肯特咨询集团双周简报

导读：　　　肯特咨询集团双周简报致力于与您分享作为顶级教育咨询公司的优质服务和相关新闻，希望能够帮助您更多地了解关于肯特咨询的价值观和使命 ...

　　肯特咨询集团双周简报致力于与您分享作为顶级教育咨询公司的优质服务和相关新闻，希望能够帮助您更多地了解关于肯特咨询的价值观和使命。中国招生考试网www.chinazhaokao.com  小编精心为大家整理了肯特咨询集团双周简报，希望对你有帮助。

　　肯特咨询集团双周简报

　　观点：学校是否挑剔与学校的教学质量好坏并不相关

　　从通布图到德克萨斯，从加尔各答到加利福尼亚，从新西兰到纽约，很多人都能预见到自己以后凭借能力获得成功。当然这类型“成功”的定义是模糊不清的，但是由于人类文明开始变得越来越互有交集，成功的普遍定义开始变得清晰，那就是“教育”。

　　根据联合国教科文组织报告显示，对于很多穷人来说，教育如同谚语中所描述的"绿洲中的水源”一样。从平均寿命到平均收入，都能够得到提升。然而，在富有的发达国家，教育的前景已经不再让人觉得满足或者还不够成功。人们必须要进入非常著名的大学。家长和学生们开始对令人羡慕的顶级私立名校，如哈佛，耶鲁或者斯坦福很痴迷。为了增加学生录取的几率，家长会不遗余力地鼓励学生学习各种难度较大的课程或者参加各种课外活动来填满他们的日程。然而，在过去的10到15年里，这种部队式的竞赛也带来一些结果。这些结果几乎与录取通知并没有什么关系。现在的学生们由于工作量过度，压力过大，且在各方面活动都有所涉及。我们可以想象到这一切导致的后果，这些从学术作假乃至于对整个社区真实了解的缺乏。

　　我并不是第一个注意到这种麻烦趋势的人。早在1月21日，哈佛大学教育研究生院向公众发表了一份文件旨在要解决这类问题。这封文件由全美多名招生办主任签名，代表了大家志在改变大学录取流程的决心。这封被命名为《扭转潮流：通过大学招生鼓励关心他人和公益》的文件描述了普通高中申请者极其孤僻的天性。同时给予建议帮助改变。1)“为他人做出更有意义的贡献，积极投身于社区服务为大众谋福。 2)通过不同方式来评估学生的道德品质以及对他人的贡献，这些方式包括来自不同类型家庭，以及不论种族，文化和等级的社区贡献。3)通过不同的方式重新定义“成就”，这种方式既可以通过运动场上的表现来衡量经济条件有差异的学生，同时减少学生对于成就的过度压力。”(这些问题在文章后面提到的这些内容中会逐个被解决)。

　　阅读报告之后，我发现这份文件是一个很好的开端，一个我和国内其他人关注点的验证。但是，我感觉到文件只提及到这整个竞争激烈的大学招生过程的核心问题：为什么?

　　存在如此严重的问题，为什么这样做?为什么让一个家庭在经济和情感上遭受这样的压力?

　　因为其他人说这是唯一的选择。

　　这个似乎衍生的答案回答了看起来复杂的问题，但是问题的关键在于这个简单的信念已经被其他家长、辅导员、教师和学院重复多年。

　　报告确实提及到“最合适大学”的概念，但是正如成功的概念,“最合适”的概念太含糊，谁能论断哈佛是最适合学生的大学?除了“最合适”的概念，人们需要采取更积极主动解决问题的方法，尤其是解决导致普遍人们认为这些精英大学客观上比其他大学更有价值的问题。人们必须摒弃这些错误的想法。

