CNN) -- Most college students expect to receive their diplomas on the basis of grades, but at a Pennsylvania school, physical fitness matters too.
Students at Lincoln University with a body mass index of 30 or above, reflective of obesity, must take a fitness course that meets three hours per week. Those who are assigned to the class but do not complete it cannot graduate.
Calculate your body mass index
Now that the first class to have this requirement imposed is nearing graduation day -- students who entered in the fall of 2006 -- the school faces criticism from both students and outsiders about the fitness class policy.
One of those students is Tiana Lawson, 21, whose recent editorial in the student paper has drawn national attention to the issue. Lawson wrote in The Lincolnian that she would be more understanding if the requirement applied to everyone. She thinks all students, not just those with a high BMI, should have to take the class.
Video: Mandatory fitness class
RELATED TOPICS
Colleges and Universities
African-American Issues
Obesity
"I didn't come to Lincoln to be told that my weight is not in an acceptable range," Lawson wrote. "I came here to get an education which, as a three-time honor student, is something I have been doing quite well, despite the fact that I have a slightly high Body Mass Index."
Lawson, who told CNN she had been putting off getting her BMI tested until this year, recently found out she would have to take the class. At first angry, Lawson said she is now more "confused" about the requirement.
"I don't know why they would want some people to be more healthy than others," she said.
But James DeBoy, chairman of the school's Department of Health and Physical Education, says the requirement is just like courses to help students' communications or math proficiency. The faculty also has a priority to be honest with students, he said.
"We, as educators, must tell students when we believe, in our heart of hearts, when certain factors, certain behaviors, attitudes, whatever, are going to hinder that student from achieving and maximizing their life goals," he said.
Moreover, if there were unlimited resources, the fitness opportunities would be for all students, but that is not the reality, he said.
The historically black college receives public funding, but is under independent control.
Obesity increases a person's risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, some cancers and other ailments. African-Americans were 1.4 times as likely to be obese as non-Hispanic whites in 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About four out of five African-American women are overweight or obese, the agency said.
"Obesity is going to rob you of your quality and quantity of life," DeBoy said. "We believe that this is unconscionable."
The fitness course, called "Fitness for Life," consists of activities including water aerobics, Tai Bo and aerobic dance, he said.
Because BMI is not a perfect measure of obesity, students also have their waist circumference measured, he said. There are some people who have a high BMI because of their muscle mass, but are not actually obese, and the waist measurement is meant to weed out those people.
From a legal perspective, the school's requirement seems "paternalistic" and "intrusive," said David Kairys, professor of law at Temple University Law School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
"The part that seems excessive is forcing them to take this course, or to exercise three hours a week, which isn't a bad idea for them, but should be their choice," he said.
Lincoln is "breaking new ground" with this requirement, as Kairys has not heard of one like it at other schools.
Some students, such as Brittnai Panton, a 19-year-old freshman from Decatur, Georgia, like the requirement. She tested out of having to take the class, but supports having it around.
"Being in this day and age where people are becoming overweight and need more fitness, I think it's a great idea to earn extra credit, an easy extra credit," she said.
Many of her classmates don't find it offensive, she said.
"It is like you're getting a second chance to actually do fitness in school, which certain people wouldn't do," she said. "Many of them find it an easy credit."
DeBoy said 620 students have either tested out or taken the course, with 80 remaining to get their BMI evaluated. He estimates 12 to 15 will need to take the fitness class in January.
When the faculty first approved the fitness course requirement in 2006, there were minimal concerns raised, he said. The intention is to spread the message that people in school, including high school and middle school, need more physical activity.
"This is one university's -- granted it's radical and it's upsetting -- approach to try to begin to directly address" obesity, he said.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
For Profit Colleges Making Major $$
RALEIGH, N.C. (Nov. 29) -- Students aren't the only ones benefiting from the billions of new dollars Washington is spending on college aid for the poor.
An Associated Press analysis shows surging proportions of both low-income students and the recently boosted government money that follows them are ending up at for-profit schools, from local career colleges to giant publicly traded chains such as the University of Phoenix, Kaplan, ATI and DeVry.
Last year, the five institutions that received the most federal Pell Grant dollars were all for-profit colleges, collecting more than $1 billion among them. That was two and a half times what those schools hauled in just two years prior, the AP found, analyzing Department of Education data on disbursements from the Pell program, Washington's main form of college aid to the poor.
This year, the trend is accelerating: In the first quarter after the maximum Pell Grant was increased last July 1, Washington paid out 45 percent more through the program than during the same period a year ago, the AP found. But the amount of dollars heading to for-profit, or "proprietary," schools is up even more — about 67 percent.
For-profit colleges say the country has little choice but to accept their help to achieve President Obama's goal of getting every American to enroll in some form of education beyond high school. The for-profit schools have space while community colleges are bursting at the seams. Besides, their convenience and career-focused curriculum are clearly winning customers, who are free to use their aid where they choose.
But critics say the increased federal aid has unleashed a new gold rush. They complain the industry has too many incentives simply to enroll students and tap the spigot from Washington — and not enough to make sure students succeed.
The industry is "an aggressive sales operation that has a voracious appetite for recruiting the poorest students," said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of AACRAO, a group representing admissions officers and registrars at traditional colleges. "The victims here are the students themselves and the taxpayers, who have to pick up the tab."
Regardless of how AP's findings are interpreted, they underscore the extent to which the United States has ramped up its support for low-income college students in recent years, but increasingly outsourced the job to the private sector.
— Last year, Washington paid out a record $18.3 billion in Pell Grants, which typically go to families earning under $40,000. Proprietary colleges collected about $4.3 billion of that, or about 24 percent — roughly double the proportion a decade ago.
— In the first quarter of the current academic year, for-profit colleges collected $1.65 billion, or 67 percent more than in the same period a year ago. On July 1, the government made more students eligible for Pell grants and increased the maximum award by $600 to $5,350.
— For-profits are also grabbing a growing share of loans subsidized by the government to help low-income students. They collected about $7 billion in subsidized Stafford loans in 2008-2009, compared to $4.7 billion two years before. Taxpayers subsidize the interest rate and take the hit when students default. Nearly one-quarter of students at for-profit schools default within four years, more that double the rate of other schools.
Overall, the sector enrolled about 2.7 million students in 2007-2008, the latest year with complete federal data available. That was only about 10 percent of total enrollment in higher education, but it's about 2 million more than a decade before.
The numbers are even more striking for low-income students: The number of Pell recipients enrolled in for-profit schools is 50 percent more than two years ago.
