One Direction

My younger daughter decided against having a birthday party for her latest birthday and asked instead that I take her to the One Direction concert at Madison Square Garden. I had heard of the group – a very popular English boy band – but really knew nothing about their music. I agreed, however, and then set about getting tickets which had long since gone on sale and were instantly sold out. Fortunately, however, we now have an effective market mechanism that efficiently allows for tickets to be purchased at a fair market price. That mechanism is Stub Hub and I quickly found a pair of very well located first row balcony tickets and purchased them. I was clearly paying for the popularity of the group and the location of the seats…but I still felt this was reasonable since it was instead of a birthday party.

As the event approached, I encountered the first major complication. The University’s NYC alumni holiday party was scheduled the same night as the concert. I always enjoy attending to catch up with the many alums I have known for many years including more than a few of my former students. I wanted to go and also felt I needed to go to the holiday party but what about One Direction and more importantly my relationship with my younger daughter who had talked about little else other than this concert for weeks? One possibility was that my wife could take her instead of me but our marriage works well based on a fair division of responsibilities, which clearly places events like this exclusively in my purview. And besides, I wanted to spend the time with my daughter. I needed to work it out. The solution was at the expense of dinner before the concert. I would go to the holiday party. My younger daughter would wait for me while the party was happening and then we would take a taxi to Madison Square Garden.

We found a taxi very quickly. Actually we found two taxis. The second taxi tried to cut off the first taxi as that taxi was stopping to pick us up. The taxi drivers started arguing—both getting out of their cars—and we were left to look for another taxi which we found within a block. We made it to the Garden just as the warm up act was performing. We got to our seats, I put in my silicone ear plugs and we were both ready. Even with the plugs in, I could hear everything but still felt insulated. After about 30 minutes the warm up act ended, the set was rearranged and shortly thereafter One Direction started performing. And here was the surprise: I enjoyed the performance and enjoyed the music. First of all the staging was very impressive—the lights, the smoke, the flames, the background videos were all visually interesting and effective. The songs had pleasant melodies and the group was not only friendly and charming, but also appreciative of their fan support. They thanked their fans numerous times for making this concert such a wonderful time for them. And from the reaction of the audience, clearly the feeling of a wonderful time was mutual.

I was appreciative as well. First, for the time with my daughter. Second, for her taste in music. And third, that I still have an open enough mind to experience and enjoy what I never thought I would appreciate. I’m glad to still be going in more than one direction.

The $10,000 Degree

I am a huge fan of Consumer Reports and consider them the most objective source of product information available anywhere. Rarely do I ever purchase a product without first checking their evaluation. So when it comes to buying or leasing a car, I look in detail at the ratings of the type of car I am interested in and able to afford. But since I am also a car person, I can’t resist looking at the ratings in general. On a scale of 0-100, there are cars in the 90s, which are top rated, and there are cars in the 30s, which are little more than basic transportation. The cars with the higher ratings often, though not exclusively, are more expensive; the cars with the lower ratings are often, but not exclusively, lower priced. I am tempted to give actual examples but I am certain that Consumer Reports is familiar enough to the Inside Higher Education readership that no specifics are necessary.

A highly ranked car or a poorly ranked car will get you to the same place often at the same time (assuming everyone follows legal speed limits). Likewise, a highly priced car and a low priced car will also get you to the same place at the same time. The same analogy holds for the $10,000 degree and the $30,000 a year tuition charge. Offering a bachelor’s degree for $10,000 is certainly doable and I feel confident that on standardized objective tests, the results could be very similar and possibly identical to higher cost degree programs. But is the product really the same?

What will the $10,000 degree look like? A MOOC tied to recitation sections at another college is one likely alternative. You can get thousands of students into the MOOC and recitation sections could perhaps reach up to a hundred students each. The lead faculty could be a well known expert and a fascinating lecturer. The recitation section could be taught by a person whose qualifications are much less high powered. MOOCs are typically free, at least up to now, so the cost incurred by the credit granting institutions (which may just consist of the recitation leaders’ compensation) could be minimal. Please understand, this is not what I advocate but it is a workable model for a low priced degree.