　　第一种错误的想法是：私人精英大学提供更优质的教育。这难道不是由今天自负的大学高谈阔论的更加平庸的陈腔滥调?私人院校是通过测量一些常规质量的度量指标来排名第一的，这类型的私人院校提供学生在其他大学则不被提供的独特机会。在真正的教育实践中，很多学校却做不到。大学不仅是为成人世界做准备，也不单是为了客观上的工作。正如大卫•福斯特•华莱士曾经表示的，大学是学生寻找他们的“灵魂”，作为一个学习者和个人去发现他们是谁的道路。根据威廉.德雷谢维奇，前耶鲁大学英语教授,认为精英大学相比地方性大学在个人认知这种次级能力上表现更差。在他2014年华盛顿邮报上发表的文章中，他指出,“精英学校喜欢夸耀,他们教学生如何思考,但他们的意思是,训练学生在商业和职业当中成功必备的分析和修辞技巧。一切都是技术统治论的。”换而言之，这些精英学校变成了生产厂房，构建学生荣耀的机器。这里没有后设认知，即感知实用主义战胜了个人的探索。在工作环境当中，那些负责招聘员工的人不会优先考虑谁学会了机器人式的常规要求,而是寻找那些只有通过深刻的自我认知才能展示领导能力的人。此外，德雷谢维奇引起争论的想法是，在这些精英院校教学比起在其他大学教学在某种程度上更好。“教授和学生在很大程度上加入了一个‘互不侵犯’协定[…]整个行业的激励结构跟教学产生了偏差，而且声望越高的学校，这种偏差可能越强烈。” 德雷谢维奇表示。也就是说，教授没有动力去教学，而学生被视作荣誉的交易，等待四到五年获取最终毫无意义的学位。

　　第二种错误的想法是：在私人精英大学花的钱更值。在过去几年，一些商业广告和网站宣称私人院校会提供未来更优质的生活。事实上，这些大学不仅更贵，而且在很多情况下，增加了毕业生的依赖。根据大学委员会的资料显示，私人四年制大学每年平均学费高达31，231美元，这个数字超过州内公办四年制大学的三倍花费，它们平均学费是9,139美元。常春藤盟校的学费更加过分,平均学费从2014年的46,323美元升至2015年的47,696美元，一年的升幅超过1，000美元。除了这个增加的学费比率,大多数学生变得依赖联邦援助来支付这些收费高昂的院校。根据美国国家教育统计中心发布的消息，从2007年到2013年，接受各种形式金融援助(贷款)的学生，在四年制非盈利性院校从86%增至99%，对比在四年制公办院校，该学生比率从77%增加到83%。然而,区别在于每年在私人院校多支出三倍的金额。不管怎样，这笔成本在大学毕业后也不会消失。

　　当他们从受人尊敬的大学得到学位后会发生什么? 他们是否比以前过得更好吗?不。事实上，很多人不能偿还他们的贷款。根据联邦学生援助的网站数据，最高比例的学生表示拖欠贷款(贷款无法支付)的平均时间，毕业于四年制私人院校的学生，明显比毕业于四年制公立大学的学生早几年。当比较集体违约率(CDR)，私人院校学生最大违约比例时间少于两年，私人院校学生领取学校贷款占总人口的13.76%，相比于同期公立院校的研究生有8.86%。

　　在成本和未来繁荣的方面，答案似乎清晰地指出在目前和未来，公立州内学校可以通过小成本提供优质的教育。

　　第三种错误的想法是：私人精英大学让学生更开心。这应该是寻找大学的最终目标，难道不是吗?在许多方面,这些私人院校看起来像一个田园诗般的天堂，拥有各种不拘一格的学生，轻松地气氛，迷人的风景和美妙的声音。实际情况是，很多大学都是毫不夸张的高压锅，迫使学生将他们生命的方方面面都视为竞争。这种环境让学生有极大的心理落差。奎因.D.海克托，《哈佛深红报》的作家,哈佛大学的官方报纸, 报道说,在2012年,即使最保守的统计自杀率的结果几乎是全国平均水平的两倍,而最宽松的统计结果就接近全国平均水平的四倍。同一年在普林斯顿，由《普林斯顿人日报》，普林斯顿的学生报纸，发表的调查报告显示，透露在学校超过1，800个学生里面就有35%的学生在来到学校后报告有心理健康问题。没有证据表明，当地公立学校没有心理问题的倾向，但是这确实让人增加了对这些院校的广告策划人推崇大学环境逍遥自的叙述产生质疑。来自学生的完美预期，导致了根深蒂固的压力和不足的感觉。

