Every Penn State student can remember taking their sexual-assault prevention modules during those last few days of summer, perhaps paying attention to some of the harrowing statistics, perhaps letting it play in the background while playing video games or talking with friends. Regardless, everyone knows sexual assault on college campuses is a problem, and it has only been increasing. If we want to end campus sexual assault, we can’t keep doing the same thing. New methods and ideologies are being implemented in order to make college campuses safer for everyone. One potential method is to teach consent much earlier in student’s lives, starting at preschool.

Wait, hold up. Does a three-year-old even know what consent means?

No, they definitely don’t. But researchers aren’t acting like kids do. In early education, researchers say educators should try to teach concepts that surround consent, such as personal space, body, and touching. At this stage, it is important to instill in children emotional intelligence and values such as empathy and respect, as well foster the ability to express their emotions. In elementary school, students should be taught the concept of boundaries and asking for permission to do things, such as borrow a friend’s toy. Children should be taught the importance of body language, and if someone says you can hug them, if they seem uncomfortable you should respect their personal space and not engage in the act of touching (“Consent at Every Age”).

In middle school, young people are very impressionable, which is why this is one of the most important times to teach students about consent. Because children are forming their self-image, it is vital that we give them the tools to ask for help when they see something wrong or someone is doing harm to them. One of the most important steps to take is to tell students that it is okay to ask questions, and that someone makes them uncomfortable, they need to tell a trusted adult. This is also the time to “start defining what sexual harassment is” and teach children that “nobody gets to touch you without with your permission- and you should be respectful of others’ boundaries as well” (“Consent at Every Age”). Even though it may seem awkward, it is also important to mention romantic relationships with these young students and emphasize that “if two partners are going to agree to do something, they have to agree to do it together” (“Consent at Every Age”).

High school is one of the most crucial times to instill values of consent, because it is one of the last times for many students that they will be exposed to sex education. It is important that the idea of consent isn’t just geared towards straight boys, everyone should think “deeply about how to engage with boundaries in relationships in an ethical, caring manner.” Students should also be taught how alcohol affects consent (“Consent at Every Age”). Overall, by teaching the ideology of consent at a younger age, it will help students have a firmer grasp of what consent truly is and how it should be applied in their lives.

In the meantime, however, things can still be done at the collegiate level to reduce sexual assault levels. Actions can be taken such as teaching those at risk how to protect themselves and instructing bystanders how they can prevent can sexual assault.

Psychology professor Charlene Senn at the University ofWindsorhas spent ten years developing the Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA) Sexual Assault Resistance Education Program, which is designed specifically for first-year female college students. “Study results show that attending women were 46 per cent less likely to experience rape and 63 per cent less likely to experience to sexual assault in the next year” (Senn). What makes EAAA different from other forms of sexual assault prevention education is that it provides “greater sexual knowledge and confidence and values [that] makes coercion visible earlier…If a woman sees coercion earlier, then her options for leaving or resisting are much greater.” The program also undermines the message that women should “limit where they go and when, how they dress and how they behave-to stay safe… The program makes it clear that there is no risk in any situation unless there is a man present willing to engage in coercive behavior” (Senn).

 

Another ideology that is becoming prevalent on college campuses is “bystander intervention,” which “place the burden on fellow students to intervene or get involved when they see a possibly dangerous scenario” (Senn). Bystander intervention is especially effective because “they treat students as allies who are empowered to help other students” (Fox). At Penn State bystander intervention is taught to all students that want to join Greek life. Students are taught the three d’s – direct, distract, and delegate. When one directs, they step in (directly) to intervene. When one distracts, they should do something like spill their drink or ask the victim to help them with something, in order to “discontinue the abusive behavior.”  In delegation, if one doesn’t feel comfortable enough stepping in themselves, they should ask a bouncer or the host of the party to intervene in the situation (“The 3 D’s of Bystander Intervention”).

While implementing these sorts of sexual-prevention programs may seem like a hassle, they are a vital component of reducing sexual assaults on college campuses. Instead of pushing these uncomfortable issues under the rug, we need to put these difficult topics at the forefront of our conversations if we want to decrease campus sexual assault.

 

Sources

“About the Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA) Sexual Assault Resistance Education Program – A.k.a. Flip the Script™.” Sexual Assault Resistance Education Centre, sarecentre.org/.

“Consent at Every Age.” Harvard Graduate School of Education, www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/18/12/consent-every-age.

Fox, Abbey. “The Four Ds of Bystander Intervention: How To Make The World A Better Place.” Thought Catalog, Thought Catalog, 25 July 2013, thoughtcatalog.com/abbey-fox/2013/07/the-four-ds-of-bystander-intervention-how-to-make-the-world-a-better-place/.

Neuman, Scott. “Violence In Schools: How Big A Problem Is It?” NPR, NPR, 16 Mar. 2012, www.npr.org/2012/03/16/148758783/violence-in-schools-how-big-a-problem-is-it.

Newman, Amie. “Preventing Sexual Assault on College Campuses: What Works?” Our Bodies Ourselves, 20 Feb. 2019, www.ourbodiesourselves.org/2017/09/preventing-sexual-assault-on-college-campuses/.

Senn, Charlene. “Rape at Universities: One Program Is Proven to Reduce It.” The Conversation, The Conversation, 30 Oct. 2018, theconversation.com/rape-at-universities-one-program-is-proven-to-reduce-it-82636.