Phoenix alone had more than 230,000 Pell recipients last year (and received $657 million Pell dollars, roughly its parent company's yearly profit). Its campuses educate nearly four times more low-income students than the entire Big 10, and more than 30 times the Ivy League, the AP found. Unlike proprietary schools, those traditional colleges enjoy tax-free status for supposedly providing a public service, notes Harris Miller, president and CEO of the Career College Association.
On a recent weeknight at a University of Phoenix branch in Raleigh, students began streaming in during early evening. Virtually all work full time. Many were older than traditional college students and many were minorities. The "campus" is a suburban office building off a highway interchange. Inside, the feel is thoroughly corporate — computer work stations, sleek desks, wired classrooms with whiteboards.
Aja Holmes, a 28-year-old single mother of two, dropped out of nearby North Carolina State University after having her first child a decade ago. Now she's hoping to complete a degree and move up in the pharmaceutical company where she works. She's paying her tuition with a Pell Grant, government loans and employer support. The big draw is convenience.
"I can work full time and still spend time with my kids," she said. "I can do my homework at night. All my books are online, so I can take my laptop anywhere and read. The program has been good for me."
Critics acknowledge for-profit schools can be a good match for some. But they point out median graduation rates of just 38 percent (for-profit colleges counter they're taking on less well prepared kids, and say they actually do much better than community colleges with two-year programs).
Students who don't graduate will be hard pressed to repay their debts. On average, for-profit schools cost five and a half times the price of community colleges. Virtually all students must borrow some money, and even among graduates of for-profit four-year programs, the average borrower ends up owing $33,000, according to the latest government data analyzed by Mark Kantrowitz of the Web site finaid.org. That's about $5,000 more than even private nonprofit four-year colleges.
The sector also can't seem to shake recurring allegations it's accepting underqualified students just to secure their federal aid, dooming them to failure. Phoenix has set aside $80.5 million to cover a possible settlement of a whistleblower lawsuit alleging it illegally compensated recruiters based on how many students they enrolled. Other complaints include a lawsuit against privately held Westwood College of Colorado alleging students were misled about fees and tricked into signing high-interest loans. Westwood denies the allegations.
Nassirian and others want students to get more reliable data on outcomes, and not just what they hear from slick TV ads. Apollo Group Inc., which owns the University of Phoenix, spent close to $1 billion on selling and promotional costs last year.
In the late 1980s, the proportion of Pell dollars going to for-profits was similar to now. But a regulation now called the "90-10" rule, which requires colleges to collect at least 10 percent of their revenue from nongovernment sources, drove hundreds of shady operations under and lowered the proportion.
Now, that number is back up — so much, in fact, that companies such as Apollo are worried about bumping up against the 90-10 rule. Government dollars accounted for 86 percent of Phoenix's revenue last year, compared with less than half as recently as 2001.
Most critics insist they don't oppose the principle of for-profit higher education. But they say the sector has been mollycoddled by friendly lawmakers, who have watered down the 90-10 rule. They want the loopholes closed.
The federal government has taken steps to help students make more informed choices, said Deputy Undersecretary of Education Robert Shireman. Last August, students completing federal financial aid forms began receiving graduation and transfer rate data on the schools they are considering. By next July, every school will have to provide at least general information on job placement.
"Our primary concern is that consumers and students are served well," he said. But, he added, "this is a consumer choice system. If people who are eligible for federal financial aid choose one school over another, that is their choice."
Neutral experts say the United States will indeed have to tap the for-profit sector if it's to meet the president's goals.
"As we see these cutbacks across the country, we really do need the capacity this sector represents," said Patrick Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
But, he added: "Somebody ought to be paying attention to it, that's for damn sure."
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
An Associated Press analysis shows surging proportions of both low-income students and the recently boosted government money that follows them are ending up at for-profit schools, from local career colleges to giant publicly traded chains such as the University of Phoenix, Kaplan, ATI and DeVry.
Last year, the five institutions that received the most federal Pell Grant dollars were all for-profit colleges, collecting more than $1 billion among them. That was two and a half times what those schools hauled in just two years prior, the AP found, analyzing Department of Education data on disbursements from the Pell program, Washington's main form of college aid to the poor.
This year, the trend is accelerating: In the first quarter after the maximum Pell Grant was increased last July 1, Washington paid out 45 percent more through the program than during the same period a year ago, the AP found. But the amount of dollars heading to for-profit, or "proprietary," schools is up even more — about 67 percent.
For-profit colleges say the country has little choice but to accept their help to achieve President Obama's goal of getting every American to enroll in some form of education beyond high school. The for-profit schools have space while community colleges are bursting at the seams. Besides, their convenience and career-focused curriculum are clearly winning customers, who are free to use their aid where they choose.
But critics say the increased federal aid has unleashed a new gold rush. They complain the industry has too many incentives simply to enroll students and tap the spigot from Washington — and not enough to make sure students succeed.
The industry is "an aggressive sales operation that has a voracious appetite for recruiting the poorest students," said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of AACRAO, a group representing admissions officers and registrars at traditional colleges. "The victims here are the students themselves and the taxpayers, who have to pick up the tab."
Regardless of how AP's findings are interpreted, they underscore the extent to which the United States has ramped up its support for low-income college students in recent years, but increasingly outsourced the job to the private sector.
— Last year, Washington paid out a record $18.3 billion in Pell Grants, which typically go to families earning under $40,000. Proprietary colleges collected about $4.3 billion of that, or about 24 percent — roughly double the proportion a decade ago.
— In the first quarter of the current academic year, for-profit colleges collected $1.65 billion, or 67 percent more than in the same period a year ago. On July 1, the government made more students eligible for Pell grants and increased the maximum award by $600 to $5,350.
— For-profits are also grabbing a growing share of loans subsidized by the government to help low-income students. They collected about $7 billion in subsidized Stafford loans in 2008-2009, compared to $4.7 billion two years before. Taxpayers subsidize the interest rate and take the hit when students default. Nearly one-quarter of students at for-profit schools default within four years, more that double the rate of other schools.
Overall, the sector enrolled about 2.7 million students in 2007-2008, the latest year with complete federal data available. That was only about 10 percent of total enrollment in higher education, but it's about 2 million more than a decade before.
The numbers are even more striking for low-income students: The number of Pell recipients enrolled in for-profit schools is 50 percent more than two years ago.