Large lecture sections provide another alternative for a lower cost degree. Five hundred students in a lecture class certainly moderates the cost equation. But is this the same education that a student receives in a 30 student class? Are the important extras also there? Would there be advisement, counseling, career services, other support services, sports, faculty with sufficient time to meet with students, co-curricular activities, an attractive campus, etc.? Not likely – there is just so much you can do for a very low price.

What is better? The value proposition of a $10,000 degree or the much more personalized education which a $30,000 annual tuition charge is likely to deliver? For some students, it may not matter. Their skill set and their comprehension of the material is such that to a significant degree they can teach themselves. But there are many other students that need guidance and support to succeed. They have the potential to succeed beyond expectations but not without the safety net of individualized attention and support services. As college continues to be the economic ticket to success for so many of our students we need to work to both not lose accessibility while at the same time making sure we meet the diverse and not insubstantial needs of many of our students. As attractive as a $10,000 price tag may be for higher education, it is fairly certain to not meet the needs of many in our society. Think about it; who is likely to gravitate toward this minimal cost degree? Will it be those who don’t have the economic resources to pursue a more enriched education? How will their support service needs be met? And if this minimalist degree doesn’t meet those needs what happens to their chance to succeed?

Cliff time

Notwithstanding the impact of Sandy, I have much to be thankful for, including this year’s very welcome Thanksgiving Day break. But what I am most thankful for is not yet a done deal but rather a new feeling that suggests we will avoid the fiscal cliff. The meeting a week before Thanksgiving between the Congressional leadership and President Obama seemed to end with a sense on all sides that fiscal disaster could be avoided. In my opinion, there is no choice but to do so, but I am a spectator and Congress and the President are the ones who need to make it happen.

What needs to happen is compromise. There need to be revenue increases and there need to be spending cuts, but there is more than one way of accomplishing each of these necessary goals. Tax rates are at the heart of the issue and key to any compromise. The democrats want a tax increase for the wealthy; the Republicans want no increase in tax rates whatsoever. The magic number, where a tax increase will once again be imposed, has been $250,000 but compromise requires not only a different number but also a different solution. There are such solutions readily available and finding them is not by any means rocket science. The solution needs to be crafted through limiting the deductions, exemptions, credits, and favorable tax treatments that are part of the current tax code. By diminishing tax breaks on the very wealthy, we can have the same effect as tax rate increases would have, all without changing the nominal tax rates.

Spending cuts are also part of any compromise and solution but automatic “sequestration” on January 2nd is not the answer. Here too, we can accomplish what is needed while still minimizing the impact on the key safety net legislation which so many of us value so highly. Dismantling Obamacare is not an option. Our citizens deserve a health care safety net; it cannot be bargained away. But not every expenditure needs to be protected or can be protected. Given the magnitude (half a trillion dollars) of the reductions sought, there may not be time between now and January 2nd for all the changes to be identified. Certainly however we need a major reduction in spending identified by the start of 2013.

Being thankful for something that has not yet happened is always a risk. My feeling that a cliff can be avoided may or may not be correct. Hopefully, it is not based on false optimism generated by the return of electricity. The Congressional leaders and the White House need to keep talking and working until the compromise is complete. And this time we need to hold our public officials completely accountable. If a compromise is reached, we need to applaud their efforts. If the country wins by avoiding a fiscal cliff, we all win. And if the compromise doesn’t happen and we are faced with a recession following a weak recovery, here too our public officials must be fully accountable. Voting them out of office is then the only appropriate response.

Rigidity

On Sunday evening, after thirteen days, the electricity came back on.  By the time it returned, my wife, kids, our dog, and I had moved into a neighbor’s den and had adjusted as well as possible.  We consider ourselves to be fortunate that we only lost electricity; Sandy’s impact in this area was devastating and there are many people at the University and in the greater community who have lost homes, cars, furnishings, computers, etc.   I do believe the local utility was not as well prepared as it should have been and I think the multiple investigations that are taking place are thoroughly justified.  There needs to be accountability and there needs to be change; the lessons learned can only serve us well if we are better prepared in the future.

