COLLEGEDEGREES.com has a college scholarship application directory that is targeted to differnt and distinct types of categories including: degree specific, ehnicity based, relgion based, specialty -eg single mothers, and subject based such as accounting. This type of organization of sources is very user friendly, and should help applicants find a niche that will increase their financial aid chances. The link is http://www.collegedegrees.com/financial-aid/scholarships.

Labels: college information

Guest blogger Heather Johnson supplies these tips for college success and completion

Freshman year is the most challenging year of college. Chances are you’re leaving home, perhaps far away, for the first time. Your lifestyle will be completely different than it was living at home. You have to grow accustomed to a scattered schedule of classes and the coursework that will be more intellectually challenging than anything you experienced in high school. The important thing to keep in mind is that you’ve prepared yourself for this new, exciting experience and you will succeed. Here are five tips to help you along the way:

1. Organization breeds discipline. You’re coming from high school where teachers usually laid everything out for you as far as assignments and reading schedules. In college, you’ll have to plan your work load according to your other classes and how much time you have to devote to each course. This can be difficult because you will have a lot of down time when you’re not in class and the temptation to hang out and meet new friends is tough to avoid. Socializing is a major part of college, but remember why you’re really there.
2. Pick the right place to study. Studying in your dorm room can be a challenge to say the least. There is so much going on around you that you’re bound to be distracted. Find that corner of the library you can call your own. If you can study in peace then you’ll save yourself so much time down the road.
3. Talk to your professors. If you regularly talk with your professor after class or through email you’ll glean so much more from them than merely sitting in class and taking notes. You can talk to them when you feel unsure about an assignment or just need some of the material explained more thoroughly. They relish the opportunity to deal with their students in this fashion. Take advantage.
4. Attend class. I’m sure this sounds obvious but you need to get to class. It can be mighty tempting to sleep through your 8 A.M. class but you’ll pick up so much by just sitting in the classroom. Obviously, it’s better if you’re proactive when you get there and participate but the mere act of sitting in the classroom each meeting will help you out immensely.
5. Use the college’s resources. Your college will have tutors, learning centers and upper classmen that have excelled in certain majors available to help you. Don’t be shy and think that it’s a sign of weakness if you need a crutch. These resources exist to make you the best student you can be. Your tuition is going to pay for these tools, so you might as well use them!



By-line:

This post was contributed by Heather Johnson, who is an industry critic on the subject of scholarships for college. She invites your feedback at: http://www.collegedegrees.com/financial-aid/scholarships

Labels: College Success

From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/06/3506n.htm
________________________________________

