It seems to me that as a discipline, we sociologists have lost sight of the difference between hypotheses to be researched and conclusions to be defended. We tend to confuse identity politics with social theory, and mistake partisan advocacy for serious scientific analysis.
A new report on intercollegiate athletics programs produced by the UNC system’s general administration shows that the hardest lesson from the largest academic scandal in NCAA history is being ignored. Athletes with weak academic skills continue to be admitted to universities where they have little chance of successfully completing rigorous coursework.
On December 9, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a crucial case dealing with racial preferences in college admissions, Fisher v. University of Texas. It would be ideal if the Court would recognize that the University of Texas has been unable to show any legitimate academic justification for its racial preference regime. Its “educational benefits” claims are empty.
Affirmative action is before the Supreme Court again this week, as it rehears arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas. Perhaps the most important question about racial preferences is one that’s not directly raised by the case: do they even work? Do they help underrepresented minorities to achieve their goals, and foster interracial interaction and understanding on elite campuses? Or do large preferences often “mismatch” students in campuses where they will struggle and fail?
Community colleges focus more on practical subjects than theoretical ones, reducing the chances of their pushing a political agenda. But such schools’ lack of blatant indoctrination is coming to an end, due to recent actions taken by the federal Department of Education. Individual schools should attempt to mitigate the damage rather than force it down our throats.
The rise of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2013, along with the massacre of nine black churchgoers last summer in Charleston, South Carolina, created racial hysteria and gave rise to an anti-intellectual movement that has now extended to American campuses. Its promoters want to purge society—and our universities—of historical relics and symbols that they say glorify white supremacy and perpetuate racism.
This report shows, through graphs and tables, the University of North Carolina’s enrollment growth, tuition history, admissions data, and graduation rates. It provides details about student aid, student debt, the ratio of faculty to students, and the ratio of administrators to faculty. It includes information about faculty salaries, state appropriations, and state subsidy of instruction costs.
Common threads running throughout the latest campus upheavals include attacks on principles of free speech and a willingness on the part of school officials to mollify students and cede control to leftist protesters. Given higher education’s track record, however, both developments are unsurprising.
Because of protectionist regulations, North Carolina’s range of higher education choices is not as wide as it should be. But it’s not just the Tar Heel State that gums up the works with excessive red tape. North Carolina schools that want to offer their online courses to out-of-state students have had to navigate burdensome approval processes. In many cases, schools have decided it’s just not worth the considerable expense in terms of both time and money—thereby limiting options for students seeking online alternatives. But now there is a better way. The State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) is an agreement among member states that establishes comparable national standards for interstate offering of online education.
Entrepreneurship programs are spreading rapidly across America and are attracting a growing number of students. But one question keeps coming up: Is it really possible to teach entrepreneurship? The answer is both yes and no.