“The 3 D’s of Bystander Intervention.” Anti-Violence Initiatives, oavi.tcnj.edu/prevention/educational-trainings/green-dot/the-3-ds-of-bystander-intervention/.

In the media, we are constantly bombarded with pro-STEM rhetoric. “We need more kids studying STEM,” “STEM education is vital for America’s future.” But in his opinion piece, “Why America’s Obsession With STEM Education is Dangerous”, Fareed Zakaria argues that these pro-STEM initiatives are harmful to innovative thinking. I firmly disagree with Zakaria, however, because the U.S. is indeed behind in STEM education and has a lot to learn from other nations, and as a nation we have a vested economic interest in increasing the number of individuals with STEM degrees.

The United States is currently behind in math and science scores compared with other nations, with a ranking of 38^thin math and 24^thin science out of 71 countries (DeSilver).  Even Americans are betting against themselves, with 46% of those surveyed at the American Association for the Advancement of Science declaring that U.S. K-12 STEM education is “below average” (DeSilver).  IS the United States really faring that bad in STEM? American companies top the charts in the number of patents created, and American scientists publish more papers than scientists from other nations (Harrington). Concerningly, however, “not nearly enough students are graduating with degrees in STEM to keep pace with the rest of the world,” with only 16% of undergrad students receiving STEM degrees in 2013 (Harrington).

It is in our nation’s economic interest to promote STEM education. “According to Forbes 70% of organizations cite ‘capability gaps’ as one of their top five challenges…According to Fortune magazine, there are currently 607,708 [unfilled] computing jobs alone nationwide.” (Hager). If we want to fill these jobs, we need to have an educational system that teaches student’s the necessary skills to have them.

But maybe it’s not necessarily the content of curriculum that’s lacking in the U.S. education system, but its intensity. On a survey of International students studying in the U.S., 2/3 of foreign exchange students “believe U.S. high school students spend less time on school work than their peers do back home” (Loveless). Furthermore, 66.4% of exchange students say U.S. classes are “much easier” than their classes in their home country. This statistic is on the rise, from 55.9% in 2001 to 66.4% in 2016.

Furthermore, what American students value is oftentimes different than what students from other nations value, perhaps hindering student’s motivation for academics. In the 2016 Brookings study, 15.8% of exchange students in the United States claimed mathematics is “much less important to friends in the U.S. compared to friends back home.” In contrast, “nearly two-thirds of foreign exchange students see American teens are valuing success at sports ‘much more’ than teens in the international students’ home countries” (Loveless).

But American students aren’t necessarily kidding themselves that they are going to be professional athletes when they grow up. “About 40% of college freshman intend to major in STEM fields…but by graduation, only 16% get degrees in those fields” (Harrington). I don’t think “science geek” or “math nerd” stereotypes are what is holding back STEM education. It’s that our K-12 system is inadequately preparing students for the rigor that involves studying STEM at the collegiate level.

Currently, students in Asian countries rank the highest in math and science test scores. What makes Asian educational systems distinct from American educational systems is that students in Asian countries are all held to the same high standards, and the students that aren’t meeting those standards receive extra help in order to get to those standards. Students take tests to evaluate their weaknesses in the first grade so teachers can bring struggling students to the same levels as their peers. Some students even come in to school early or on weekends to catch up (Tucker). I’m not saying that we should start having weekend school, but by changing our nation’s ideology that everyone can achieve would go a long way in improving STEM achievement in schools.

Fareed Zakaria argues in his article our current-pro STEM educational fever is “dangerous.” He states that “Asian educational systems…are oriented around memorization and test-taking” and “Americans should be careful before they try to mimic [them]…It has it’s strengths, but it’s not conducive to…creativity” (Zakaria). Why Zakaria’s claims may hold some merit, the ideology we don’t have anything to learn from the Asian educational system is harmful as well.

These STEM education efforts have also helped numerous young people that are too often forgotten by society: rural students. The Benedum Foundation specifically is working with large corporations such as Chevron to bring high-quality STEM education to schools in rural America. By bringing new STEM curriculums and hands-on activities to rural students, the Foundation is hoping to inspire “students to embrace their natural inquisitiveness and stay interested in science throughout their educational careers” (“the New Science of Rural Education”). These efforts are preparing children for the modern workforce, and give them numerous opportunities they otherwise may not have had.

It is easy to say our nation is overhyped on STEM education, however, when we examine its importance to our nation’s economy and workforce, it really cannot be hyped enough. If we want America to continue to be the driving force in innovation for the decades to come, we need to ensure we have a work force with the skills to meet the challenges of our modern era.

Sources

DeSilver, Drew. “U.S. Academic Achievement Lags That of Many Other Countries.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 15 Feb. 2017, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/.

Hager, Samantha. “STEM Education: Where It Stands and Why It Is Crucial to the Future of America.” Hacker Noon, Hacker Noon, 12 July 2017, hackernoon.com/stem-education-where-it-stands-and-why-it-is-crucial-to-the-future-of-america-5175e14ba0b4.

Harrington, Rebecca. “There’s One Big Problem That’s Causing the US to Fall behind in Math and Science.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 4 Jan. 2016, www.businessinsider.com/americans-lag-behind-in-science-2015-12.

Loveless, Tom. “2017 Brown Center Report on American Education: Survey of Foreign Exchange Students.” Brookings.edu, The Brookings Institution, 22 Mar. 2017, www.brookings.edu/research/2017-brown-center-report-part-ii-survey-of-foreign-exchange-students/.