Monday, June 23, 2008
Study of Texas Remedial Programs Finds They Don't Help Students
By PETER SCHMIDT
A federally financed study of Texas public-college students has found little evidence that remedial programs there improve underprepared students' graduation chances or their performance in the labor market soon after college.
"If anything, we find some evidence that remediation might worsen the outcomes of some students," says a paper summarizing the findings of the study by Francisco (Paco) Martorell, an economist at the RAND Corporation, and Isaac McFarlin Jr., a research scientist at the University of Texas at Dallas and a visiting scholar at the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
At two-year colleges where a large proportion of students took remedial courses, those students were significantly less likely than other comparably prepared students to complete at least one year of college or earn a degree, says the paper, Help or Hindrance? The Effects of College Remediation on Academic and Labor Market Outcomes.
The researchers, whose study was financed by the U.S. Department of Education and the Smith Richardson Foundation, have presented their as-yet-unpublished findings at various academic seminars and conferences, including an Education Department conference held this month.
The findings of the Texas study contradict other research that has found remediation to have positive effects, including a 2007 study of Ohio college students and a 2006 study of community-college students in California. In their paper, Mr. Martorell and Mr. McFarlin say the differences in the various studies' results might be partly a reflection of state-by-state differences in remediation policies or the quality of remedial programs.
In an interview, however, Mr. McFarlin emphasized that his study used a much different methodology than the others done before, allowing for better "apple-to-apple" comparisons between those two- and four-year college students who took remedial classes and those who did not.
A chief obstacle faced by researchers wishing to study the effects of remediation is sampling bias. Because those college students who take remedial classes tend to be less prepared than those who go straight into regular classes, they likely would fare worse than other students in the long term regardless of whether they took remedial classes to catch up.
By examining state data on students who entered Texas public colleges in the 1990s, however, Mr. Martorell and Mr. McFarlin were able to draw comparisons between large numbers of remediated and nonremediated students who had entered college with similar skill levels.
No More Likely to Earn a Degree
A state law in place by that time—known as the Texas Academic Skills Program, or TASP—required those students pursuing academic degrees to enter remedial courses if they could not demonstrate that they were ready for college on the statewide TASP test or by posting sufficiently high scores on the SAT, the ACT, or the state's high-school exit examination. As a practical matter, however, not all students who failed the TASP test were assigned to remedial courses—some earned a reprieve, for example, by passing the test on their second try. At the same time, some students who passed the TASP test nonetheless enrolled in remedial classes, often because their advisers encouraged them to do so or because they had failed some placement examination administered by their college.
Further assisting future efforts to compare how students of similar ability fared when they did or did not get remedial courses was the state's 1995 decision to raise the minimum score needed to pass the TASP test. As a result of that change, many students who would have gone straight into academic classes if they had entered college a year earlier ended up instead taking remedial courses.
The paper says the researchers did not find any evidence that students who took remedial reading or mathematics classes were more likely to earn a college degree than comparably prepared students who went straight into academic classes. Contrary to the assumption of many critics of remediation, however, they also did not find any evidence that remediation significantly extended how long it took students to earn a degree.
Based on records kept by the Texas Workforce Commission, the researchers also did not find any evidence that students who took remedial classes earned more than their nonremediated peers in the labor market up to seven years after entering college.
The researchers caution that, because their study focused on students who scored close to the remediation-placement cutoff on the TASP test, their findings may not apply to students of very low ability.
The paper also cautions that remediation may have other effects that the researchers did not study. For example, by keeping poorly prepared students out of college-level courses, remediation might help instructors keep those classes rigorous. At the same time, colleges might be paying the costs of remedial classes by draining money away from standard academic courses, hurting overall academic quality.

In 2006 the Education Trust published an analysis of the 50 flagship public univerisites and using a variety of indicators concluded they looked more like "gated communities". Low income students declined, financial aid was focused on merit aid, colege completion rates were lagging for minority and low income students, and most univerisites were getting worse on equity indicators. The most common grade on 7 indicators of equity was F. A few schools like Berkeley and Wyoming got a C.
I wonder what has happened in the period 2006-2008. Merit aid seems to have been steady, but there is more policy talk about the equity issue. Hopefully, this report at www.edtrust.org will be updated.

Labels: college access, College Completion

A useful and incisive article on high school counseling is by Laura W. Perna et. al in The Review of Higher Education, Winter 2008 , Volume 31. They conduct case studies in 3 high schools in 5 states concerning availability of counseling, what counselors do about college counseling , external influences such as the district, and policy implications. They urge simplifying college applications and financial aid, a district wide committment,and lament that other priorities than counseling take precedence at low resource schools. Teachers play a narrow role and counselors gear their activites to the average child.
Overall , it is not a positive picture concerning college knowledge of students except in Maryland.

Labels: college knowledge

Most students who enter Ca. Community Colleges lack basic skills and are in remediation- remediation estimates are 70% to 80% for those who enter from high school. Most of these students never overcome these basic skills defeciencies during their cc enrollment.The California Legislative Analyst reocmmends several policies that will help prevent remediation and make it more successful. See report at http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id=1847

Labels: College Readiness, College Success

Guest Blogger
Christopher Mazzeo
Associate Director for Policy and Outreach
Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR)
University of Chicago

