|
|
Pub Date: |
2008-03-07 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Gifted; Early Adolescents; Achievement Tests; Intelligence Quotient; High Achievement; Middle School Students; Maturity (Individuals); Acceleration (Education); Academically Gifted; Parent Student Relationship; Individual Development; Entrepreneurship; Age Differences; Partnerships in Education
Abstract:
The Davidson Academy of Nevada may have one of the most-intelligent student bodies in America, with each student required to be in the 99th percentile on IQ or achievement tests. But these kids need room to run and jump and have someone to talk to as much as any middle schooler. The 44 students now at the academy are at the precarious stage of early adolescence. Founded two years ago to serve profoundly gifted children, Academy students attend Davidson and the University of Nevada simultaneously, some earning nearly two years' worth of credits toward a bachelor's degree by the time they finish high school. Administrators say they have learned they are in charge of a social experiment, almost as much as of a school, and there is constant tension between the ages of students and the influences they might be exposed to on a college campus. Individual learning plans are developed for each student, but many parents say they have learned to trust their children's maturity when it comes to controversial material. The Academy is expected to grow to about 80 students this fall, and the founders hope to expand the school to as many as 300 students, and then may open other locations. "We might do two or three more some day, but that would be it," says founder Bob Davidson. By definition, only about 1 in 30,000 children can qualify for admittance. "There wouldn't be enough children around to fill all the seats."
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
 Help |
 Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2007-06-08 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
School Safety; Public Agencies; Privacy; Health Insurance; Ethics; Confidential Records; Student Records; School Security; Violence; Crisis Management; At Risk Persons; Federal Legislation; Confidentiality; Mental Health
Abstract:
This article describes the findings of a Florida commission on campus safety that was issued in May 2007. The commission contradicted assertions by officials at Virginia Tech that they could not share information about the gunman in April's fatal shooting rampage because of privacy laws. The commission was assembled by Governor Charlie Crist in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. It pointed to crisis-management teams at the University of Florida and Rollins College that identify specific students who might be at risk of being a danger to themselves or others as models that all institutions in the state should follow. The Florida commission, formally known as the Gubernatorial Task Force for University Campus Safety, recommends in its report that federal agencies give "definitive interpretations" of two laws governing student records: the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, known as Hipaa, which covers the use and disclosure of private health information, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, known as Ferpa, which covers privacy of student education records. The article notes the potential medical ethics ramifications involved in the release of private mental-health information. The Florida commission supports sharing information, even without a student's consent and lauds the crisis team at the University of Florida.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2007-06-22 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - General |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Legislators; Tax Credits; Taxes; Tuition; Higher Education; Federal Legislation; Costs
Abstract:
Skepticism among lawmakers in Congress that colleges are adequately trying to control costs may hinder legislation that would extend tax breaks for higher education, according to the chairman of the influential Senate Finance Committee. Senator Max S. Baucus said skepticism on Capitol Hill has been fueled by anger over multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries, huge endowment gains, and the student-loan scandal. Senator Baucus said he would push legislation to combine the two existing tuition tax credits, the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits. He also cited growing momentum to make those credits refundable, which would benefit lower-income families that do not owe taxes. The Finance Committee will consider several proposals to overhaul the tax benefits, Senator Baucus said. Plans to expand the credits and the federal income-tax deductions for college expenses carry substantial costs, with Senator Baucus's proposal priced at up to $25-billion over five years. Under pay-as-you-go-budgeting, those costs would have to be countered with new revenue or budget cuts, with at least some of the cuts coming from higher-education benefits. Senator Baucus would not discuss what those offsets "might be, because he said they had yet to be finalized and that "groups will line up against them" if specific proposals are announced. He also said that costs could be made up at least in part from elsewhere in the budget. "I don't expect the brunt" of the cost-countering provisions, Senator Baucus said, to be "directly education-related." Cost savers rumored to be on the table include limits on the tax-free tuition benefits that colleges give their employees and possible taxes on college endowments.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2007-05-25 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Periodicals; Public Colleges; Educational Quality; Measurement Techniques; School Statistics; Higher Education