“The New Science of Rural Education.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/chevron-stem-education/the-science-of-rural-education/207/.

Tucker, Marc. “These Asian Countries Are Winning the Education Game.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 1 Mar. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/us-asia-education-differences/471564/.

Zakaria, Fareed. “Why America’s Obsession with STEM Education Is Dangerous.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 26 Mar. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-stem-wont-make-us-successful/2015/03/26/5f4604f2-d2a5-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html?utm_term=.ed81149e99ce.

 

The other day as I was casually strolling through Michael’s during spring break, I saw this display:

Something about this merchandise selection has struck me. How polarized has our American political society become that we feel the need to assign political affiliations to our pets? And this evidence of polarization seriously begs the question: how should the educational system broach the subject of politics? Should politics be completely kept out of the classroom? Or are we losing out on an opportunity to teach our young citizens how to discuss their viewpoints in a civil manner?

“Political socialization” is “the process by which individuals develop political values and beliefs” (“Political Socialization: Lesson Overview” ). Friends and culture influence one’s political values, but family values are overall the best predictor in how one will vote. The most formative years in one’s political socialization occurs between the ages of 14 and 24, right when young Americans are in high school and perhaps college (Neundorf).

Many argue that if the subject of politics is broached in the classroom, it should not be until the student is eighteen years or older, because it is not until this age students are mature enough to have such discussions maturely. Penn State’s Rhetoric and Civic Life (RCL) class encourages students to think critically about civic issues and share their insights with others. I personally really enjoy RCL, because it is a forum I can discuss civic issues with my peers in an environment in which I feel my opinions are respected and valued. I acknowledge my capacity to understand the world and sympathize with my peers is much greater now than it was in high school. Not all young people get the opportunity to take RCL, however, or even go to college at all. By not including how to discuss civic issues within the high school curriculum, we are preventing young people that don’t attend college from learning to how to sympathize and understand their fellow voters.

So, if high school isn’t teaching kids how to discuss political issues, who is? Unfortunately, the media. According to a Pew Research study, 35% of those between 18 and 35 got their information about the 2016 presidential campaign through social media (Curry). But is that so awful? I mean, social media is such a big part of our lives, is it so bad its serving as a political information source?

Considering this is the “political discourse” that occurs on social media, we have all the reason in the world to be concerned! If we don’t teach students in the K-12 system how to think critically about politics and issues of policy (notice I am not saying what to think), young people will continue to form their political opinions based on the extremely polarized viewpoints displayed in social media.

Many educators fear broaching the topic of politics of the classroom because they don’t want students to argue or disagree with each other. But disagreements and debate is the cornerstone of American politics! Now, students don’t understand that disagreement can lead to the fostering of better solutions. Rather, the only type of debate many Americans know is during the presidential election and “twitter fights” on social media. Political discussion is perceived as the jobs of “politicians” rather than everyday Americans, which is a hinderance to political efficacy.

But how should teachers include political discussion in the classroom? Diane E. Hess and Paula McAvoy actually wrote a book based on years of research to tell teachers just how to broach the “touchy subjects” in the classroom. Overall, Hess and McAvoy advise teachers to encourage deliberation over “open issues” rather than “closed issues.” For example, a “closed issue” is whether global warming is occurring, since the scientific consensus is that it is. An “open issue” is what policy the United States should put in place to combat global warming (Drummond).

Another troubling question is whether teachers should make their political viewpoints known. Hess and McAvoy said that it is largely up to the judgement of the teacher; through their study they observed excellent educators that shared and did not share their views. The researchers emphasize, however, that one of the most harmful things educators can do is use “partisan humor.”  “It’s these offhanded comments that are sort of biting and mean-spirited about the political climate that I think is problematic. Because it creates a climate not of fairness, but it creates a kind of insider/outsider feeling. If you get the humor that I just said or, ‘Do you agree with me that that politician’s a big idiot?’ That invites the most divisive parts of the partisan climate into the classroom”(Drummond). For productive discussions to occur, educators must create a “culture of fairness” in which students feel their viewpoints are respected.Furthermore, the students in the study actually enjoyed engaging in deliberation with their classmates, and were actually more interested in hearing differing viewpoints than those similar to their own (Drummond)!

Students want to engage in deliberation with each other over important issues to better understand each other. By tiptoeing around “touchy issues” in the K-12 educational system, we are preventing young people from having productive discussions about how we should approach our nation’s issues. If we want to change our current culture of political polarization, it starts with teaching students how to talk to each other.

 

Sources

Curry, Kevin. “More and More People Get Their News via Social Media. Is That Good or Bad?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 30 Sept. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/30/more-and-more-people-get-their-news-via-social-media-is-that-good-or-bad/?utm_term=.e19d414d5dfa.

Drummond, Steve. “Politics In The Classroom: How Much Is Too Much?” NPR, NPR, 6 Aug. 2015, www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/08/06/415498760/the-role-of-politics-in-the-classroom.

 

“Political Socialization: Lesson Overview.” Khan Academy, Khan Academy, www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/american-political-beliefs-and-behaviors/political-socialization/a/lesson-summary-political-socialization.

 

Neundorf, Anja, and Kaat Smets. “Political Socialization and the Making of Citizens.” Oxford Handbooks, Oxford University Press, 15 June 2017, www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935307.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935307-e-98.