Because many of Mike's entries are on how high schools shape college access, I thought readers would appreciate this new study my organization--the Consortium on Chicago School Research--recently released. The report, “From High School to the Future: Potholes on the Road to College,” (authors: Melissa Roderick, Jenny Nagaoka, Vanessa Coca and Eliza Moeller) shows that a majority of Chicago Public Schools (CPS) graduates-even those with top grades and test scores-do not successfully navigate the college search and application process. While 95 percent of 2005 Chicago graduates hoped to complete some form of postsecondary education, and 90 percent stated that their parents wanted them to attend college after graduation, only 59 percent actually applied to a four-year college and only 41 percent successfully navigated this process and ultimately enrolled the fall after graduation. This drop off is even worse for Latino students, with only 46 percent applying and 30 percent enrolling in a four-year college in the fall after graduation.

Reason? Not parents but schools. Researchers at CCSR found that the single most consistent predictor of whether students took steps toward college enrollment was whether their teachers reported that their high school had a strong college going culture where they and their colleagues pushed students to go to college, worked to ensure that students would be prepared, and were involved in supporting students in completing their college applications. In addition, the college plans and behaviors of Latino students in Chicago are particularly shaped by the expectations of their teachers and counselors and by connections with teachers. This suggests that Latino students may be much more reliant than other students on teachers and their school for guidance and information, and that their college plans are more dependent on their connections to school.

The full report can be downloaded at: ccsr.uchicago.edu/potholes.

