That is a little self serving don’t you think? Creative Commons has been lobbying federal and state governments to make it the official license model.  That is reflected in CC public comments on several request for comments.  This is not to put down in any way Creative Commons and the value it has brought to the table and the void it has filled between copyright and public domain, but why mandate a specific license program from a specific organization. Maybe there are other license models or standards that will emerge.  Maybe some government developed or supported content should just be public domain as it has been done long before Creative Commons was formed.   Rather than prescribe a specific license category produced by an independent non-government entity that is not accountable to taxpayers, the government should specify what content is covered and how it may be used and made available.  Suggesting Creative Commons as an example yes, mandating a specific organization’s licensing model, no.

It’s hardly utopian because it is purblind to the one element without which it doesn’t last: discrete and concrete competency statements at every level of education as qualifications for either promotion or credentials.  Not wimpy state standards. Not cut scores on standardized tests.  Certainly not effect size test scores from small samples of volunteer test-takers of the CLA.  Rather, something closer to what Lumina has in mind with the Degree Qualifications Profile, and, in higher education, anyway, with signed student agreements to make the best effort to attain whatever configuration of  competencies an institution or consortium of institutions sets down as qualifications for credentials and acknowledging that if those benchmarks aren’t met, a degree (associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s) will not be awarded.  Such as system is built to last because it will change over time to match the expanding universe of knowledge and skills.  At least students of all stripes, ages, and backgrounds will know what they have learned.  The vision here says nothing about this.

I’d have more faith in “Built to last” if politicians, budget events, standards changes and new fad educational theories didn’t change the approach every year or two.  I don’t see it happening.

Thoughtful piece. Thank you. I would suggest a little greater emphasis on just-in-time and just-as-needed learning that will conform better to tomorrow’s culture.

I don’t “see this vision of a high-functioning educational system as hopelessly utopian,” but more like delusional grandiose platitudes. Knowing my own intellectual limitations, my overly simplistic understanding is that Baum and McPherson are suggesting that “we” (i.e. the government) be overlords of people from birth (“indeed before”) throughout “their” (i.e. the person) life.  Just look at their propositions and suppositions riddled throughout their “innovative blog” commentary as evidence for my indictment.  Good grief, their utterances aren’t even daring yet alone attainable…

Next time, push the envelope outside of your biases and ideologies. Actually, this brings up a good point.  Their “ideas” evidences the retardation of creativity unwittingly developed by long-tenured careers in higher education (insulated from reality). They religiously hold a rigid formula or frame of reference (imposed no doubt by their professors, colleagues, the academic community, and political allies) and are unable to venture outside of their dogmas to investigate alternative means of achieving positive outcomes.

What system are you referring to? 

Damdama Lake is an ideal weekend getaway destination. Damdama Lake is Located at a distance of approximately 50 km to the south east of Delhi and the resorts are across the  Damdama lake. Damdama Lake resorts are a nice place for having fun and adventure Activities. http://neardelhitourpackages.picnicmasti.in/damdamalake.html 

The longer I think about the place of athletics in academia and the more I research the
topic the more complex the issues seem to be. One way I have come to simplify
the situation is to admit to the fact that, as Mr. Bissinger notes, college
athletics is a tiered system.  For state universities the place on the athletic tier and the place on the academic tier are often very compatible and often comes down to money.

So, as an initial way to consider the place of college athletics and football in particular is to follow the money and see where it comes from and where it goes. Consider the admittedly few financially successful schools. Let’s take just two from the Big Ten for example – Michigan and Ohio State. Both have self-sustaining athletic programs driven primarily by revenues associated with football and men’s basketball. Michigan sponsors 13 men’s sports and 14 women’s sports. Ohio State sponsors 17 men’s sports and 18 women’s sports. Clearly proceeds from two sports are enabling a large number of students to attend each university who might otherwise not have the opportunity or interest and perhaps the case can be made that this contributes to the academic reputation of the institution. By this criterion there is little defense for the decision that has been made by the University of Maryland.

This observation does lead to the proposition that the work of a few men is generating
big bucks for the schools and supporting other athletes and that those men are being exploited. For the sake of argument I reject that position. Not only are hose men getting access to a valuable education but, and I’ve not seen this discussed, they are getting specialized training and a chance to develop physical skills that will enable them, if they are talented enough to make a living playing the sport. This is not nearly as true for basketball as it is for football, but does anyone really believe that Tim Tebow was physically ready to play pro ball when he came out of Nease High School? I saw him play his senior year – even superman needed some development and U of Florida provided that chance in a high caliber physical facility under the tutelage of skilled trainers and coaches.

However, I question the model for universities at the next level both in terms of the reputations for athletics and academics .  Let’s consider the University of Central Florida. In terms of student enrollment it is one of the 3 largest universities in the country and it seems to want its athletic program to fit in with schools like Texas and Ohio State. In 2010 44% of its operating income for athletics came from student fees with an additional 6% coming from the university and from FY 2005-2006 through FY 2009-2010 the UCF athletic program received yearly direct support from the state of between $345,000 and $600,000. Despite these subsidies the athletic program had a cumulative deficit of $2.9 million dollars when operating revenues are compared to operating expenses.  UCF supports 6 men’s sports and 8 women’s sports. As we move to a lower tier then it seems that the opportunities for student athletes also diminish although students are being called on to bear more of the cost of the program and in the case of UCF state funds that could otherwise go to the academic budget are being spent on athletics.  If anything I think that this hurts the academic reputation of this type of school.

That is not entirely true. It is true that student-athletes have access to academic staff, advisors and tutors that help them manage their time and help them with readings, paper drafts, etc. However, non-athletes have access to a different pool of departmental and general tutoring services that student-athletes don’t because of their travel and practice schedules. When you take into account the academic negatives associated with sport (missed class for travel, no time in afternoon to meet faculty or TAs,  lack of energy after practice) and add in the fact that a certain percentage of these student-athletes have far lower academic indexes than general student body, I don’t think the academic support provided does much more than level the academic playing field. Even 3.7 gpa pre-med student-athletes struggle because of the burdens of their sport. Student-athlete grad rates (with excpetion of men’s basketball) are impressive despite this academic support.

What seems to be getting lost in the discussion is that schools with both strong academic and football profiles established their academic profiles before the costs for football programs began escalating in response to media hype and the NFL’s hugely successful campaign to become “America’s Sport”.  Schools that have come on the scene later (such as the aforementioned UCF) are too new to have established an entrenched alumni base and so have not fared well at all when trying to get in on the game.  In the past, football prominence may have helped some schools gain national name recognition that in turn may have enhanced their academic profiles, but that hasn’t been the case since the associated costs for coaches and facilities began perniciously draining campus resources that otherwise would have been applied to academic enterprise.  As for operating expense, it is never clear how much of the cost is hidden (salaries for liaisons, release time for faculty who serve on boards, offices for compliance personnel, facilities maintenance, extra attorneys in the legal office, etc).  The increased use of adjunct faculty alone would indicate a lot of resources are being channeled away from instruction for other purposes, one of which just might be big time athletics?