FSM's Second Annual `America's Most Dangerous College Courses'

It's been two years since I've begun investigating insipid, scary and yes, downright dangerous college courses - sometimes funded by tax dollars - and unfortunately, little has changed. Arrogant professors, protected by tenure and faint-hearted administrators, use their classrooms to spread their twisted views of America and its allies. Sometimes, entire courses are focused on anti-American views; other times, professors take time from non-political classes, such as math or Kinesiology, to complain about George Bush, the war on terrorism, social justice, and whatever it is that happens to bother them at the time of their rants. Consequently, students are not being taught properly and universities and colleges are robbing their students of the well-rounded educations they are paying for and deserve.

As was the case with the first installment of this list in 2006, courses for this list are based on a variety of criteria:

* The course must focus on the issue or issues detailed in the syllabus or class description. That is, a math course with a professor who may rail against America will not be considered.

* The course must also express an agenda far beyond any honest or accurate academic cause. That is, professors who teach courses that lie, manipulate facts, propagandize students, or express a dishonest and fact-deficient extremist view on the class topic, will be considered.

* Courses that may be required as part of a "core" curriculum will also be considered if they offer nothing more than to stroke the ego of the professor's fascination with silly topics that offer little academic value to students.

These courses represent the worst seminars offered by a university or college in 2007-2008, and should be avoided if you appreciate honest and rational debate - and if you wish to steer clear of anti-American rhetoric. Courses that rob students of facts, and professors who stroke their egos and indoctrinate students, are dangerous. Now, on to the list:

10. Collegiate Sexualities at Occidental College.

9. Body Politics: Power, Pain, and Pleasure at Williams College.

8. Issues Dividing America at Columbia University.

7. Whiteness and Multiculturalism at Ithaca College.

6. Truth, Lies, Politics, and Policy at Portland State University.

5. Introduction to Labor Studies at the University of Washington.

4. Speaking Out at Bucknell College.

3. Imperialism in American History at the University of California, Irvine.

2. Movements in Social Justice at Occidental College.

1. Islam in Global Contexts at DePaul University.

And now, the analysis:

10. "Collegiate Sexualities" at Occidental College.

It's hard to believe that this course for freshmen at Occidental College - my alma mater - is one that focuses on the "hook up" culture of college students. Offering not an iota of academic value, the course aims to debate such titillating questions as, "Do hook-ups require drunkenness?", "What are college students' sexual identities or dis- identifications?" and "What are the political ramifications of identifying as gay, lesbian, straight, bi, queer, asexual, spectral, or something else?"

For those of you not up to date on the extremist politically correct language on sexuality, "spectral" apparently "suggest[s] that homosexuality or lesbianism are threatening specters feared by the heterosexual mainstream" (I had to look up this word.) When was the last time someone you know identified his sexuality as "spectral"? I'm willing to wager not recently, if at all, leading one to believe that this course's aim is to brainwash freshman into thinking heterosexuals in the mainstream fear homosexuality (read: we're all homophobes).

Much more here





A Texas version of Head Start does no good either

But it's a great honeypot for educrats

A groundbreaking effort to prepare Texas preschoolers for kindergarten has eaten up millions of taxpayer dollars but has yet to deliver on the investment, according to a new report released by the Texas Education Agency.

The findings spotlight a lack of budget transparency, little accountability and a lot of administrative overhead in the Texas Early Education Model, or TEEM, a state program run out of the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. The program "operates in a netherworld of state finance" far removed from TEA oversight, according to the report by Edvance Research Inc., a San Antonio consulting firm.

State officials have pumped more than $45 million into the program since 2003. Yet the report found no proof that most children fared better in TEEM than in conventional preschool programs. "I thought those were pretty damning conclusions," said Samuel Meisels, a critic who runs the Erikson Institute, a Chicago graduate school that specializes in early-childhood development.

TEEM's leader defended the program, saying the consultant's report paints an inaccurate picture. And TEA officials said they're trying to improve the program but stressed that its performance has met the agency's expectations.