But while the focus is rightly on what the Long Island Power Authority did and did not do, attention should also be paid to rigidities in our system that at key moments can be totally counterproductive.  The ability of public schools to reopen and remain open provides a clear example.  One of the most challenging side effects of Hurricane Sandy was the momentary gasoline shortage.  Deliveries of gas were limited and many gas stations had lost power and were unable to open even though they had gas on hand.  For school districts in this area, the busing of students is a mainstay that most parents rely on.  But what should happen if there is insufficient gas to power the school buses but the schools are ready in all other aspects to open up and continue educating our kids.  The state laws are clear; the schools need to stay closed if the buses are unavailable.  Now think about the situation we were facing— almost half the community had lost power for more than a few days.  Homes were cold; kids were cold; and the novelty of losing electricity had quickly worn off being replaced by a heightened stress level on the part of kids and adults alike.  Most of the schools had power, were warm, had internet access, and were ready to do their part in educating our children.  The environment was welcoming, the senses of normalcy important, the teachers able to educate and be supportive, but we could only take advantage of these benefits if the fleet of buses were fully operative.

 I know that not having buses would place a strain on parents, especially given the shortage of gasoline for private cars as well as school district buses.  I know that our tax money pays for the bus service and this is an important entitlement.  The law as noted above is clear, no buses even in an emergency situation, no school, but does this make sense?  Having school continue or resume quickly, providing warmth and comfort to our kids even without bus service is better than none of the above.  In an exceptional time and at an exceptional moment, our system and our rules and regulations need to be nimble.  The post Sandy review needs to look at more than how well we are doing on the electric and gas front; it also needs to look—across the board—at the policies that guide us in these critical moments.

Teleconferencing

Over the years, I have participated in many telephone interviews of potential candidates for positions at Hofstra as well as for not-for-profit boards that I have participated on. Interviewing candidates in this way has always struck me as second best (but certainly better than not participating). Inevitably you miss much of the back and forth that takes place, you miss some of the reaction of the candidate and that of board members, and you seem somewhat out of sync with what is happening. In between interviews, at those times when there are multiple interviews scheduled, there are also typically multiple conversations of the board members present and here too it is very hard to participate in a meaningful way.

I have also participated in board meeting over the phone and have even participated in a few teleconference board meetings a number years ago. Phone board meetings have the same disjointed feel that interviews have, and the early teleconferencing was often somewhat of a blur with resolution that matched my vision when I’m not wearing glasses. And then there were those cases where the video and audio were not quite synchronized, which is just plain annoying. Or those cases where I needed to go to a special facility on campus to participate.

You can imagine how pleased I was when an academic consortium of provosts that the University belongs to, decided to interview three candidates for the executive director position by teleconferencing. The candidates and the present executive director would be at the home school of the consortium with that provost present, and two additional provosts, including me, would participate by teleconference. Of course, there was the alternative of traveling to Virginia but that would turn three hours worth of interviews into at least a full day away from the office.

Everything I needed was on a laptop on my desk and at the appointed hour of 5:15 I connected. There on the screen was the person being interviewed, the “home” provost and the present executive director, the other provost participating and me. All right in front of me, all crystal clear, and each of the three interviews and the conversations in between and at the end worked as well as if we were all there in person. Going forward, I will certainly make use of this capability much more frequently. And now that I think about it, since I have used “facetime” on an iPhone and iPad a number of times with good success, I don’t know why I was so reluctant in this case to take advantage of the benefits of technology. So much of what we do and especially how we do it has changed and overall the advantages clearly outweigh any disadvantages.

Sandy

It is now Monday morning and we are resuming classes today.  The campus has been very fortunate.  Our loss of power was limited and of short duration and the campus damage was mostly limited to trees with very little other damage.  Long Island’s damage was extensive with reports of 100,000 homes lost and almost 300,000 homes still without power 5 days later.  The devastation on the north shore and south shore of the Island was massive.  Lights are still out at key intersections, gas lines at those few stations that are open are often 100 cars long.  Mass transit is returning but still disrupted and we are now hearing reports of a nor’easter by the middle of this week. Recovery will take a long time.  Adjusting to the return of heat and hot water at home, once it arrives again, will not take a long time. Instantaneous is exactly how long it will take me to adjust and to be thankful for this one important step toward normalcy. For many of my colleagues a return to normalcy, given the significant property devastation, will be much more difficult.

