Admissions Standards Suggested for Entire UNC System

The University of North Carolina moved a step closer to setting system-wide minimum admission standards at the Board of Governors meeting on October 11. Speaking at a policy session, Harold Martin, senior vice president for academic affairs, proposed to the board the following minimum criteria for entering freshmen in 2013: a 2.5 grade point average in high school and a minimum SAT score of 800 (out of 1600 total) or ACT score of 17 (out of 35).

Today, although each university campus sets its own admission standards, there is no statewide requirement, and some campuses in the UNC system have none. If approved by the Board of Governors in January, initial standards would start in the fall of 2009 with a 2.0 GPA and 700 SAT or 15 ACT, and increase incrementally until the 2013 levels are achieved. Martin added that the chancellor would always have the right to waive requirements for a maximum of 1 per cent of students.


Law School Accreditation Raises Costs, Not Quality

If you want to get people yawning, bring up the subject of accreditation. It seems terribly dull, but can have serious consequences. I know, because for years I have been involved in a battle against the overly restrictive accreditation standards the American Bar Association imposes on law schools.

The American Bar Association accredits most, although not all of the law schools in the United States. Supposedly, ABA accreditation ensures high quality legal education. The sad truth, however, is that it mostly serves to drive up the cost of a legal education and keep down the number of people who can enter the profession. What it’s doing is good for lawyers already in practice, but bad for Americans who need legal help – especially poorer ones.

Overall, there are two main problems springing from ABA accreditation. One is the use of mandatory input rules. These mandatory, straitjacketing rules are unnecessary to good legal education and in many instances contravene it. Furthermore, by exclusionary admissions requirements and by necessitating high costs and high tuitions, the ABA excludes minorities, working class, and nearly all non-affluent people from legal education.


At the Crossroads in Chapel Hill

The resignation of James Moeser, the chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was not unexpected. Seemingly within minutes of his announced retirement during his 2007 State of the University Address, a 19-member search committee for his replacement was formed, and a promise was made to have a successor by the time he leaves at the end of June 2008.

Moeser’s replacement will have big shoes to fill, for the current chancellor left a large footprint on the Chapel Hill landscape. Moeser’s robust leadership was praised by students, officials and the media, yet his years at the helm were not without controversy, and his vision for the future of the university was not shared by all.

Moeser’s resignation gives UNC President Erskine Bowles and the Board of Governors a chance to consider whether the future of UNC-Chapel Hill will be to follow the tone and tenor of Moeser’s administration or to move in a different direction. Moeser’s administration was extremely successful in a number of ways, but some of his policies may not be sustainable, and the critical issue of undergraduate education seemed of secondary importance.


Building Excellence into Higher Education

The American higher education system is often called the envy of the world. Many careful observers, however, find that much of what goes on in the name of higher education is mediocre or worse. The recent Spellings Commission found that American higher education is very high in cost, but to an alarming degree fails to deliver on educational basics for many students.

While the recommendations of the Spellings Commission focus on what the federal government should do, others in higher education prefer to focus on what individual schools should do to make their programs excellent. An assembly of leading educational observers will share their insights at the October 27 conference of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Every fall, the Pope Center hosts a day-long conference devoted to a key higher education issue. This year’s conference, to be held October 27 at the Hilton RDU Airport-RTP, will be about educational excellence. Do we have it? If not, what can we do?

In addition to hearing nationally acclaimed speakers — from college presidents to intellectual flame-throwers — address these questions, participants can dine with the speakers in small groups the night before by attending the October 26 “Dinner with a Scholar.”


To Be or Not To Be: Shakespeare in the English Department

Nearly 50 percent of North Carolina colleges and universities no longer require their English majors to take a course in the work of William Shakespeare, says a report from the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. Shakespeare is widely considered the most important author in the English language.

The Pope Center’s report, “To Be or Not to Be: Shakespeare in the English Department,” is based on information from the Web sites of 49 four-year universities in North Carolina; when clarification was needed, university personnel were contacted. The report indicates, by specific school, which require Shakespeare for their English majors and which do not.