　　最终，这些高中生将成为我们社会的决策者。今年，预计世界上大概有2,020万的新生在美国上大学，这个事实是更令人害怕的。所以我们必须说服父母以及教学人员，更重要地是，让学生知道上昂贵的院校并没有本质和肯定的价值。从摒弃一定要上名牌大学的陈旧观念开始，我们必须拯救高中生。

　　作者：MATTHEW SAENZ

　　日期：2016年3月1日

　　本文摘自洛杉矶时报

　　Introduction: The bi-weekly newsletter from Kent Consultancy Group (KCG) is dedicated to share our news and best practices on serving customers as a top tier educational consulting firm. It is designed to assist you to understand more about the value propositions and mission of KCG.

　　Opinion: Selectivity and a better education are not correlated

　　From Timbuktu to Texas, from Calcutta to California, from New Zealand to New York, life for many is predicated on an ability to succeed. Of course, the very concept of “success” is nebulous, but as human civilization becomes increasingly more interconnected, the common definition appears clear: education.

　　According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), education can serve as the proverbial “water in the oasis” for many a poor person, increasing everything from life expectancy to average pay. However, in rich, developed countries, the prospect of education is no longer satisfactory–to be successful, people must attend the most prestigious of universities. Parents and students have become obsessed with attending those oh-so-desirable private institutions like Harvard, or Yale, or Stanford. In order to increase their students’ chances of getting in, parents will spend to incredible lengths, and encourage students to stack their schedules with challenging courses, and a smorgasbord of extracurricular activities. In the past 10 to 15 years, however, this arms race has its consequences, nearly all of which don’t involve an acceptance letter. Students are now overworked, overstressed, overextended in every place imaginable–resulting in everything from academic dishonesty to a lack of genuine community cognizance.

　　I am not the first person to notice this troubling trend. On Jan. 21, the Harvard Graduate School of Education released a document to the public aimed at addressing this problem. Signed by many deans of admissions from across the nation, it promised to change the way the college admissions process is handled. Entitled “Turning the Tide: Inspiring Concern for Others and the Common Good through College Admissions,” this report describes the overwhelmingly insular nature of the common high school applicant, and provides suggestions for reversing this: 1) “Promoting more meaningful contributions to others, community service and engagement with the public good,” 2) “Assessing students’ ethical character and contributions to others in ways that reflect varying types of family and community contributions across race, culture and class,” 3) “Redefining achievement in ways that both level the playing field for economic diverse students and reduce excessive achievement pressure,” (which will each be addressed separately in articles to come).

　　After reading the report, I find that this document is a great start, a validation of my concerns and others around the nation. But, I feel that it only touches on the central question of this entire rat race that is the college admissions process: why?

　　With such a huge problem, why do it? Why subject a family to such strains, both financially and emotionally?

　　Because everyone else says it’s the only option.

　　That answer seems like such a derivative answer to such a seemingly complex problem, but at the crux of the issue lies this simple belief that has been repeated by other parents, guidance counselors, teachers, institutions, for years.

　　The report does touch on the concept of a “best fit college,” but like the concept of success, the notion of a “best fit” is too vague–who is to say that the best fit college for a student is Harvard? Beyond the concept of “best fit,” people need to take a more proactive approach to the problem, specifically address the issues that result in the average person deeming these elite universities objectively more valuable than others. People must abolish these misconceptions.