Phoenix alone had more than 230,000 Pell recipients last year (and received $657 million Pell dollars, roughly its parent company's yearly profit). Its campuses educate nearly four times more low-income students than the entire Big 10, and more than 30 times the Ivy League, the AP found. Unlike proprietary schools, those traditional colleges enjoy tax-free status for supposedly providing a public service, notes Harris Miller, president and CEO of the Career College Association.
On a recent weeknight at a University of Phoenix branch in Raleigh, students began streaming in during early evening. Virtually all work full time. Many were older than traditional college students and many were minorities. The "campus" is a suburban office building off a highway interchange. Inside, the feel is thoroughly corporate — computer work stations, sleek desks, wired classrooms with whiteboards.
Aja Holmes, a 28-year-old single mother of two, dropped out of nearby North Carolina State University after having her first child a decade ago. Now she's hoping to complete a degree and move up in the pharmaceutical company where she works. She's paying her tuition with a Pell Grant, government loans and employer support. The big draw is convenience.
"I can work full time and still spend time with my kids," she said. "I can do my homework at night. All my books are online, so I can take my laptop anywhere and read. The program has been good for me."
Critics acknowledge for-profit schools can be a good match for some. But they point out median graduation rates of just 38 percent (for-profit colleges counter they're taking on less well prepared kids, and say they actually do much better than community colleges with two-year programs).
Students who don't graduate will be hard pressed to repay their debts. On average, for-profit schools cost five and a half times the price of community colleges. Virtually all students must borrow some money, and even among graduates of for-profit four-year programs, the average borrower ends up owing $33,000, according to the latest government data analyzed by Mark Kantrowitz of the Web site finaid.org. That's about $5,000 more than even private nonprofit four-year colleges.
The sector also can't seem to shake recurring allegations it's accepting underqualified students just to secure their federal aid, dooming them to failure. Phoenix has set aside $80.5 million to cover a possible settlement of a whistleblower lawsuit alleging it illegally compensated recruiters based on how many students they enrolled. Other complaints include a lawsuit against privately held Westwood College of Colorado alleging students were misled about fees and tricked into signing high-interest loans. Westwood denies the allegations.
Nassirian and others want students to get more reliable data on outcomes, and not just what they hear from slick TV ads. Apollo Group Inc., which owns the University of Phoenix, spent close to $1 billion on selling and promotional costs last year.
In the late 1980s, the proportion of Pell dollars going to for-profits was similar to now. But a regulation now called the "90-10" rule, which requires colleges to collect at least 10 percent of their revenue from nongovernment sources, drove hundreds of shady operations under and lowered the proportion.
Now, that number is back up — so much, in fact, that companies such as Apollo are worried about bumping up against the 90-10 rule. Government dollars accounted for 86 percent of Phoenix's revenue last year, compared with less than half as recently as 2001.
Most critics insist they don't oppose the principle of for-profit higher education. But they say the sector has been mollycoddled by friendly lawmakers, who have watered down the 90-10 rule. They want the loopholes closed.
The federal government has taken steps to help students make more informed choices, said Deputy Undersecretary of Education Robert Shireman. Last August, students completing federal financial aid forms began receiving graduation and transfer rate data on the schools they are considering. By next July, every school will have to provide at least general information on job placement.
"Our primary concern is that consumers and students are served well," he said. But, he added, "this is a consumer choice system. If people who are eligible for federal financial aid choose one school over another, that is their choice."
Neutral experts say the United States will indeed have to tap the for-profit sector if it's to meet the president's goals.
"As we see these cutbacks across the country, we really do need the capacity this sector represents," said Patrick Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
But, he added: "Somebody ought to be paying attention to it, that's for damn sure."
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Increase for Early Decision
In 2006, first Harvard University, and then Princeton University and the University of Virginia, announced that they were doing away with early admissions -- as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Delaware had done a few years prior.
At the competitive colleges where early admissions is most often a factor, many that didn't eliminate the practice said that they agreed that too much pressure was associated with early applications, and that it was time to dial it back. Last year, many experts assumed that the economic uncertainty in which families found themselves would discourage early applications and that they might drop. Why commit yourself to a college before knowing what kind of aid package you might land elsewhere? But early decision applications went up at many institutions.
This year, while many colleges are still counting (the deadlines for early admissions vary), all signs point to another year in which more students apply early -- and in which some colleges may increase the share of their class admitted early. The colleges reporting increases include not only some of the most competitive, but some that are a notch or two below in competitiveness.
And those colleges reporting a fall in early applications generally say that they remain well above where they were just a few years ago. (Many public institutions are also reporting increases in the number of applicants who are applying earlier in the year, but formal early programs are not a factor at many of these institutions, which use rolling or other admissions systems that do not require a commitment from applicants.)
Encouraging the trend of more early applications, both college and high school counselors said, was the strategy of many colleges -- even those without early decision -- to encourage students to apply earlier in the year, thus making it more of the norm for high school seniors to be applying in early fall, not in December.
Consider some of these figures so far from institutions whose deadlines for early admissions have passed.
At Duke University, the number of early decision applications is up 32 percent this year. At George Washington University, early applications are up 24 percent (and 70 percent over two years). At Grinnell College, numbers are projected to be up by 10 percent, following a similar increase the year before. Stanford University is up 4 percent. New York University is up 5 percent. Smith College is up 6 percent. Dartmouth College is up 3 percent. Pomona College is up 2 percent.
While Duke's new early application pool tops 2,000, increases are also being seen at institutions with smaller early pools (and total classes). At Lawrence University, the early application total last year at this time was 21, and this year it is double, at 42. Given the number of applications started but not yet completed, and the traditionally high admission rate for early applicants, Lawrence expects to enroll about 50 or so early applicants. That would take the share of the class admitted early from 10.5 percent to 14 or 15 percent.
To be sure, not everyone is up. Haverford and Williams Colleges both expect small declines, although even with those declines they will be above where they were a few years ago. The same is true for Yale University.
In terms of a national picture, data from the Common Application also suggest an increase is in the works. The Common Application reports a 22 percent increase, as of November 1, in the number of early applications (some of them requiring a commitment to enroll and others not). That's 185,460 applications, a figure that will rise as other early deadlines are reached. There has also been an increase in the number of Common Application colleges receiving at least one early application -- to 292 institutions, up from 265 last year.
High schools are also reporting that they are seeing increases. Phillip Trout, college counselor at Minnetonka High School and president-elect of the Minnesota Association for College Admission Counseling, said that he is seeing "brisk business" with early applications this fall, up 12 percent over a year ago, when the numbers ended up 13 percent above the prior year's total. Trout said that while many reasons may be at play (admissions deans generally cite the economy), "mostly it comes back to the pitch being given by colleges." That is simply that students believe that they have better chances of getting in if they apply early.