Last year, just under 27,000 children in 33 Texas communities participated in TEEM, which is expected to become the state's blueprint for all preschools. More than 100 classrooms in Dallas, Irving, Garland, Lancaster and Little Elm participate. TEEM is different from conventional pre-kindergarten programs. The model depends on the state's support for structured lesson plans and coaching for teachers at private day-care centers and federal Head Start programs. It also operates in some public school district preschools. It also places certified public school teachers in private day-care centers as mentors for less-educated workers.

The consultant's report drew a misleading portrait of an otherwise landmark effort, said Dr. Susan Landry, a UT researcher who oversees the program as director of the Texas State Center for Early Childhood Development. Dr. Landry's operation bills itself as the early-childhood arm of the Texas Education Agency, which regulates public schools. TEA spent about $374,000 on the consultant's report. She said the report treated TEEM like a program with deep roots and deep pockets instead of a start-up with limited money and manpower. "They [Edvance consultants] had a certain charge from TEA, and they did their jobs," she said. "But there were other things that could have been looked at."

TEEM grew out of state lawmakers' attempts to add structure and value to preschool, an area of education known for finger painting and afternoon naps. More states have turned to preschool as a way to close achievement gaps between wealthy and poor children, which is harder to do when kids are older. Dr. Meisels, who has tracked the Texas Early Education Model, says it's a mistake to put an unproven preschool program on the fast track.... The report pointed out other problems, including:

* Dr. Landry's group reported expenses in vague detail.
•
* About 40 percent of the state program's budget appeared to go to salaries, benefits, travel and other expenses.

* The program's system of collecting cost and student records was somewhat incomplete and lacked uniformity.

TEA officials said they're taking steps to achieve more detailed accounting and more closely oversee TEEM. But they emphasized that Dr. Landry's group has met the agency's expectations. "I think people see a huge amount of money flowing to the state center, and they have the impression that the state center is keeping that money, and they really are not," said Gina Day, deputy associate commissioner at TEA. "They're running pretty lean, frankly." ....

The Texas Early Education Model primarily targets poor children in certain areas, but supporters want to see the program extended to every corner of the state. Dr. Landry's group also developed a voluntary preschool ratings system to grade private and public preschools on how well they groom kids for kindergarten. No one else has attempted to level the playing field of preschools, Dr. Landry said. "To be at the point we're at with that small of an investment is quite amazing," she said. "Programs across the country don't do this kind of evaluation."

Source




Australian universities get tough on bad English

This is a sensible measure but how long will it be before we hear shrieks of "discrimination" and "racism"?

INTERNATIONAL students, Aborigines and newly arrived migrants face tougher English language requirements to get into Victorian universities after institutions complained they were not performing as well as local students. The Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre has allowed universities to raise the entrance scores required for students who have completed English as a second language instead of English in their final year of school.

Secondary school students who have been in an English-speaking country less than seven years, are here studying from another country or Aborigines whose first language is not English are entitled to study ESL, which was previously worth the same marks as English. But under the changes to start in 2009, ESL students will have to get five points higher than students studying English to meet university entrance requirements.

The move came as Swinburne University decided to test the English language skills of incoming international and domestic students. Those who perform badly will be required to undertake extra English classes as part of their undergraduate degree. The University of Melbourne, the Australian Maritime College, Monash, La Trobe and Deakin universities have indicated they will increase ESL scores for course selection, making it five points higher than the minimum score needed for English. But RMIT University, Victoria University and the University of Ballarat have decided against the increase for 2009 entry and Swinburne University is waiting for the results of its new English testing project before deciding whether to raise ESL scores.

Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre director Elaine Wenn told the HES VTAC did a review of VCE English and ESL scores after requests from universities. She said institutions had done their own research and discovered ESL students often could not compete with local students who had studied English. "They found that students entering university with ESL were not doing as well, some even had a higher rate of failure than the students who had the same study scores in English," Ms Wenn said.

She said the VTAC study compared five years worth of VCE English and ESL results with general aptitude tests taken by the students. The research found there was a difference in the way the English and ESL students performed on aptitude tests. "It was telling us that a higher score was required for ESL to get the same score in English," Ms Wenn said. "We are just trying to be fair," La Trobe University admissions and selection chairman Peter Stacey said. He said the aim was to establish equivalent standards.

Monash University demographer Bob Birrell backed the move, saying there was strong anecdotal evidence international students with poor English skills enrolled in Australian high schools as a way of getting into university.

Source