　　The first misconception: private, elite universities provide a better education. Is there a more hackneyed statement harangued by boastful universities today? This private institution was ranked number one by some metric that measured some general quality, that private institution allows students unique opportunities not otherwise accessible at other universities. In terms of true education, however, many universities fall short. College is more than preparing for the adult world, more than objective jobs. As David Foster Wallace once expressed, college is the avenue in which students find their “soul”–discover who they are as both a learner and a person. According to William Deresiewicz, a former English professor at Yale University, elite universities are worse at this secondary ability compared to regional universities. In his 2014 article for The Washington Post, he notes that “Elite schools like to boast that they teach their students how to think, but all they mean is that they train them in the analytic and rhetorical skills that are necessary for success in business and the professions. Everything is technocratic.” In other words, these elite schools have become production factories that build glorified machines of students. There is no metacognition–perceived pragmatism has trumped individual exploration. In the work environment, those responsible for hiring employees do not prioritize those who have learned the robotic routine required–rather, they look for those that can display leadership, which can only be achieved through a profound sense of self. Additionally, Deresiewicz disputes the idea that the teaching at these institutions are somehow better than at other universities. “Professors and students have largely entered a ‘non-aggression’ pact […] The profession’s whole incentive structure is biased against teaching, and the more prestigious the school, the stronger the bias is likely to be” Deresiewicz expressed. In other words, professors have no incentive to teach, and students are seen as glorified transactions, waiting four to five years and receiving an ultimately meaningless degree.

　　The second misconception: private, elite universities offer more bang for the buck. For the past few years, some commercials and websites have declared that private institutions provide a better quality of life in the future. In actuality, these universities are not only more expensive, and in many situations, increase the dependency of its graduates. According to the College Board, the average tuition per year at a private, 4-year university is a whopping $31,231, a number that is more than triple the cost of in-state, public, 4-year universities, which has an average of $9,139. The tuition of Ivy League schools is even more egregious, rising from an average of $46,323 in 2014, to $47,696, in 2015– an increase of over a $1,000 in one year. In addition to this increased tuition rate, most students become dependent on federal aid to pay for these expensive institutions. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, from 2007-2013, students receiving any financial aid (loans) at a 4-year private nonprofit institution increased from 86 to 89 percent, compared to 4-year public institutions, which rose from 77 to 83 percent. The difference, however, lies in the amount paid per year, which is three times more at private institutions. This cost for college does not disappear after graduation, however.

　　What happens when they get this degree from that esteemed university? Are they better off than before? No. In fact, many cannot pay for their loans. According to the Federal Student Aid website, the average amount of time it takes for the highest percentage of students to default on their loans (fail to pay the loan) was, on average, significantly faster among students who graduated from 4-year, private institutions compared to those who graduated from 4-year, public institutions by several years. When comparing Cohort Default Rates (CDR), the largest percentage of defaults for graduates of these private institutions was less than two years, at 13.76 percent of the total population taking out school loans, compared to 8.68 percent during the same period of time for graduates of public institutions.

　　In terms of cost and future prosperity, the answer seems clear–look towards public, in-state schools, which offer quality education at a fraction of the cost, both in the present and future.

　　The third misconception: private, elite universities make students happier. This should be the ultimate goal in looking for a college, shouldn’t it? In many ways, these private institutions seem like an idyllic paradise, equipped with an eclectic variety of students, an easygoing ambiance, beautiful sights, and wonderful sounds. In actuality, these universities are literal pressure-cookers, forcing students to view every aspect of their lives as a competition. This environment has had disproportionately high mental consequences on these students. Quinn D. Hatoff, a writer for The Harvard Crimson, Harvard’s official newspaper, reported that in 2012, even the most conservative calculation results in a suicide rate that is nearly double that of the national average, with the most inclusive calculation at nearly quadruple the national average. That same year in Princeton, a survey reported by The Daily Princetonian, Princeton’s student newspaper, of more than 1,800 students on campus revealed that 35 percent of the students reported developing mental health issues after arriving on campus. In no way does this suggest that local, public universities are not prone to mental issues, but it does question the narrative of a happy-go-lucky environment of growth championed by advertisers for these institutions. Perfection is expected from these students, leading to deep-rooted feelings of stress and inadequacy.