Of course that may be eroded a bit at some institutions that are seeing the largest increases. Duke has historically admitted about one third of those who apply early (much better odds than for those who apply through the regular process), but officials there expect that the admit rate for early decision this year will drop.
The advantage of early admissions for the applicant is a senior year without as much stress, and many counselors applaud the option for those high schoolers who have a clear sense of direction and who have had time to investigate options. Colleges benefit from binding early admissions programs because they can fill a portion of their classes without worrying about whether admitted applicants will accept the offers. A survey by the National Association for College Admission Counseling found that 30.8 percent of private colleges either admitted more students through early admissions this year or plan to do so next year.
The reason some are holding back on doing so is largely concern about the impact on low-income students. One of the criticisms of early admissions programs over the years is that wealthier students are more likely to use them because they are more likely to attend high schools where admissions strategies are much discussed and more likely to be able to apply without worrying about financial aid. Many students who need to compare aid packages are reluctant to apply in any binding program.
Debra Shaver, director of admission at Smith College, said that the college typically admits about a quarter of the class early and isn't likely to raise that number this year, despite an increase in the number of applications. She noted that the pool is showing a decline in the number of early applicants who are applying for financial aid.
Jess Lord, dean of admission and financial aid at Haverford, said that the college was seeing this year what it expected last year (and didn't see then): "many more families and students than usual expressed to us that they did not apply early decision because they wanted the opportunity to compare financial aid awards and to determine what they could afford."
Lord said that concerns about such students are part of why he doesn't want to see an increase in the share of the classes admitted early. "I don't want to lose a sense that we are making consistent decisions based on consistent criteria," he said.
Lloyd Thacker, founder of the Education Conservancy, a group that has promoted reforms of college admissions, said that the key to talking about early decision programs was to think separately about the students, the colleges and society.
"I would say that in times of uncertainty, in terms of being selected and selecting, you try to hedge your bets, and perhaps that is what institutions and kids are doing," he said. But he added that he was talking about "institutions that can do it and kids who can do it."
The problem is that many students don't feel this is an option that they can consider. "What I worry about is not how it helps one school or one student," he said. "But what happens when more people do this? Early decision disproportionately favors those with access to resources, so it doesn't serve the goals of access and equity."
Keeping early decision in check may be difficult in part because of variations in which more colleges are encouraging students to apply early -- even without early decision programs. Several counselors mentioned that increases in this pattern are making it more standard for high school students to be making decisions earlier in their senior year.
Seth Allen, dean of admission and financial aid at Grinnell, said that based on his time on the road at high schools this fall, many colleges "have clearly stepped up their outreach efforts earlier in the admission cycle, partly for competitive reasons and partly for survival reasons." Many more colleges "employ some form of a quick application which shortens the application requirements and promises a quick decision turnaround. An environment is developing which is encouraging or pressuring students to apply early," he said.
"One counselor I met this fall put it well -- she said it takes a strong-willed student at a school where the majority of the senior class is either applying early decision, early action, rolling decision, or with a quick application to not feel pressure to also submit an early application of some type."
As a result, Allen said he expects early applications of all sorts to continue to rise, based on peers reinforcing the messages from colleges. "The logic has flipped. It's no longer a question of why but of why not? In this kind of evolving environment peer influence is having a larger impact on students' decision to apply early, even early decision, than we've seen in the past."
At the competitive colleges where early admissions is most often a factor, many that didn't eliminate the practice said that they agreed that too much pressure was associated with early applications, and that it was time to dial it back. Last year, many experts assumed that the economic uncertainty in which families found themselves would discourage early applications and that they might drop. Why commit yourself to a college before knowing what kind of aid package you might land elsewhere? But early decision applications went up at many institutions.
This year, while many colleges are still counting (the deadlines for early admissions vary), all signs point to another year in which more students apply early -- and in which some colleges may increase the share of their class admitted early. The colleges reporting increases include not only some of the most competitive, but some that are a notch or two below in competitiveness.
And those colleges reporting a fall in early applications generally say that they remain well above where they were just a few years ago. (Many public institutions are also reporting increases in the number of applicants who are applying earlier in the year, but formal early programs are not a factor at many of these institutions, which use rolling or other admissions systems that do not require a commitment from applicants.)
Encouraging the trend of more early applications, both college and high school counselors said, was the strategy of many colleges -- even those without early decision -- to encourage students to apply earlier in the year, thus making it more of the norm for high school seniors to be applying in early fall, not in December.
Consider some of these figures so far from institutions whose deadlines for early admissions have passed.
At Duke University, the number of early decision applications is up 32 percent this year. At George Washington University, early applications are up 24 percent (and 70 percent over two years). At Grinnell College, numbers are projected to be up by 10 percent, following a similar increase the year before. Stanford University is up 4 percent. New York University is up 5 percent. Smith College is up 6 percent. Dartmouth College is up 3 percent. Pomona College is up 2 percent.
While Duke's new early application pool tops 2,000, increases are also being seen at institutions with smaller early pools (and total classes). At Lawrence University, the early application total last year at this time was 21, and this year it is double, at 42. Given the number of applications started but not yet completed, and the traditionally high admission rate for early applicants, Lawrence expects to enroll about 50 or so early applicants. That would take the share of the class admitted early from 10.5 percent to 14 or 15 percent.
To be sure, not everyone is up. Haverford and Williams Colleges both expect small declines, although even with those declines they will be above where they were a few years ago. The same is true for Yale University.
In terms of a national picture, data from the Common Application also suggest an increase is in the works. The Common Application reports a 22 percent increase, as of November 1, in the number of early applications (some of them requiring a commitment to enroll and others not). That's 185,460 applications, a figure that will rise as other early deadlines are reached. There has also been an increase in the number of Common Application colleges receiving at least one early application -- to 292 institutions, up from 265 last year.
High schools are also reporting that they are seeing increases. Phillip Trout, college counselor at Minnetonka High School and president-elect of the Minnesota Association for College Admission Counseling, said that he is seeing "brisk business" with early applications this fall, up 12 percent over a year ago, when the numbers ended up 13 percent above the prior year's total. Trout said that while many reasons may be at play (admissions deans generally cite the economy), "mostly it comes back to the pitch being given by colleges." That is simply that students believe that they have better chances of getting in if they apply early.
Of course that may be eroded a bit at some institutions that are seeing the largest increases. Duke has historically admitted about one third of those who apply early (much better odds than for those who apply through the regular process), but officials there expect that the admit rate for early decision this year will drop.