As scheduling season approaches at Penn State, one of the most prevalent questions among students is what general education course (lovingly known as “gen-eds”) are the easiest. Those in technical fields, such as IST and engineering, oftentimes complain on having to take these courses, claiming they are a waste of time that detracts from their ability to concentrate on their technical courses.   Many students believe that “general education classes are obstacles that the institution has (for reasons not clear to the students) placed in students’ way, slowing their progress toward what they have come to college to study” (Gossard). While some students think that general education requirements are extreme, general education is an important part of the college experience because these courses allow college freshman to explore major options, they allow students to study interests outside their career, and they make students more well-rounded.

General education is especially important for students who have not yet declared their major. “20 to 50 percent of students enter college as ‘undecided’ and 75%… of students change their major at least once before graduation” (Freedman). Many students don’t know what they want to study because of lack of experience. General education gives young students a wide array of experience to see what subjects they enjoy the most. Without this opportunity for exploration, many students would be stuck in majors that they are actually not passionate about. This allows people to optimize their degrees, and choose majors that are best fitted to them.

General education also allows students to explore their interests that aren’t necessarily directly related to their major. For example, my roommate is studying industrial energy, but after taking a general education Economics class, has decided to minor in Economics as well. Once students graduate college, their ability to expand their knowledge outside their chosen career is limited. Likely the only time one has to learn more as an adult is limited to books or television. General education courses, however allow students to learn about a topic from the unique frame of reference of their professor and discuss these topics with their peers.

The idea of general education is also valuable because it ensures those with a college degree are intellectually well-rounded. The leaders of our nation, whether that be in science or politics, cannot have a one dimensional mindset. Engineers need to have knowledge of ethics when developing products such as autonomous vehicles to ensure that technology is used for good, not evil. Politicians need to have knowledge about science so they know what policy initiatives to push for, such as green energy. Every occupation is cross-disciplinary, and higher education should reflect that.

Many argue, however, that college is about specialization, not generalization. This argument claims general education should be covered by the K-12 system. Since a college degree is so expensive students should not be forced to study subjects that don’t directly involve their major. On average, one college credit costs students upwards of 500 dollars (Kirkham). At universities such as Penn State where about 45 of college credits are general education, this means students pay 22500 for courses that might not significantly improve their quality of education.

General education is also a sort of tug and war between breadth of knowledge and depth of knowledge. Mostly, general education emphasizes breadth of knowledge, as it aims to expand student’s mindsets beyond their chosen field of study. This breadth of knowledge, however, sacrifices depth of knowledge, which in many cases is more valuable. We can’t live in a society where everyone is a “jack of all trades.” Everyone needs their “niche of knowledge. So, as a society, how can we reconcile these two values? A new type of general education, integrative learning, is revolutionizing general education.

“Integrative learning” classes are designed to encompass several different general education areas in one class, such as technology and art or English and history. This integrative learning is designed to allow students to see connections between different branches of study. Penn State claims integrative learning allows student to “identify connections and ideas for a meaningful tomorrow” (“Office of General Education”).

Some college, such as Northern Illinois, have totally revamped their general education program so students can pursue different “thematic pathways”, such as social justice or health and wellness. Other colleges are allowing students to design and answer a question with their general education courses. At Connecticut College, during sophomore year students create a question with their adviser and take a five different courses in order to answer this question (Berreett).

Integrative learning doesn’t emphasize content memorization like general education oftentimes does. Rather, it emphasizes developing skills such as critical thinking. Integrative learning allows students to truly explore their passions in a meaningful, cross-disciplinary manner.

These sorts of general education programs are valuable because they allow students to truly explore their passions, which is the argument that so many people make in why we should keep general education. The reality is, however, that many students are focused on taking the easiest general education course as possible, without taking their passions into account. If students could create a “knowledge goal” for themselves with general education, it would allow them to develop cross-disciplinary skills while also increasing their depth of knowledge.

Sources

Berreett, Dan. “General Education Gets an ‘Integrative Learning’ Makeover.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 8 Aug. 2016, www.chronicle.com/article/General-Education-Gets-an/237384.

Freedman, Liz. “The Developmental Disconnect in Choosing a Major: Why Institutions Should Prohibit Choice until Second Year.” The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal, dus.psu.edu/mentor/2013/06/disconnect-choosing-major/.

 

Gossard, Blake. “College General Education Requirements Are Broken.” Medium.com, Medium, 21 Jan. 2018, medium.com/@BlakeGossard/college-general-education-requirements-are-broken-76c8a0bd470b.

 

Kirkham, Elyssa. “Study: Here’s the Real Cost Per Credit Hour Students Have to Pay.” Student Loan Hero, Student Loan Hero, 27 Feb. 2018, studentloanhero.com/featured/cost-per-credit-hour-study/.

 

“Office for General Education .” Office for General Education, gened.psu.edu/.

 

 

I recently rushed Phi Sigma Rho, an engineering sorority, at Penn State. Therefore, I am biased in favor of Greek life. Although the pledging process is very time consuming, I love my new sisters and overall I am having a great time (I am actually waiting to meet one of my sisters for lunch as I am writing this blog post!). Greek life as a whole, however, at Penn State and nationally, has many issues, such as hazing, binge-drinking, and sexual assault. An article in the Times even calls for the abolition of Greek life.  Despite these risks, however, Greek life is valuable because it serves the community, gives its members a sense of community, and even helps lead to a higher GPA than students that aren’t in Greek life.

