “nice person.”

The vetting process ended with a mass meeting of the 16 member search committee. The Natural (and that's what the Superintendent called him) was dismissed when the Director of Human Resources (a former gym teacher turned athletic director turned HR guy) said “Is there anyone we can dismiss right away so we won't have to talk about him?”

A few partisans spoke out he didn't know the culture and routine. Despite being a natural, he was an unknown. Within the first 5 minutes, both the Natural and the other Outsider were bloodied up. As the only outsider in the group, I couldn't possibly speak up enough to counter their predetermined outcome. It was going to be an insider.

As a taxpayer, I was offended. I don't want a gym teacher turned athletic director turned Human Resource Manager orchestrating a search process. Since cronyism put him in his position, he wouldn't think twice about letting the “it's not what you know, but who you know” attitude continue.

If only someone had created some “structures” to the decision-making process. A fair discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate might have led to the “natural selection.”

With our college just off warning status from Middle States, it certainly is good to know that management is not slacking off on their duty to manage the college affairs. The Dean asked for course syllabi in advance of the semester so that she could review them. Unfortunately, she is in the position simply because she does not question the tactics of her good friend and superior, the College Provost. His confusion over time at work vs. cost effective time management leds his Dean down the slippery slope of spending inordinate amounts of time promoting backward causes.

The Dean wants the course outlines in a word processing document. Nearly ten years into a new decade, we are finally solidifying our last decade. Instead of spending time encouraging faculty to put their syllabi on the web, she wants the document in an old-style format so she can "print them out." Course syllabi today contain hyperlinks, photos and videos. Course syllabi should be available on the web for prospective students to peruse. Let them get to know the course. I include a video of myself, working at home on my computer, buying the textbook from amazon.com, so that students can see how easy it is to save money.

The Dean could take the html files and save them on a hard drive. They are available for viewing within a web browser, which is no different than saving them on a hard drive and opening them with a word processor. In this day and age of information storage and retrieval, we need management that will question the old processes. We don't need syllabi in binders high on shelves getting dust. We need a management team that understands the format of the game has changed. The format is html.

Old movies depict the con man of the 1800's as a traveling medicine man with a miracle cure for all that ails you. He takes your money, gives you the worthless goods and is long gone to the next town before you realize you’ve been duped.

The phony doctor left town while he could because he knew if he stayed too long, people would become wise to his fraudulent behavior and they’d run him out of town at the least... and maybe worse. A century later we find the phony doctor of today not only never leaves town, but he also gets tenure - the right to stay and con citizens forever.

The con men are not just the teachers, but rather the administrators hell-bent on putting bulleted lists on their resume. Enrollment needs to increase. Everyone needs college. The door is open. We take the tired poor, the wretched refuse, which in today’s climate is celebrated for its diversity. Preparation is not a prerequisite. We’ll take your money and offer you elementary-level instruction until you are smart enough to take our college level courses.

In short, we are the Wizard of Oz. We do not give the scarecrow a brain. We give him a degree and he’s so proud of the degree he feels smarter... but feeling smarter is not the same as being smarter.

What passes for college-level is shocking. High school algebra can earn you college credit. Balancing a checkbook is an integral part of a college level business math course. The problem is the definition of college-level. As one former community college vice president told me “by definition, if we teach it, then it’s college level.”

Administrators leave the subject matter, specific content, student testing and course assessment all in the hands of the instructor. Who says the teacher did a fine job and that students received a quality education? The teacher.

A newly-minted interim dean asked me about doing a hybrid course. She called and offered me 2 courses - each 7 1/2 weeks long, running back to back.

From a student perspective, instead of 3 hours every Thursday for 15 weeks to get 3 credits, they will put in the same classroom hours and receive 6 credits. The interim dean - who never held academic rank - told me that the others (i.e. other teachers) were doing it, so did I think I could do it, too?

You have to be a teacher for many years to understand expectations in the classroom. The interim dean was recruited because previous deans who had an academic background kept running into quality issues among the faculty.

The President and Provost have an agenda and academic quality is not up for discussion. Demanding quality in the classroom won't make life easier for the student. Instead, we are having a 2-for-1 sale. Increased revenue for the college. Students receive their degree twice as fast. Faculty teach the same hours and make more money. Everybody's a winner.

It’s all part of a resume-enhancing exercise for the president. Increased enrollment. Met needs of a diverse community by offering alternative format courses. Thought outside the box.

Here's the rub. SUNY established guidelines for a 3-credit course. Typically, a 3-credit course will involve 3 hours of face-to-face instruction along with 6 hours of self-directed student work, including homework, reading the textbook and related tasks.

Are students prepared to devote 9 hours per week to a class? Not likely. When you double the workload speed, you should expect 18 hours a week for a 3-credit class. It’s true that most students do not put in 9 hours a week per course. I was one such student, but my grades accurately reflected my efforts as I balanced a part time job and college courses.

Today, it seems, with Dr. Ed U’s medicine shop firmly anchored in the community, no customer is too unprepared and no amount of effort is too little. It’s easy to explain why. 3 hours a week becomes the maximum. A grade of “C” becomes the minimum.

When people drank the worthless tonic a hundred years ago and did not get cured, they suddenly got a little smarter. Fool me once, shame on me. With so many Scarecrows out there, the pursuit of a degree trumps the receiving of a brain. And like the Scarecrow, they walk away prouder, but not smarter.

In a recent online discussion group, a member asked about surveys to assess student experience with online or hybrid courses. I offered a related question.

How do you determine that the "student learning" in an online course is at the same level of a "traditional" (on campus) course? I pointed out that the SUNY Learning Network discourages professors from offering online exams in favor of "points for postings."

My question was then forwarded from a faculty member of a nearby Community College to the SUNY Learning Network “guru” who was a pilot of the SLN program and one of it’s “great leaders.”

The “expert” said, in part:

“... We stopped collecting the data after it became clear to us that year after year students were equally satisfied with online and classroom courses, and there were no significant differences in student perceptions of learning, course completion rates, or final grades received...

I find it troubling that student perception of learning has been substituted for actual learning. How could a student - presumably with limited knowledge of the subject matter – assess that enough knowledge had been assimilated? You might as well ask a preschooler whether or not there are any words he does not know? Undoubtedly, he will not know of “any words he does not know.”

A professor of economics I know offered the following discussion thread with the direction that students should post a minimum of 6 postings.

Should educational quality be allowed to differ based on family income? Should vouchers be allowed to supplement a tuition payment at a private school, with the result that some children's quality of education would differ from other children's?

I cite typical student responses verbatim:

• I agree with you. I believe that education should not be based on the family income

• I agree with you. I believe that education should not be based on the family income. Family income have no reference to get a good education.

• All children should have same opportunity to take quality education.

Clearly these students had the opportunity to “take quality education” but that is not what they chose. This professor’s online classes are always full... and full of A’s.

An economics professor understands the laws of economics by minimizing effort and maximizing returns. With little or no work on the part of the professor, he receives his pay. The students, too, maximize their transcript while minimizing the late night cramming and stress. Truly economics in action.

Everybody’s a winner... unless we look at the laws of supply and demand a little closer. By flooding the market with college graduates we will (supply curve shifts to the right) reduce the value of a college degree. Making matters worse, when employers realize the college degree does not correlate with intelligence, common sense, or logical decision-making, the emphasis on hiring a college graduate (demand curve shifts to the left) will decrease, further eroding the value of a college education.

A college degree generated from an online “paper mill” isn't worth the paper it's printed on... even if it's not printed on paper. How do I know? Because there is a difference between a college degree and a college education... and I happen to have both.