The advantage of early admissions for the applicant is a senior year without as much stress, and many counselors applaud the option for those high schoolers who have a clear sense of direction and who have had time to investigate options. Colleges benefit from binding early admissions programs because they can fill a portion of their classes without worrying about whether admitted applicants will accept the offers. A survey by the National Association for College Admission Counseling found that 30.8 percent of private colleges either admitted more students through early admissions this year or plan to do so next year.
The reason some are holding back on doing so is largely concern about the impact on low-income students. One of the criticisms of early admissions programs over the years is that wealthier students are more likely to use them because they are more likely to attend high schools where admissions strategies are much discussed and more likely to be able to apply without worrying about financial aid. Many students who need to compare aid packages are reluctant to apply in any binding program.
Debra Shaver, director of admission at Smith College, said that the college typically admits about a quarter of the class early and isn't likely to raise that number this year, despite an increase in the number of applications. She noted that the pool is showing a decline in the number of early applicants who are applying for financial aid.
Jess Lord, dean of admission and financial aid at Haverford, said that the college was seeing this year what it expected last year (and didn't see then): "many more families and students than usual expressed to us that they did not apply early decision because they wanted the opportunity to compare financial aid awards and to determine what they could afford."
Lord said that concerns about such students are part of why he doesn't want to see an increase in the share of the classes admitted early. "I don't want to lose a sense that we are making consistent decisions based on consistent criteria," he said.
Lloyd Thacker, founder of the Education Conservancy, a group that has promoted reforms of college admissions, said that the key to talking about early decision programs was to think separately about the students, the colleges and society.
"I would say that in times of uncertainty, in terms of being selected and selecting, you try to hedge your bets, and perhaps that is what institutions and kids are doing," he said. But he added that he was talking about "institutions that can do it and kids who can do it."
The problem is that many students don't feel this is an option that they can consider. "What I worry about is not how it helps one school or one student," he said. "But what happens when more people do this? Early decision disproportionately favors those with access to resources, so it doesn't serve the goals of access and equity."
Keeping early decision in check may be difficult in part because of variations in which more colleges are encouraging students to apply early -- even without early decision programs. Several counselors mentioned that increases in this pattern are making it more standard for high school students to be making decisions earlier in their senior year.
Seth Allen, dean of admission and financial aid at Grinnell, said that based on his time on the road at high schools this fall, many colleges "have clearly stepped up their outreach efforts earlier in the admission cycle, partly for competitive reasons and partly for survival reasons." Many more colleges "employ some form of a quick application which shortens the application requirements and promises a quick decision turnaround. An environment is developing which is encouraging or pressuring students to apply early," he said.
"One counselor I met this fall put it well -- she said it takes a strong-willed student at a school where the majority of the senior class is either applying early decision, early action, rolling decision, or with a quick application to not feel pressure to also submit an early application of some type."
As a result, Allen said he expects early applications of all sorts to continue to rise, based on peers reinforcing the messages from colleges. "The logic has flipped. It's no longer a question of why but of why not? In this kind of evolving environment peer influence is having a larger impact on students' decision to apply early, even early decision, than we've seen in the past."
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Extending the Life of Your Computer
Keep that PC out of the graveyard for a few more years
By: Chris Peters
Find tools and tips for greening your nonprofit through TechSoup's GreenTech Initiative, where social benefit organizations can share and learn more about technology choices that can help to reduce our overall impact on the environment.
According to the Electronics TakeBack Coalition (174 KB PDF), manufacturing one desktop computer and monitor requires 530 pounds of fossil fuels, 48 pounds of chemicals, and 1.5 tons of water. Unlike most appliances which require more energy to use than to manufacture, it takes much more energy to produce a computer than that computer will consume in its lifetime. A report from United Nations University indicates that building a computer takes five times more energy than that computer will use throughout the rest of its life; therefore, extending the life of your PC by two years can make a huge difference in your organization’s overall environmental footprint.
If you’re your new to PC maintenance, don’t make the rookie mistake of dumping a computer at the first sign of trouble. Simple, cost-effective software fixes and hardware upgrades can keep your computer running well for years to come.
Software Fixes
Before you recycle a slow computer or reformat its hard drive, make sure you’ve cleaned out the junk and clutter. Common causes of slowness include spyware, viruses, temporary files, fragmented files, and full hard drives. Windows has several built-in utilities to help clean and organize your PC. Check out 5 Ways to Speed Up Your Computer for more information on Disk Cleanup, Checkdisk, and Disk Defragmenter. LifeHacker recently listed the Five Best Windows Maintenance Tools according to the site’s readers. These tools are free, third-party alternatives to the built-in Windows utilities. For Mac tips, check out OS X Maintenance and Troubleshooting.
Better yet, put all of your computers on a regular maintenance schedule so that the gunk never has a chance to accumulate. Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last ten years, you know a little about the danger of computer viruses. Check out TechSoup’s Virus Prevention Toolkit for more information.
Software that starts running when you log on is a particular nuisance to Windows users. Too many auto-running programs can suck system resources and slow your machine. But it’s hard to find the source(s) of this problem, and it’s hard to decide which programs really need to auto-launch and which ones don’t. Again, free utilities can help. Autoruns for Windows and similar programs will scan all the locations where autorun files tend to hide. These tools then present a list and let you block or allow auto-launching at your discretion. If you can’t decide, visit Sysinfo.org. Sysinfo’s database describes the well-known startup programs and tells you how to handle each one.
If the latest versions of Microsoft Office and other standard Windows programs bog down on your PC, open source alternatives might run faster, though that’s not always the case. See Six Steps to Adopting Open-Source Software at Your Org for information on open-source software for your nonprofit. For more information on adopting open-source resources at your organization, check out the Nonprofit Open Source Initiative website.
Change the Role of the Computer
Many computers are discarded before they’ve truly reached the end of their life cycles. Just like office furniture and other equipment, a computer can serve multiple roles within an organization before it’s time to recycle it. For some roles you need an up-to-date recent model PC, but in other cases you can use a castoff, hand-me-down machine. When a computer starts to under-perform in its primary role, consider some of the second acts listed below. By getting as much good use out of a computer as you can, you’re saving money and reducing your organization’s ecological footprint.
•Test machines: Experimenting is a great way to learn about technology, so your staff might appreciate the opportunity to play on some of your older machines.
•Temporary or swap computers: When a computer goes into the shop, it’s nice to have spare machines on hand. You can roll out one of your older PCs while you’re repairing the newer one. Also, if you have guests or new employees, you can set them up on one of the older machines until you’ve prepared their permanent computer.