Greek organizations provide services to the community and raise money for philanthropies. According to the National Panhellenic Council, in the 2013-2014 year sororities “from across the nation raised over $5.7 million for philanthropies and reported nearly 1 million hours of community service.” Better yet,  “fraternity men in The North American Interfraternity Conference raised $20.7 million for philanthropies and completed 3.8 million hours of community service” in the 2013-2014 year.“The Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon (“THON”) is currently the largest student-run philanthropy in the world” and donates its proceeds to the Four Diamonds Fun (“THON”). It was started by the Interfraternity Council at Penn State in 1973. Since its inception, THON has raised over 100 million dollars, and is a quintessential part of the Penn State experience.

Those who are involved in Greek life aren’t solely focused on socializing, academics are also important. Overall, the average GPA of those who are involved in Greek life are higher than those who aren’t (Jacobs). Many times, fraternities and sororities have mandatory study hours in order to have a high chapter GPA. In my sorority, Phi Sigma Rho, we have a scholarship chair that reserves study rooms for the sisters and ensures everyone is maintaining a high GPA. Many Greek life organizations such as Phi Sigma Rho are major-specific, so its members can ask for advice and help from older members as well as their peers about classes.

Most importantly, Greek life gives a sense of community to its participants. College can be extremely stressful, and Greek life provides a loyal group of friends with similar values and interests. While walking around campus, attending class, or going to the dining hall, I see one of my sisters at least once a day. Just seeing familiar faces improves my day, and gives me a sense of belonging.

Greek life also gives students opportunities to try out different leadership roles and learn teamworking skills. Greek organizations have several leadership positions such as president, treasurer, and service chair. By holding these positions, students can learn work-life balance as well as how to organize large groups of people. In my pledge class, we are all required to hold leadership positions within our pledge class in order to train for future positions within the whole sorority. Teamwork is another vital skill that is developed through Greek life. Running charity events and organizing socials requires students to work together. In my pledge class, we have to work together to hold a community service event and a sister social.

These positive aspects of Greek life hardly make news, while its negatives are plastered all across the media. The two greatest harms associated with Greek life are hazing and sexual misconduct.

Hazing is one of the greatest harms associated with Greek life. According to stop Hazing.org, approximately 73% of those that are in a social sorority or fraternity have experienced hazing, and 26% of those have been hazed had to drink large amounts of alcohol. Less than two years ago in February 2017, Timothy Piazza died after drinking large amounts of alcohol during his hazing experience while pledging the Beta Theta Pi Fraternity at Penn State. In reaction to this tragedy, the state of Pennsylvania now considers some forms of hazing a felony. It is hardly known, however, hazing rates are even higher for those in varsity athletics (74%)! Additionally, 64% of those in club sports, 56% in a performing arts organization, and 28% of those in an academic club have experienced hazing as well. Hazing is not exclusive to Greek life, it is a feature of college organizations as a whole. Anti-hazing policies are taken seriously in Greek life on many college campuses across the country, including Penn State. Now, many Greek organizations are adverse to hazing; my friends and I whom are involved in Greek life have never experienced hazing.

Sexual misconduct is also unfortunately more common for those involved in Greek life. “According to the National Institute of Justice sorority membership is a ‘risk factor’ for sexual assault – 25% of sexual assault victims were sorority members” (“Greek Life”). Additionally, “fraternity men are three times more likely to commit rape than their non-greek peers” (“Greek Life”).

These negative behaviors, however, are not inherit to Greek life. Joining Greek life does not automatically make someone a binge-drinker or a sex offender. These aspects of college life would still be present whether or not Greek life exists. Rather than trying to ban Greek life, universities should encourage Greek organizations to hold themselves to high standards of behaviors. If those in Greek life are made to feel they can be part of the solution, and not that they are the problem, the harms associated with Greek life can be mitigated. You can read about Penn State Greek life values here.

Sources

Chappell, Bill. “Former Fraternity Member Gets House Arrest In Penn State Hazing Death.” NPR, NPR, 1 Aug. 2018, www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634524678/former-fraternity-member-gets-house-arrest-in-penn-state-hazing-death.

“Facts and Statistics.” StopHazing, www.stophazing.org/frequently-asked-questions/facts-and-statistics/.

“Fraternity & Sorority Hazing Facts.” StopHazing, www.stophazing.org/fraternity-sorority-hazing-facts/.

“Greek Life.” END RAPE ON CAMPUS, endrapeoncampus.org/greek-life/.

Jacobs, Peter. “I Still Think Joining A Fraternity Was One Of The Best Decisions I’ve Ever Made.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 28 Jan. 2015, www.businessinsider.com/greek-life-benefits-2014-12.

Musulin, Kristin. “Voices: The Positive, Underreported Aspects of Greek Life.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 17 Dec. 2014, www.usatoday.com/story/college/2014/12/17/voices-the-positive-underreported-aspects-of-greek-life/37399335/.

“THON.” Penn State Panhellenic Council, pennstatephc.org/about-us/thon/.

Wade, Lisa. “Fraternities, Sororities, Greek Life Must Be Abolished.” Time, Time, 19 May 2017, time.com/4784875/fraternities-timothy-piazza/.