Abstract:
In the 1980s, when the "U.S. News & World Report" rankings of colleges were based solely on reputation, the nation's public universities were well represented at the top. However, as soon as the magazine began including its "measures of excellence," statistics intended to define quality, public universities nearly disappeared from the top. As the rankings methodology has evolved to include even more statistics, public universities have never returned to prominence. Brian Kelly, executive editor of "U.S. News," says America's public universities really have fallen that far behind their private competitors. He says public institutions are not doing as well, and he thinks it reflects the reality on campuses. But presidents and other top officials at research universities disagree with Kelly. The presidents, provosts, and academic deans surveyed about the academic quality of their peer institutions by "U.S. News" put seven public universities among the top 27 in 2007. So it appears that public universities have a hard time competing because of the other categories, based on quantitative data used by "U.S. News." A closer look reveals that almost every one of those measures--six-year graduation rates, alumni-giving rate, student-faculty ratio, acceptance rate, and financial resources--favors private institutions over public ones.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2007-05-25 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Profiles; Private Colleges; State Universities; Educational Quality; Educational Improvement; Periodicals
Abstract:
This article presents the "U.S. News" ranking profiles of four colleges, namely: (1) Smith College; (2) Washington University in St. Louis; (3) Colorado State University at Fort Collins; and (4) Whitman College. Smith College was in the top 10 of the nation's liberal-arts colleges, or just outside it, almost since the "U.S. News" rankings began. But for the past two years, it has barely clung to the top 20. Smith College has made some choices that officials know will result in a lower rank, including de-emphasizing SAT scores. But the Student Selectivity measure in the U.S. News rankings recognizes only SAT or ACT scores, the percentage of freshmen who were in the top 10 percent of their high-school classes, and the college's acceptance rate. The net result: Smith ranked 23rd in 1999 in Student Selectivity among liberal-arts colleges and fell to 41st this year. While Smith College lowered its rank, Washington University has moved up the list of the "U.S. News" rankings thanks to endowment gains and a change in how the magazine calculates faculty salaries. For Colorado State University, making progress with fewer resources will have to be its own reward. Colorado State has continued its decade-long trend of improvement: The institution's six-year graduation rate has risen to 63 percent from 54 percent, and the percentage of classes with 20 students or fewer has more than doubled, to 35 percent. Although these changes have not led to a rise in rank, the state university officials have devoted more resources to need-based aid rather than on its rank. On the other hand, Whitman College improved its acceptance and graduation rates by examining the reasons students left early or dropped out and adjusting financial aid.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2007-03-30 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Study Abroad; College Programs; Risk; Insurance; Legal Responsibility; Court Litigation; College Students
Abstract:
As the number of American students studying overseas increases, it will be difficult for colleges to establish or find enough adequate programs with challenging curricula. Students desire ever more remote locations, and colleges are being pushed to support the extremely adventurous. With more students studying abroad, and amid heightened fears about terrorism and political conflicts around the world, some colleges are going to extreme lengths to protect against risks. Some try to limit their liability by signing up with companies that provide rescue services as well as insurance. The number of insurance claims involving study-abroad programs is quite small. United Educators, which insures almost 900 colleges and universities, processed fewer than 100 claims over a 10-year period ending in 2004. More than one-third of the claims involved sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other sexually threatening behavior, a key concern because two-thirds of all American students traveling overseas are women. Tips from risk managers and insurance companies for colleges and universities to protect themselves from costly claims and lawsuits in study-abroad programs are presented.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2007-01-26 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Endowment Funds; Investment; Money Management; College Administration; Educational Finance
Abstract:
The return of college endowments from the depths of the market earlier this decade continued to gain momentum. Endowments returned an average of 10.7 percent in the 2006 fiscal year, up from the previous year's return of 9.3 percent. The largest endowments earned the best returns, allowing the wealthiest of colleges to put even more distance between themselves and the rest of the pack. Those endowments worth more than $1-billion had an average annual return of 15.2 percent in the 2006 fiscal year. For endowments worth less than $25-million, the average investment return was only about half as good, 7.8 percent. They are diversifying more than ever and putting more money than ever into "alternative investments," assets other than stocks and fixed income.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