•Spare parts: Old computers can be a source of replacement parts — expansion cards, memory modules, hard drives, and more.
•Hand-me-down: Different employees have different computing needs. You can often pass an older, slower machine along to someone with less demanding, less resource-intensive software.
•Thin clients: You could convert some of your computers to a thin-client architecture in which multiple desktop environments run virtually on a server and accessed by individual computers. Although such an environment requires your server to have substantial speed and computing power, its requirements of each thin client are much less stringent. Older computers may still be able to thrive for several years as thin clients. Learn more about virtualizing desktops and servers with Virtualization 101.
Hardware Upgrades
Buying newer, faster components sounds like a cheap way to upgrade an old PC because the prices have dropped dramatically in the past few years, but if hardware isn’t the real problem, you may be disappointed with the results. Here are some points to consider before investing in new hardware.
1.Hardware usually isn’t the problem. More often than not, a computer slows down because you’re running too many programs or you need to defragment the drive.
2.If hardware is part of the problem, it’s not always easy to isolate the offending component(s). You can run tests to determine the slowest link inside your computer (also known as the bottleneck), but the results of these tests are often hard to interpret.
3.Installing the new components takes time and expertise. You have to be comfortable opening the computer, and you’ll have to install new drivers. If you buy a new hard drive, you’ll have to image that drive (if you have disk cloning software), or you’ll have to re-install your operating system and all your software.
4.Your system may constrain the available options. For example, some older motherboards won’t recognize more than 1 GB of RAM. If you’re looking at a new video card, does the manufacturer make drivers for your operating system?
5.It can be hard to replace the components on a laptop (for example, keyboard, screen, touchpad mouse). However, you can often plug in an external replacement if one of the integrated parts begins to fail. For example, if the keys begin to fall off, you can plug in a USB keyboard. In effect, this turns your laptop into a stationary desktop PC, but stopgaps like this might get you through to the next fiscal year.
RAM
If hardware still seems to be the root of your problem and you have 512 MB of RAM or less, start by adding more memory. You can buy 1GB of RAM for $20 or less, so it’s one of the cheapest hardware components out there. And nine times out of ten, adding RAM makes a bigger difference in the perceived speed of the computer than any other upgrade. For more advice, see How to Upgrade Your PC’s RAM. With any new hardware component, including RAM, make sure it’s compatible with your motherboard. Crucial and Kingston have tools that recommend the right kind of RAM based on the make and model of your computer. On most modern PCs you should buy and install RAM modules in matched pairs to get the best performance. In other words, if you buy one 512 MB memory module, buy a second module of equal size from the same manufacturer and install it at the same time. Most RAM manufacturers sell memory in “kits” containing one or two matched pairs, so you don’t have to worry about matching them up yourself.
Hard Drive
No hard drive lasts forever, and a hard drive that’s starting to die can slow down every aspect of a computer’s performance. To gauge your hard drive’s performance, try installing HDD Health or a similar application.
In recent years, solid state drives (SSDs) have gained attention as an alternative to traditional hard drives. SSDs are more expensive than traditional drives, but in many cases offer better performance. They also require slightly less power, which benefits both your battery life and the environment. For more information, see Are Solid State Drives Ready for Primetime? in the TechSoup Blog.
Stay away from motherboard and processor upgrades unless you really know what you’re doing. The chances of a serious or catastrophic mistake are high, and the payoff is usually very low in terms of the perceived improvement. For more information, check out Upgrading Your Computer Components.
Try a New Operating System
Many open-source, Linux-based operating systems are designed to use minimal system resources. In other words, they’ll run productivity and web browsing software without noticeable lag even though you have an older processor and 128 MB of RAM. For example, Xubuntu is an officially supported variant of Ubuntu that needs less speed and less memory than the main distribution. Fluxbuntu is even less resource-intensive, but it’s not officially supported by Canonical (the folks who develop and maintain Ubuntu). Make sure that the manufacturers of your hardware provide drivers for Linux. Also, bear in mind that making the switch to Linux may require retraining for your IT staff, your regular staff, and your clients. On the other hand, Linux distributions, such as the ones mentioned, are becoming increasingly user-friendly, so the transition from Windows isn’t as hard as it used to be.
Refurbishing and Recycling
If you’ve exhausted all your other options and it’s time to get rid of a few machines, dispose of them responsibly. First, pay attention to all relevant accounting and fiscal guidelines. Selling used computers to your brother-in-law is a bad idea. Then, if your equipment is less than four years old, donate or sell it to a qualified refurbisher. Refurbishers will fix anything that need’s fixing and then pass the machine along to another organization. Finally, if the PC is too old or too broken for a refurbisher, see if the manufacturer offers a takeback program (if you’re buying new machines from a different company, they may take back your old machine even if it’s not their branded computer) or find a qualified, responsible electronics recycler. Ten Tips for Donating a Computer walks you through the basics of refurbishing and recycling. For more resources, visit TechSoup’s Computer Recycling and Reuse page.
Conclusion
Every organization has different needs, but we suggest the following. Keep up with regular PC maintenance tasks. Get rid of unnecessary software, especially the type that launches itself automatically. Make sure you have enough RAM to run your operating system plus your most resource-intensive software. Set power management settings so you’re using less energy and giving your computer a periodic break. Learn more about power management settings on the TechSoup Blog. Finally, budget for regular PC replacement so you can afford to when they truly need to be replaced.Remember, the energy required to manufacture a new computer could power that computer for several years. When you’re thinking of how to reduce your nonprofit’s energy consumption and IT budget, don’t just think about your own power meters: think about the power and cost that goes into building and buying your computers too.
By: Chris Peters
Find tools and tips for greening your nonprofit through TechSoup's GreenTech Initiative, where social benefit organizations can share and learn more about technology choices that can help to reduce our overall impact on the environment.
According to the Electronics TakeBack Coalition (174 KB PDF), manufacturing one desktop computer and monitor requires 530 pounds of fossil fuels, 48 pounds of chemicals, and 1.5 tons of water. Unlike most appliances which require more energy to use than to manufacture, it takes much more energy to produce a computer than that computer will consume in its lifetime. A report from United Nations University indicates that building a computer takes five times more energy than that computer will use throughout the rest of its life; therefore, extending the life of your PC by two years can make a huge difference in your organization’s overall environmental footprint.
If you’re your new to PC maintenance, don’t make the rookie mistake of dumping a computer at the first sign of trouble. Simple, cost-effective software fixes and hardware upgrades can keep your computer running well for years to come.