 

The media powerfully pounced on Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos when she championed school choice as part of her agenda. “School choice” in the principle that students should be able to receive monetary vouchers from the government if they choose not to be educated by the public-school system. Parents can use this money to send their students to a charter school or a private school, or homeschool their children. DeVos has not been able to push this agenda through Congress because the Democrats are united against her and Republicans are only scattered in their support, however, I believe the merits of school choice should be properly investigated.

The greatest argument for school choice is that it gives parents the right to choose how their children are educated. Theoretically, under this system the schools with the best performance ratings would receive the most students, and subsequently the most money. Other schools would have to compete with these schools to improve their ratings and therefore receive greater funds (“School Vouchers: Pros and Cons” ).

Those who support school choice argue that many times private schools provide a better education than public schools. A recent study by GallUp reported that those who were privately educated oftentimes have better long-term outcomes than those that were educated by the public-school system (Torres). It is important to note, however, that children who go to private schools are mostly from higher-income families and therefore are predestined to have more opportunities than their lower-income counterparts at birth.

Another argument for school choice is that public schools are very inefficient at spending government funds. Former President George W. Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act to reward schools with productive educational outcomes and punish those that were underperforming. The program itself is a strong source of evidence that the bureaucracies that control public education are not spending tax-payer money as wisely as they should be (the Atlantic). In contrast, many private schools are fairly efficient at spending student funds. In a study conducted by the Cato Institute, it was found that the Washington D.C. public school system spent an average of $28,000 per public school student, while prestigious private schools such as Lowell School charge tuitions of $25,120 (“School Vouchers: Pros and Cons” ). This is largely because private schools have more discretionary power over their spending. In the public-school system, teachers are paid based on seniority and number of advanced degrees rather than performance. So, maybe the problem isn’t how much money public schools receive. Rather, it’s the lack of freedom they have when it comes to distributing their funds. It is also important to note, however, that private schools do not need to pay for student transportation or lunch programs.

Despite these arguments, however, we need to closely examine the repercussions if school choice was implemented. Firstly, school choice could invade the separation between church and state. Many private schools have a religious component. Theoretically, there are methods that could be implemented to ensure that all of the funds from government-issued voucher would only be used to fund secular school activities, however, this process would be very complicated and would only serve to spread the inefficiencies of the bureaucratic system to private schools.

Additionally, a theoretical voucher system would not necessarily provide students with full tuition. Therefore, lower class students would end up having to attend public school anyway, but the public school would now have even less resources. This system would only be benefitting students that could already afford to attend these schools. For example, Indiana has a voucher program “that now costs the state approximately $50 million more in state money going to education costs than originally budgeted. One third of Indiana voucher students were not considered low-income, and, increasingly, the voucher students are from suburban, middle class families who already have access to good public schools. Only 1% of Indiana voucher students were leaving failing schools” (“School Vouchers – Top 4 Pros and Cons” ). This example shows that vouchers aren’t really benefitting lower-income students, they are just helping middle- and upper-class students that already had the resources to attend private schools.

In contrast, however, Milwaukee has a student voucher program that has proven quite successful.  The students in the voucher program are given the opportunity to attend prestigious educational institutions and have therefore been performing academically quiet well according to standardized tests. These institutions have to limit the number of voucher students they allow in, however, because the Milwaukee voucher does not cover the total cost of tuition, leaving the private schools to cover the rest of the cost (Hobbs). Therefore, even in a successful voucher program, the scope of the program’s success is limited.

The idea of a tuition voucher is nice in theory, because it gives parents more choice in how their children are educated, helps middle class families save money, and gives lower class students academic opportunities they otherwise would not have. In execution, however, “school choice” actually hurts lower-income students the most, as it funnels money out of the public-school system and into the pockets on middle- and upper-class students.

Sources

Hobbs, Tawnell. “Do School Vouchers Work? Milwaukee’s Experiment Suggests an Answer.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 28 Jan. 2018, www.wsj.com/articles/do-school-vouchers-work-milwaukees-experiment-suggests-an-answer-1517162799.

Quinton, Sophie. “The Lessons of No Child Left Behind.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 24 Apr. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-lessons-of-no-child-left-behind/431970/.

“School Vouchers: Pros and Cons.” Penn Wharton Public Policy Initative, publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/1076-school-vouchers-pros-and-cons.

“School Vouchers – Top 4 Pros and Cons.” ProConorg Headlines, www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005354.

Torres, Amanda. “New NAIS-Gallup Report on Student Outcomes.” NAIS – Brainology, 2018, www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/winter-2018/life-lessons/.

“What Is School Choice?” EdChoice, www.edchoice.org/school-choice/what-is-school-choice/.

 

 

For several students, attending college was not a decision, it was an inevitability. For the past several decades, the general opinion has been if one can get into a university, they should attend. As the cost of higher education continues to rise, however, people are starting to call into question whether college is truly a worthy investment. Should we encourage students that struggle in high school to try to get a college degree, or would they simply be wasting their money? But if we don’t encourage these students, would we be systematically preventing people from moving up the socio-economic ladder?

In most cases, a college degree will pay for itself over one’s lifetime. According to the New York Times “Americans with four-year college degrees made 98 percent more an hour on average in 2013 than people without a degree.”  According to the Brooking’s Hamilton project, “the average bachelor’s degree holder makes $570,000 more over a lifetime than the average high school graduate.”

Recently, however, a significant portion of college graduates have not been able to attain employment, or are “underemployed:”working in jobs that don’t require a college degree. We no longer live in a world where a college education guarantees a high-paying job. Unfortunately, while any degree teaches you something, it might not teach you skills applicable in the job market. The job demand for an artist, for example, is much lower than for an engineer. Our American economy and society is driven by supply-and-demand, and while art is a luxury for many, we all need engineers to build the roads we drive on.