Editor’s note: We learned after publication that we made an error. Mount Olive College, a private school, was listed as not requiring Shakespeare for its English majors. That is wrong; it does require its English majors to take a course in Shakespeare.

With this correction, 18 of the 34 private colleges surveyed still require Shakespeare, and 16 do not. Thus, 47 percent of the private schools do not require Shakespeare for English majors.

As indicated in the report, seven of the 15 public four-year campuses (North Carolina School of the Arts was excluded), also 47 percent, do not require Shakespeare. Taken together, approximately 47 percent of all surveyed schools do not require Shakespeare.


Dinner with a Scholar

Join the J.W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy for intimate conversation with nationally known scholars on Friday, October 26, at the Hilton Raleigh-Durham Airport/Research Triangle Park.

“Intimate conversation with scholars,” you say?

Yes, it’s possible with our wonderful speakers and panelists, who can be heard the next day at our annual conference, “Building Excellence into American Higher Education.”

The list of scholars is astounding! Select the one you’d like to dine with October 26.


Marx, Mao, and Mischief at UNC

Claims that professors use their classroom positions to indoctrinate rather than educate their students crop up frequently in today’s polarized political climate. A geography course at Chapel Hill appears to be a perfect example.

The description in the course catalogue indicates that “Geographical Issues” focuses on three themes. There’s no hint of any political orientation or agenda.

Once you read the syllabus, however, it becomes clear that the course is not so much about the study of geography as an objective social science. Instead, it seems intended to plant seeds of doubt about, or even hostility to, free markets, international trade and the United States. The actual readings confirm this impression. This article examines the course.


One-Stop College Shopping (Sort of)

It is about to become easier for parents and potential students to compare 540 or so private colleges around the country — fifteen of them in North Carolina. On September 26, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) will launch a colorful, breezy, and information-packed web site about these schools called the U-Can Consumer Information Initiative.

This is the first step in a growing effort by colleges and universities to become more accountable to students and the public. As college tuition mounts, many Americans are forced to reconsider whether a college degree is worth its price, and whether intercollegiate athletics and campus parties are overwhelming the educational aspects of the college experience.

The concern came to a head a year ago with a report by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, a national committee appointed by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. It called for more transparency, perhaps in the form of a national database with easily compared information.


Alexander Hamilton Institute to Open

Last fall, Hamilton College rejected a $3.6 million donation for a campus-based center to study the achievements and failures of Western civilization. Members of the faculty had objected to the creation of the center because it would have had “unprecedented and unacceptable autonomy.”

Now it will have complete autonomy.

The Alexander Hamilton Center for the Study of Western Civilization is being reborn as the Alexander Hamilton Institute. It will be located in Clinton, New York, the same town where Hamilton College is located, in a hotel formerly known as the Alexander Hamilton Inn.


What Are College Administrators Afraid of?

Editor’s Note: Guest writer Evan C. Maloney is the director of a documentary film on abuses in higher education entitled “Indoctrinate U,” which will debut September 28 in Washington, D.C.

Most people wouldn’t say that having someone call the police on them was the best part of their day. But for me, it’s a sign that I’m doing my job. You see, I’m a documentary filmmaker, and I spent the last four years investigating abuses of individual rights in academia.

My documentary “Indoctrinate U” analyzes the prevailing political environment on our nation’s campuses. I looked into case after case of students and professors having their free speech and free thought rights suppressed when they failed to adhere to the campus political orthodoxy. The horror stories were so numerous that the toughest task in producing the film was figuring out what not to
include — otherwise, I could have ended up making a 100-hour film.

About half-a-dozen times, college administrators at various schools decided that I was a threat that required police intervention. And I admit, the threat I posed was grave: I was asking questions. Rather simple questions, but questions that they couldn’t answer honestly without embarrassing themselves and their institutions.