Software Fixes
Before you recycle a slow computer or reformat its hard drive, make sure you’ve cleaned out the junk and clutter. Common causes of slowness include spyware, viruses, temporary files, fragmented files, and full hard drives. Windows has several built-in utilities to help clean and organize your PC. Check out 5 Ways to Speed Up Your Computer for more information on Disk Cleanup, Checkdisk, and Disk Defragmenter. LifeHacker recently listed the Five Best Windows Maintenance Tools according to the site’s readers. These tools are free, third-party alternatives to the built-in Windows utilities. For Mac tips, check out OS X Maintenance and Troubleshooting.
Better yet, put all of your computers on a regular maintenance schedule so that the gunk never has a chance to accumulate. Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last ten years, you know a little about the danger of computer viruses. Check out TechSoup’s Virus Prevention Toolkit for more information.
Software that starts running when you log on is a particular nuisance to Windows users. Too many auto-running programs can suck system resources and slow your machine. But it’s hard to find the source(s) of this problem, and it’s hard to decide which programs really need to auto-launch and which ones don’t. Again, free utilities can help. Autoruns for Windows and similar programs will scan all the locations where autorun files tend to hide. These tools then present a list and let you block or allow auto-launching at your discretion. If you can’t decide, visit Sysinfo.org. Sysinfo’s database describes the well-known startup programs and tells you how to handle each one.
If the latest versions of Microsoft Office and other standard Windows programs bog down on your PC, open source alternatives might run faster, though that’s not always the case. See Six Steps to Adopting Open-Source Software at Your Org for information on open-source software for your nonprofit. For more information on adopting open-source resources at your organization, check out the Nonprofit Open Source Initiative website.
Change the Role of the Computer
Many computers are discarded before they’ve truly reached the end of their life cycles. Just like office furniture and other equipment, a computer can serve multiple roles within an organization before it’s time to recycle it. For some roles you need an up-to-date recent model PC, but in other cases you can use a castoff, hand-me-down machine. When a computer starts to under-perform in its primary role, consider some of the second acts listed below. By getting as much good use out of a computer as you can, you’re saving money and reducing your organization’s ecological footprint.
•Test machines: Experimenting is a great way to learn about technology, so your staff might appreciate the opportunity to play on some of your older machines.
•Temporary or swap computers: When a computer goes into the shop, it’s nice to have spare machines on hand. You can roll out one of your older PCs while you’re repairing the newer one. Also, if you have guests or new employees, you can set them up on one of the older machines until you’ve prepared their permanent computer.
•Spare parts: Old computers can be a source of replacement parts — expansion cards, memory modules, hard drives, and more.
•Hand-me-down: Different employees have different computing needs. You can often pass an older, slower machine along to someone with less demanding, less resource-intensive software.
•Thin clients: You could convert some of your computers to a thin-client architecture in which multiple desktop environments run virtually on a server and accessed by individual computers. Although such an environment requires your server to have substantial speed and computing power, its requirements of each thin client are much less stringent. Older computers may still be able to thrive for several years as thin clients. Learn more about virtualizing desktops and servers with Virtualization 101.
Hardware Upgrades
Buying newer, faster components sounds like a cheap way to upgrade an old PC because the prices have dropped dramatically in the past few years, but if hardware isn’t the real problem, you may be disappointed with the results. Here are some points to consider before investing in new hardware.
1.Hardware usually isn’t the problem. More often than not, a computer slows down because you’re running too many programs or you need to defragment the drive.
2.If hardware is part of the problem, it’s not always easy to isolate the offending component(s). You can run tests to determine the slowest link inside your computer (also known as the bottleneck), but the results of these tests are often hard to interpret.
3.Installing the new components takes time and expertise. You have to be comfortable opening the computer, and you’ll have to install new drivers. If you buy a new hard drive, you’ll have to image that drive (if you have disk cloning software), or you’ll have to re-install your operating system and all your software.
4.Your system may constrain the available options. For example, some older motherboards won’t recognize more than 1 GB of RAM. If you’re looking at a new video card, does the manufacturer make drivers for your operating system?
5.It can be hard to replace the components on a laptop (for example, keyboard, screen, touchpad mouse). However, you can often plug in an external replacement if one of the integrated parts begins to fail. For example, if the keys begin to fall off, you can plug in a USB keyboard. In effect, this turns your laptop into a stationary desktop PC, but stopgaps like this might get you through to the next fiscal year.
RAM
If hardware still seems to be the root of your problem and you have 512 MB of RAM or less, start by adding more memory. You can buy 1GB of RAM for $20 or less, so it’s one of the cheapest hardware components out there. And nine times out of ten, adding RAM makes a bigger difference in the perceived speed of the computer than any other upgrade. For more advice, see How to Upgrade Your PC’s RAM. With any new hardware component, including RAM, make sure it’s compatible with your motherboard. Crucial and Kingston have tools that recommend the right kind of RAM based on the make and model of your computer. On most modern PCs you should buy and install RAM modules in matched pairs to get the best performance. In other words, if you buy one 512 MB memory module, buy a second module of equal size from the same manufacturer and install it at the same time. Most RAM manufacturers sell memory in “kits” containing one or two matched pairs, so you don’t have to worry about matching them up yourself.
Hard Drive
No hard drive lasts forever, and a hard drive that’s starting to die can slow down every aspect of a computer’s performance. To gauge your hard drive’s performance, try installing HDD Health or a similar application.
In recent years, solid state drives (SSDs) have gained attention as an alternative to traditional hard drives. SSDs are more expensive than traditional drives, but in many cases offer better performance. They also require slightly less power, which benefits both your battery life and the environment. For more information, see Are Solid State Drives Ready for Primetime? in the TechSoup Blog.
Stay away from motherboard and processor upgrades unless you really know what you’re doing. The chances of a serious or catastrophic mistake are high, and the payoff is usually very low in terms of the perceived improvement. For more information, check out Upgrading Your Computer Components.
Try a New Operating System
Many open-source, Linux-based operating systems are designed to use minimal system resources. In other words, they’ll run productivity and web browsing software without noticeable lag even though you have an older processor and 128 MB of RAM. For example, Xubuntu is an officially supported variant of Ubuntu that needs less speed and less memory than the main distribution. Fluxbuntu is even less resource-intensive, but it’s not officially supported by Canonical (the folks who develop and maintain Ubuntu). Make sure that the manufacturers of your hardware provide drivers for Linux. Also, bear in mind that making the switch to Linux may require retraining for your IT staff, your regular staff, and your clients. On the other hand, Linux distributions, such as the ones mentioned, are becoming increasingly user-friendly, so the transition from Windows isn’t as hard as it used to be.