The question of whether a college degree is a necessity wouldn’t be as pressing, however, if higher education wasn’t so expensive. On average, it costs a student at least $100,000 to achieve a bachelor’s degree (“What’s the Price Tag”).Many students take out loans to cover this expense.“In 2012, 71 percent of students graduating from four-year colleges had student loan debt” (“A Look at the Shocking Student Loan Debt”). As of 2018, the student loan delinquency rate is 11.8%. Perhaps the statistics that report that a college degree will eventually pay for itself are from previous times, where graduates made more than their parents and college wasn’t nearly as expensive.

The high college drop-out rate shows that trying to achieve an college education may not be the best use of every young person’s times. “the Institute of Education Statistics estimates that 40% of attendees at a four-year college drop out before completing their degree” (Hamm). Many times, students are not truly prepared for the rigor of college classes and simply attended college because that was what society told them they needed to do. Oftentimes, these students walk away from college with student loans and nothing to show for it.

Many students are turning to trade schools instead of four-year universities. “Trade school is hands-on, technical education” (“Trade School vs Traditional College”). It does not require “general education” courses that many four year universities require. Rather, students only learn skills that are directly applicable to their given trade. Trade school costs much less than a four year college ($33000), and in most instances only takes 2 years (“Trade School vs Traditional College”).

What detours students from attending trade schools is mostly likely stigma; trade school is perceived as less difficult and less prestigious than attending college. Those that attend trade school are oftentimes painted as “dumb” and not as hardworking as university students. This perception is entirely false. Those that have attended trade school are highly skilled in their fields. Additionally, they are paid quiet well, in some instances they make more money than those with a college education. According to PayScale, the annual wage for an experienced welder can range from $31,079 to $72,159, and the annual wage for a master electrician can range from $42,578 to $94,984. In contrast, the average salary for those that receive History degrees is $61,000. Job demand for skilled vocational workers is also on the rise. Because Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age, by 2020 there will be 31M vacant trade worker positions. Already, 62% of firms are “struggling to fill important trade positions” (“Skilled Trades in Demand”).

Institutions such as Brookings are investigating whether the K-12 schools system should encourage trade school over college for students that are struggling in school. Many argue that this sort of encouragement would concisely keep lower performing students in the lower economic class. In actuality, however, getting trade certification can be more valuable than a four year degree.

There are many illegitimate arguments, however, that try to convince students they do not need higher education. Most names the “famous person X didn’t need a college degree, so why do I?” For example, Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard in 1975 to create his multi-billion company, Microsoft. Gates, however, came from a very wealthy family, and would have been able to return to his studies if his company had failed. Gates even says to this day that students should stay in school and receive a degree, because this is a more stable path to success (CNN). Unfortunately, most people will not have the same genius combined with correct timing as Gates had to achieve success. Therefore, the argument that a college degree isn’t necessary to achieve success based on incredibly small pool of extremely gifted people should not be used.

I do not wish to discourage young students from trying to pursue college, even if they struggle in high school, if that is truly what they want to do. But society shouldn’t pressure young people into thinking that a college education is the default path to success, because it certainly is not. A college education is only worth the effort you put into it. High schools should not make students feel dumb if they do not want to go to college. Rather, they should connect students to training programs where they can learn skills they truly enjoy. One doesn’t need a college diploma to be a productive member of society. Rather, they should learn a skill that helps support and grow the American economy.

 

Sources

“Average Experienced Welder Hourly Pay.” Ecologist Salary, www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Welder/Hourly_Rate/a034d8ed/Experienced.

“Average Master Electrician Hourly Pay.” Ecologist Salary, www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Master_Electrician/Hourly_Rate.

“Bachelor of Arts (BA), History Degree.” Ecologist Salary, www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Bachelor_of_Arts_(BA),_History/Salary/Page-2.

Bershidsky, Leonid. “Underemployment Is the New Unemployment.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 2018, www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-26/unemployment-numbers-hide-the-effects-of-underemployment.

Fox, Emily Jane. “Bill Gates, World’s Richest College Dropout, Says Stay in School.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, money.cnn.com/2015/06/03/pf/college/bill-gates-college-dropout/.

Hamm, Trent. “Why You Should Consider Trade School Instead of College.” The Simple Dollar, TheSimpleDollar.com, 19 Oct. 2017, www.thesimpledollar.com/why-you-should-consider-trade-school-instead-of-college/.

Leonhardt, David. “Is College Worth It? Clearly, New Data Say.” New York Times, New York Times, 27 May 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it-clearly-new-data-say.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1.

“Skilled Trades in Demand (Infographic).” Adecco Staffing, USA, www.adeccousa.com/employers/resources/skilled-trades-in-demand/.

“Trade School vs Traditional College.” Trade School vs College | What You Want (and Don’t Want) to Hear, careerschoolnow.org/careers/trade-school-vs-traditional-college.

“U.S. Student Loan Debt Statistics for 2018.” Student Loan Hero, Student Loan Hero, studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/.

“What Is a Trade School? Should You Go To One?” CollegeVine, CollegeVine, 29 Nov. 2018, blog.collegevine.com/what-is-a-trade-school-should-you-go-to-one/.