　　Ultimately, these high school students will become the decision-makers in our society. In a world where an estimated record 20.2 million new students will attend universities in the United States this year, this reality becomes more dire. We must convince the parents, the faculty, but most importantly, the students, that there is no intrinsic, no assigned value of attending these expensive institutions. We must save the lives of the high school student, which begins with crushing the archaic notion of a prestigious university.

　　Author: MATTHEW SAENZ

　　Date: MARCH 1, 2016

　　This article is quoted from Los Angeles Times

肯特咨询集团双周简报相关热词搜索：简报 集团

1、省委赴台州市、县（市、区）两级督查组按照省委整改落实办的部署和要求，坚持多方联动、从严从实和问题导向开展督查，切实帮助市、县（市、区）委共同做好整改工作。督查工作简报 督查工作汇报范文三篇。(2015-08-05)

2、实践调查概述例文篇一《大学生社会实践调查报告范文》 实践调查概述例文。(2016-02-15)

3、　　三八节活动简报　　篇一　　今年是三八国际劳动妇女节102周年，为迎接节日的到来，各镇(区)妇联、市直各妇委会积极响应市妇联的号召， 三八节活动简报。(2016-03-12)

4、中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编为大家整理的相关的【简报】3月30日 财经总汇供大家参考选择。【简报】3月30日 财经总汇　　宏 【简报】3月30日 财经总汇。(2016-03-30)

5、中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编精心为大家整理了简报 周二，带你速读烟草！希望对你有帮助。　　简报　速读烟草　　3月25日，2 简报 周二，带你速读烟草！。(2016-03-30)

6、　　下面是中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编为大家带来的今日简报，希望能帮助到大家!今日简报　　亚洲市场表现不佳，A股一枝独秀 今日简报。(2016-04-06)

7、　中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编精心为大家整理了2016 04 06环球市场简报，希望对你有帮助。　2016 04 06环球市场简报　　中国 2016/04/06环球市场简报。(2016-04-06)

8、中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编今天为大家精心准备了一周新闻简报，希望对大家有所帮助!　　一周新闻简报　　家事　　聆听心声 一周新闻简报。(2016-04-11)

9、下面是中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编为大家带来的集中簿记建档简报，希望能帮助到大家!　　集中簿记建档简报　　发行情况：　 集中簿记建档简报。(2016-04-11)

10、中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编为大家整理的相关的新闻简报0411供大家参考选择。　　新闻简报0411　　中国经济一季度经济指标出 新闻简报0411。(2016-04-11)

11、以下是中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 分享的钢铁财经简报，希望能帮助到大家!　　钢铁财经简报　　钢铁行业财务工作座谈会暨财价委 钢铁财经简报。(2016-04-11)

12、下面是中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编为大家带来的简报周二带你速读烟草，希望能帮助到大家!　　简报周二带你速读烟草　　国家 简报周二带你速读烟草。(2016-04-20)

13、　　投资有风险，入市须谨慎!下面是中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编为大家带来的长荣简报2016年4月22日行情点评，希望能帮助到大 长荣简报2016年4月22日行情点评。(2016-04-22)

14、中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编为大家整理的相关的20160422新纪元期货微简报供大家参考选择。　　20160422新纪元期货微简报　　 20160422新纪元期货微简报。(2016-04-22)

15、中国招生考试网www chinazhaokao com 小编今天为大家精心准备了易天微简报，希望对大家有所帮助!　　易天微简报　　早盘简报　　2016年4月 易天微简报。(2016-04-22)