Refurbishing and Recycling
If you’ve exhausted all your other options and it’s time to get rid of a few machines, dispose of them responsibly. First, pay attention to all relevant accounting and fiscal guidelines. Selling used computers to your brother-in-law is a bad idea. Then, if your equipment is less than four years old, donate or sell it to a qualified refurbisher. Refurbishers will fix anything that need’s fixing and then pass the machine along to another organization. Finally, if the PC is too old or too broken for a refurbisher, see if the manufacturer offers a takeback program (if you’re buying new machines from a different company, they may take back your old machine even if it’s not their branded computer) or find a qualified, responsible electronics recycler. Ten Tips for Donating a Computer walks you through the basics of refurbishing and recycling. For more resources, visit TechSoup’s Computer Recycling and Reuse page.
Conclusion
Every organization has different needs, but we suggest the following. Keep up with regular PC maintenance tasks. Get rid of unnecessary software, especially the type that launches itself automatically. Make sure you have enough RAM to run your operating system plus your most resource-intensive software. Set power management settings so you’re using less energy and giving your computer a periodic break. Learn more about power management settings on the TechSoup Blog. Finally, budget for regular PC replacement so you can afford to when they truly need to be replaced.Remember, the energy required to manufacture a new computer could power that computer for several years. When you’re thinking of how to reduce your nonprofit’s energy consumption and IT budget, don’t just think about your own power meters: think about the power and cost that goes into building and buying your computers too.
Friday, November 6, 2009
AP Writing Style Numbers and Objectivity
Numerals: The general rule is: Spell out one through nine, and use figures for 10 or more. Exceptions to the rule abound. For instance:
Always use figures for dimensions, ages, years, percentages and dates, except when such figures begin a sentence (see below).
Also, spell out numbers that begin a sentence (unless the number is a year, like 1998.)
Also, remember that the "spell out one through nine" rule applies to ordinal numbers, too. In other words, you should spell out first through ninth, and use figures for 10th or more.
See "numerals" in AP Style for details.
In broadcast writing, spell out one through twelve and use figures for 13 to 999. For numbers above 999, spell out "hundred," "thousand," million," "billion" and so forth, and use a hyphen to combine these terms with numerals: one thousand (for 1,000), 15-hundred (for 1,500), 18-thousand (for 18,000), 10-million (for 10,000,000), etc. See also: dollars. (Back to top)
Objectivity: "Objective" means "based on independently verifiable fact." You can objectively say, for example, that a rose is red, mainly because anyone else who looks at the rose would also conclude that the rose is red. Anyone who looked at the rose and saw some other color would be considered color blind at best. If you say, though, that the rose is pretty, you're no longer being objective about the matter, because what's pretty to one person may not be pretty to someone else. To a rose lover, a rose is pretty. To an orchid lover, a rose is plain. Similarly, it may seem entirely appropriate to characterize, say, someone's death as "unfortunate" or even "tragic." But suppose that, unknown to you, the person who died was, well, a real schmuck. All the people the person cheated, stole from, abused, humiliated, exploited, and so on probably don't see his death as unfortunate or tragic. So it's really best simply to describe what happened and let readers make their own value judgments.
News stories do, of course, include opinionated statements quite often. But they are nearly always the opinions of someone other than the journalist. A journalist may write, for example, that, "Lawmakers have a moral duty to ensure that every child can see a doctor when he or she is sick, Sen. John Smith, sponsor of a bill to guarantee health care coverage for all children in the state, said." But it's Sen. Smith's opinion, not the journalist's opinion.
Finally, it's important to realize that although journalists try to be as objective as as possible, no journalist can be completely objective. The very act of defining a set of events as "newsworthy" and boiling those events down into a news story involves making all kinds of non-objective decisions based on value judgments and personal perspectives. But journalists try to be objective where possible by emphasizing independently verifiable facts and avoiding overt, unattributed statements of opinions or judgments. Overt statements of opinion usually are reserved for editorials or opinion columns that are run exclusively on a special page or pages inside the paper. (Back to top)
Always use figures for dimensions, ages, years, percentages and dates, except when such figures begin a sentence (see below).
Also, spell out numbers that begin a sentence (unless the number is a year, like 1998.)
Also, remember that the "spell out one through nine" rule applies to ordinal numbers, too. In other words, you should spell out first through ninth, and use figures for 10th or more.
See "numerals" in AP Style for details.
In broadcast writing, spell out one through twelve and use figures for 13 to 999. For numbers above 999, spell out "hundred," "thousand," million," "billion" and so forth, and use a hyphen to combine these terms with numerals: one thousand (for 1,000), 15-hundred (for 1,500), 18-thousand (for 18,000), 10-million (for 10,000,000), etc. See also: dollars. (Back to top)
Objectivity: "Objective" means "based on independently verifiable fact." You can objectively say, for example, that a rose is red, mainly because anyone else who looks at the rose would also conclude that the rose is red. Anyone who looked at the rose and saw some other color would be considered color blind at best. If you say, though, that the rose is pretty, you're no longer being objective about the matter, because what's pretty to one person may not be pretty to someone else. To a rose lover, a rose is pretty. To an orchid lover, a rose is plain. Similarly, it may seem entirely appropriate to characterize, say, someone's death as "unfortunate" or even "tragic." But suppose that, unknown to you, the person who died was, well, a real schmuck. All the people the person cheated, stole from, abused, humiliated, exploited, and so on probably don't see his death as unfortunate or tragic. So it's really best simply to describe what happened and let readers make their own value judgments.
News stories do, of course, include opinionated statements quite often. But they are nearly always the opinions of someone other than the journalist. A journalist may write, for example, that, "Lawmakers have a moral duty to ensure that every child can see a doctor when he or she is sick, Sen. John Smith, sponsor of a bill to guarantee health care coverage for all children in the state, said." But it's Sen. Smith's opinion, not the journalist's opinion.
Finally, it's important to realize that although journalists try to be as objective as as possible, no journalist can be completely objective. The very act of defining a set of events as "newsworthy" and boiling those events down into a news story involves making all kinds of non-objective decisions based on value judgments and personal perspectives. But journalists try to be objective where possible by emphasizing independently verifiable facts and avoiding overt, unattributed statements of opinions or judgments. Overt statements of opinion usually are reserved for editorials or opinion columns that are run exclusively on a special page or pages inside the paper. (Back to top)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