“What’s the Price Tag for a College Education?” COLLEGEdata, www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064.

“Why We Still Think College Isn’t for Everyone.” Brookings.edu, The Brookings Institution, 28 July 2016, www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-we-still-think-college-isnt-for-everyone/.

I remember the first time I walked into a DEVPSU meeting, a ten-week course designed to help Penn State students strengthen their programming abilities. I was shocked. All I saw were rows and rows of male students. I found the nearest seat and tried to make myself seem as obscure as possible. At my high school, there were actually more female students in my STEM classes than male students, so I was unaccustomed to being a minority. However, by the middle of my first semester I found myself barely noticing the lack of women in my classroom unless I explicitly thought about it.

Everyone knows that there is a lack of women in STEM, and virtually every university has a program to encourage female participation in STEM. Penn State has a plethora of resources for female engineers, including the Women in Engineering Program, Society of Women Engineers, and Women in Computing. Despite these efforts, however, the amount of women studying engineering remains low. In the 2017-2018 school year, only 19.4% of those that received engineering degrees at University Park were female (“Undergraduate Degrees Awarded”).

Many studies try to answer the question of why female participation in STEM remains low despite recent efforts to encourage women to study such fields. While these studies oftentimes produce differing results, overall the data consistently reports that women are just as capable of studying such fields as men. A recent meta-analysis found that girls actually performed better than boys in math in primary schools, and there was no difference in performance in secondary school. Biologically, women are just as qualified to study STEM subjects as men.

Another study conducted by The International Student Assessment found, however, that high-achieving male students score on average nineteen points higher than high-achieving female students on a given math exam. After analyzing the findings it was determined that the females who took this test experience much higher anxiety than the males (Gjersoe). It seems as if women are less confident in their abilities in STEM, affecting their performance and therefore limiting their participation in STEM subjects.

One of the largest factors that leads to this lack of confidence is stereotypes. In more gender-neutral countries, such as Sweden and Norway, there is no math gender gap, whereas in countries such as Turkey the math gender gap remains (Gjersoe). A study by Lin Bian, Sarah-Jane Leslie and Andrei Cimpian found that starting at age six, girls are more likely to play a game they can win by “working really hard” rather than a game where the player must be “really smart.” Many girls have the innate sense that they are capable of working hard, however, they believe they are not as qualified as boys.

The female tendency for perfectionism also leads to this lack of confidence. Just one look at an airbrushed model is enough to see that women are told they need to be “perfect.” Studying STEM, especially computer science, however, requires failing. Learning to code involves the discomfort of not knowing the answer right away. Girls need to be taught that this that discomfort is natural, and that it brings awareness to the girl that she is being challenged and is learning (Choney).

Another factor that results in the few women studying certain STEM fields is a lack of exposure to the field. There is much greater gender equality in the number of men and women receiving degrees in subjects taught in high school, such as biology and math. The National Science Foundation found 40% of bachelor degrees in math and statistics awarded in 2014 were given to women. Very few high schools offer classes in subjects such as engineering or computer science, however. In 2014, less than 20% of those who received computer science degrees in the United States were women. This percentage is actually less than what it was in 1995 (28.5%)! By exposing more girls to fields such as computer science and engineering at a young age, participation in these fields can increase.

In addition the lack of female role models prevents female students from envisioning themselves in a STEM field. From a young age, all young students are taught about prominent male scientists such as Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, and Isaac Newton. Female scientists, such as Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace, are hardly discussed. By teaching more about female scientists, girls can have more role models to look up to as they study STEM. The amount of female STEM teachers should also be increased. A study conducted by the University of North Carolina found “a positive and significant association between the proportion of female math and science teachers in high school and young women’s probability of declaring a STEM major. There was no link between teachers’ gender and the probability of picking a STEM major for young men” (Loewus).

In the classroom, students, male and female, should be given more opportunities to be exposed to a variety of career fields to learn what they are actually like, so they do not have to rely on incorrect stereotypes. The ability to fail and experiment should be emphasized in the classroom, as failing and learning from those failures is a crucial part of any STEM career. Lastly, by providing more diverse examples of what a scientist or engineer resembles, children will be more prone to think that they are truly capable of studying STEM.

Sources

Bian, Lin, et al. “Gender Stereotypes about Intellectual Ability Emerge Early and Influence Children’s Interests.” Science Magazine, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 27 Jan. 2017, science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6323/389.full.

Choney, Suzanne. “Why Do Girls Lose Interest in STEM? New Research Has Some Answers – and What We Can Do about It.” Microsoft News, Microsoft, 13 Mar. 2018, news.microsoft.com/features/why-do-girls-lose-interest-in-stem-new-research-has-some-answers-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/.

“Field of Degree: Women.” WMPD in Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation, 2017, www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/digest/fod-women/computer-sciences.cfm.

Gjersoe, Nathalia. “Bridging the Gender Gap: Why Do so Few Girls Study Stem Subjects?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 Mar. 2018, www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2018/mar/08/bridging-the-gender-gap-why-do-so-few-girls-study-stem-subjects.

Loewus, Liana Heitin. “More Female Math and Science Teachers Increase Likelihood Girls Pursue STEM.” Education Week – Rules for Engagement, 9 Mar. 2016, https://goo.gl/JWpoVw

“Undergraduate Degrees Awarded.” Penn State College of Engineering, Penn State, 2018, www.engr.psu.edu/facts/undergrad-degrees-awarded.aspx.