Closing for the week has made sense.  Given everything that members of our community have been through we could not have held classes this week.  Even the commute has become much more difficult and much riskier.  Our president has reached out to all members of the community in an effort to provide and coordinate support for those members of our community with the greatest need.  The outreach is very much needed. And to the credit of the community, we have already had offers of support from all constituencies but more support is needed and coordination is key to having the help available go to those with the greatest need.

We need to make up for the lost time in class and I know we can determine ways to do so effectively so that the learning that should take place in a course does in fact take place.  But there can be no one approach that will meet the needs of all our faculty and all our students and flexibility on all parts is essential.  Some faculty and students (as well as administrators and staff) have lost their homes; some have lost their computers as well as key books and papers; others have no phone or internet access; and with the shortage of gas and the limits of mass transit, some members of our community will not be able to get here.  In some cases, all of the above applies and the hardships are multiple and formidable.

In my role as a school board member, I have already heard from the superintendent that he expects to open schools today after also having been closed for the week.  Many of the kids in our district will be going to school, even though they still have no power at home and their sense of normalcy seems seriously compromised..  Here too we need to be flexible and recognize that many  kids have felt the trauma in their lives that we all work so hard to shield them from.  I know the life lesson is important and so is the message regarding the importance of resuming education ASAP. I fully support the schools reopening quickly  and I am sure that the community feels equally supportive.

In a difficult time, what members of the community do makes all the difference. We can’t waive away the devastation; we can’t just turn the power  on; and we can’t just instantly return to normal.  We can do the best we can to make a positive difference and to cope with adversity. I see more and more instances of members of our community doing what needs to be done and I am thankful for their good work.   And at the end of the day it will be the resilience of people that once again makes the difference (as it has before in so many tragedies around the globe) and allows us to move forward.

Pizza Debate

The Presidential Debate at Hofstra went off without a hitch and more importantly will clearly be a significant moment in terms of who will be the next President of the United States. The questions asked reflected well on the Town Hall participants and the passionate answers given shed more light on complex issues that need resolution sooner than later.

Just as individuals are judged at moments like this by the quality of their questions and answers, so are corporations judged by the quality of their products as well as corporate earnings plus their commitment to being good citizens. By the measure of corporations being good citizens, in my opinion, Pizza Hut, the national pizza chain that offered free pizza for life to anyone asking President Obama and Governor Romney the question of “pepperoni or sausage,” deserves a failing grade. And since the corporation also encouraged a follow up question regarding pizza toppings, an additional failing grade is also in order.

I wasn’t surprised that no one asked the pizza question during the debate since it is clear to everyone that there are critical issues we are confronting as a nation and as citizens of this planet. The time for frivolous questions is long gone. Being able to ask a question at the debate represents an opportunity and it is counterproductive for an important corporation to create temptation to squander that opportunity or turn it into a fiasco. This is not a matter of having a sense of humor; rather it represents using common sense.

Our work as educators involves cultivating and recognizing accomplishments. We applaud student accomplishment and the degrees we award are the cumulative acknowledgement of those accomplishments. If Pizza Hut or any corporation would like to have a contest revolving around a Presidential Debate, let the focus be on the best question asked and recognition for the person who asked that question. This could be done by means of a poll or utilizing a panel of experts. Either way, it would assure even more attention and focus on a critical question and a critical issue. Democracies aren’t strengthened by deliberating between “pepperoni or sausage.” The classic economic tradeoff of guns or butter still applies today while the pizza tradeoff is just irrelevant. Democracies are strengthened by asking fundamental questions, having thoughtful discussions, and dealing with issues that require resolution. My pizza preference by the way is plain pizza, prepared by a business that understands its success is grounded in the success of our country and our ability to utilize the best minds to confront the issues that we have no choice but to confront sooner rather than later.