Labels: college access

Righting a Troublesome ‘Disjuncture’
A Push-Pull Strategy for P-16 Cooperation
By Patrick M. Callan & Michael W. Kirst
In the United States, the disjuncture, or gap, between K-12 and higher education is a major policy issue, one rooted in history and encompassing governance, academic standards, finance, communications, and organizational culture. Most visible and troublesome to college applicants, this gap also plagues admitted students who find themselves unprepared for college-level work. But the gap is barely visible to those who make and implement policy in public schools and colleges. On each side, professional concern is with the problems and opportunities unique to that particular level. In the absence of incentives to do otherwise, each side will continue to show more attention to itself than to the common goal of broad educational opportunity for all Americans.
A century ago, colleges and universities were much closer to high schools than they are today. Universities then offered relatively narrow curricula, served a very small proportion of young Americans, and set their own entrance requirements. Their influence over high schools increased as they sought to systemize college admissions. In 1900, for example, the College Board set uniform standards for each academic subject and issued a syllabus to help students prepare for college-entrance subject-matter examinations. Shortly thereafter, the University of California began to accredit high schools to assure that their courses were adequate for university preparation.
The disjuncture between secondary and higher education in the United States stemmed, in part, from the laudable creation of mass education systems for both sectors. In contrast, European countries designed the higher grades of secondary education for an elite group destined for the universities. These universities have, therefore, had strong influence on secondary school curricula and examinations. For example, professors at British universities like Cambridge and Durham grade the college-entrance exams taken by students during their last year of secondary education, and these essays figure crucially in students’ chances for university admission.
In America in the middle decades of the 20th century, high school became the universal and usually terminal education for the majority of youths. At the same time, the United States was moving to mass higher education, with the GI Bill and then the expansion of college opportunities for the postwar baby boomers. Expansion was achieved principally through the rapid growth of public, broad-access campuses—regional four-year campuses and community colleges. Each of these tiers “below” the traditional university had lower admission standards and fewer dollars per student. Placement examinations were administered to admitted students in these tiers to determine readiness for college-credit coursework, and eventually these became more important than admissions criteria. But the shift to universal secondary school and mass nonselective higher education eroded school-colleges linkages.
This erosion was compounded as former normal schools and teacher colleges closely connected to public schools became comprehensive state colleges and universities. Similarly, community colleges had their origins in school districts, but as they grew almost exponentially, they also detached themselves from K-12 education. Unfortunately, in the era of the most dramatic growth in higher education, distance from the public schools was considered a mark of higher education’s legitimacy and status. Institutional prestige was seen to increase by moving closer to research universities and away from identification and contact with schools.
________________________________________
In the postwar years, the notion of K-16 academic standards vanished. “Subject matter” admissions tests were replaced by “aptitude” tests like the SAT. Consequently, high school students and teachers received fewer and weaker signals about academic preparation for a successful college career. And secondary schools added elective courses in nonacademic areas, such as vocational education and life skills, that further diverted their attention from university curricula. Today, even when K-12 and college faculty members belong to the same discipline-based professional organizations, they rarely meet with one another. K-12 policy leaders and those in higher education cross paths even less often. At the state-policy level, legislative committees and state budget offices typically reflect the same fragmentation, as do state educational finance and accountability systems.
The gap has consequences: Student standards are established in separate orbits. K-16 faculty members rarely work together on standards, curricula, or assessment. Few states have entities in education, or in the legislative or executive branches, that span K-16 policy and practice. No organized group lobbies for K-16 linkages. Little data and no accountability systems measure K-16 performance. And nobody loses a job for poor K-16 linkage or performance.
Today, the convergence of a different set of circumstances requires a different response from policy leaders and educators. The three most salient of these circumstances are the following:
For high school graduates, gaining admission to college is seen as their most daunting challenge. It is not. The more difficult challenge is to be prepared academically for college-credit coursework.
• Most high school graduates now enroll in postsecondary education, and most enroll in broad-access institutions. Collaboration between schools and colleges to align curricula, standards, and assessments is essential to improve college readiness, reduce the need for remediation at the college level, and increase college-completion rates.
• As the baby boomers—the best-educated Americans in history—retire, the nation and the states face a projected shortage of workers with college-level knowledge and skills. Strengthening college readiness and the flow of students from high school through college is one of the most promising strategies for increasing the numbers of college-educated Americans.
• For high school graduates, gaining admission to college is seen as their most daunting challenge. It is not. The more difficult challenge is to be prepared academically for college-credit coursework. About half the college students in the United States require remediation. Many of them take recommended or required high school coursework in preparation for college, but still find themselves unprepared.
To overcome the disjuncture between the sectors, states must create motivation and incentives to change these two, presently disparate, institutional cultures. Many states have recently established entities called P-16 councils, spanning preschool through college, and are asking them to take a leadership role in this effort. These councils (also configured as P-20 bodies or other variations) can create a dynamic among top elected officials and K-16 agencies that will move beyond ad hoc personal relationships and stimulate state systemic policy change. Whatever the mechanisms and policy tools, the task will be neither easy nor quick.
________________________________________
Money motivates, but programmatic allocations must not relegate K-16 reform to the margins of institutions and sectors. Colleges and their faculties have little incentive, for example, to work with K-12 institutions to reduce the number of students who require remediation because those students bring valuable funds for colleges that are typically financed on a per-student basis. A possible strategy: Use the “push” of a reconstructed accountability system together with the “pull” of financial incentives.
An obvious objective of a P-16 system would be assurance that a greater percentage of traditionally underrepresented students persist and complete some form of postsecondary education. But some broad-access institutions pursue this objective through two problematic practices. They improve completion rates either by becoming highly selective and diminishing access, or by reducing both standards and the value of the credential. Other broad-access institutions use a “student churn” business model to survive. These contend that it costs less to let students drop out than to support the intensive services needed by unprepared students. As long as the number of incoming students equals or exceeds those dropping out, the institution is financially viable. Again, a well-designed K-16 accountability system might counteract the student-churn practice.
In many states, the elite institutions are in their own, separate postsecondary-policy orbit—institutions such as the University of California system, the University of Michigan, and others—and are not closely connected to their states’ broad-access institutions. Of the latter, many community colleges are locally governed, and, regardless of governance, appropriately see their mission as quite different from that of four-year institutions. Similarly, former normal schools and teacher-training institutions that now have become state universities see their role as more expansive than do the selective flagship state universities. Consequently, policy leadership and leverage that trickles across sectors is likely to be very limited.
Some easier issues, such as funding dual enrollment in high school and college, can be worked out in discussions. Deeper instructional and institutional change requires long-term external pressure and the active commitment of all stakeholders. No one design will work in all state contexts. Regional P-16 councils may be more useful in Georgia, for example, than in Rhode Island. But few of these P-16 councils have the state money, staffs, or organizational bases for long-term sustainability. The federal government has numerous roles, but a high priority should be changing the incentives in the No Child Left Behind Act that now encourage the use of low-level high-school-proficiency tests that fall well short of college-readiness standards.
States that are successful in integrating precollegiate and higher education share the presence of an external civic culture that stresses a belief that the two levels must come together to improve the labor force and the economy. Governors who are committed to the college transition can bring all key state policy leaders to the table. Business interest is vital, but so is broader public concern and engagement—civic groups, foundations, labor, parent groups, and other interests are crucial.
If the people help lead the way, more states will act to end the disjuncture that historically has kept our collegiate and precollegiate systems separate and apart. And, together, K-12 and higher education will tackle the learning challenges of the 21st century.
PATRICK M. CALLAN is the founding president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. From 1992 through 1997, he was the executive director of the California Higher Education Policy Center.
MICHAEL W. KIRST is a professor emeritus of education and business administration at Stanford University and a member of the management and research staff of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. He is a former president of the California state board of education, and is the author of such books as From High School to College (2004).
Vol. 27, Issue 40, Pages 22-25
Diplomas Count is produced with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/06/05/40callan.h27.html?print=1

Labels: College Completion, State p-16 councils

The june 5 special issue of Diploma Counts by Edweek is the best overview of state p-16 councils in history! It has data on the 40 state councils and 3 outstanding case studies. I worked on all phases of this as an adviser to Edweeek and the result is outstanding from their writers. These councils are getting the right policymakers across p-16 to the table , and many are making some progress- but there is a long road ahead. Most councils lack adequate staff , and may not survive political turnover. But we have come a long way from a decade ago and the momentum is growing. My next blog will include a detailed op ed on the p-16 state concils from a historical perspective.
Do not miss the geographical GPS look at high school dropouts by Edweek in Diploma Counts. It includes a county and Congressional district specification.

Labels: State p-16 councils

In prior blogs I have cautioned that state merit aid programs based on high secondary school grades may discourage students from taking difficult courses where they may get low grades. This will inhibit college success and college completion. Kentucky is concerned about this and now we have a study of Floridas merit aid program- Bright Futures- that found the worries have a basis in college course taking as well.. A study by Fla State U professor Shouping Hu shows a decline in Science and math courses at Fla colleges from students who got state scholarships from before and after Bright Futures started. Students need high college grades to maintain their aid.
This study is suggestive not conclusive, but much more research is needed because a lot of state money is devoted to these merit aid programs. Redesign of state aid may be necessary. The study is in May 29 issue of Inside Higher Ed.

Labels: academic preparation College Completion, College Success Studies

The may 31 edition of the Economist has a fascinating article on pages 84-85. Luigi Guiso of the European University Institute in Florence took data from OECD PISA that tests 276,00 15 year olds in 40 countries.In countries that have the most sexual equality like Sweden, versus low like Turkey, the sexes are even in math and reading.Geometry is the only area where boys score higher in advanced nations. Girls score much higher in reading than boys in all the equal societies, and every country ,including Turkey in the Economist chart.
Last year in the USA girls attained 58% of the bachelors degrees. The lower performance of boys seems to be an emerging issue in most European and Asian countries with more industralized economies. These trends make it difficult to figure out what to do about it in USA, and relates to college completion.

Labels: academic preparation College Completion

A new survey by the National Center For Education Statistics found that Only a third of parents thought their childs secondary school did "very well" in providing information to help with postsecondary education planning. Over a quarter of parents felt their schools provided "no information at all". The best information was provided to students in 11 or 12th grades, USA born parents, private school students ,and earned mostly A"S. So the lack of clear signals about college is still not reaching most students who attend broad access postsecondary education. See for yourself at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008079.pdf.

Labels: college information