Economic diversity in US universities

NYTimes has a really neat comparison of economic diversity (the lack thereof, actually) in US universities. Worth checking it outhttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html. If it wasn't worse than you would've imagined, I'd be surprised.

- Our elite universities have more students from the Top 1%  (households that make $630,000+ / year) than the bottom 60%. For instance, 10% of the students at Michigan come from the Top 1% of the income ladder.
- Half the students at Stanford or Michigan come from the top 10% of wealthy households
- The household income of the median student at Stanford or Michigan is in the 80th percentile 
- There isn't much of a difference between elite public and private universities

- These are 2013 numbers for the incoming freshman class. I can guarantee you that (at least at UM) it has stratified further since then). 
- That said, at most public universities, a good number of students do transfer in from smaller colleges, so these number should look a bit better.

and of course.... going to college matters

On College Teaching

I've been wanting to do this for a long while, but now is perhaps the time. A former student (now on the academic market) has been asking for advice and a colleague (probably sarcastic, probably not) wanted to know the "secret" behind why I am a popular teacher. Besides, I am in transit in Atlanta and I still have an hour left, even after a long messaging session with a friend.  

Disclaimer 1: I am very aware that great teaching ratings do not necessarily imply great teaching, nor does it necessarily correlate with teaching outcomes. 

Disclaimer 2: It goes without saying that there is no secret formula to good teaching and quite a bit depends on the circumstances, the teacher, the students, the course (not to mention other things such as sexism, etc).  Nevertheless (by some odd coincidences), I've taught full courses at four different universities (east coast, midwest, west coast and the UK), and at different stages of my career (as a student/lecturer/non-tenure-track/tenure track, etc) and observations hold, more-or-less. Perhaps even more importantly, I really enjoy teaching (especially so in Ann Arbor), and so I thought I'd share my impressions of it.

Another tidbit: Before I started at the Univ of Michigan, I spoke to two of my colleagues-to-be. One said something to the effect of "do an adequate job; never say anything controversial; stick to the topic; play it safe". The other said "I've taught at XXXX, but I am convinced that this is the best university in the world to teach in. A lot depends on your personality. Just be yourself and have fun". Both are excellent teachers, and so you get the point about the generality of advice (feel free to stop reading right now, btw.)

Nevertheless, here goes. 

1. Be less than perfect ; improvise

     Don't script everything. It pays more to screw up (infrequently, of course), make the necessary corrections and apologize, than motoring through a plan. This is unless you are impeccably perfect. Trust me on this: Students are really forgiving when it comes to honest mistakes. Almost all of my lectures have unplanned sequences (well.. sometimes the whole lecture is unplanned, but I won't say how often it happens) and I let my explanations and thinking processes evolve during the lecture. Based on what I've gathered, my lecture preparation time is anywhere between 0% and 50% compared to colleagues.  Sure, every semester, I have the odd crappy lecture or two (or more), but evolving/thinking through a lecture lets students know that teaching is an active process and not a mechanical one.

2. Realize your capital , spend it wisely and have a feedback mechanism

     During my orientation at Michigan, there was an interactive student panel. One particularly eloquent kid said something to the effect of "We know what you had to go through to get to where you are. The moment you walk in to the first lecture, you have great respect. Most often, you have to try hard to lose it". Now, of course, that's not always true, but the logic is sound, even if you walk in with a not-so-stellar reputation. I also think that I do a decent job of gauging how the students are responding to the course in general and make periodic adjustments.

3. Try relating ideas to content in other courses

    In many of my lectures, I try to establish some type of link to something the students have learnt in a math / physics course or a departmental course. I might even explicitly point out to a specific part of the course (or a book) if I knew of the link. Students really appreciate this, and in general it is a good idea to try to harmonize the entire curriculum.

4. Being relatable helps

       I think this is very important (at least for my teaching style). Making the classroom a fun activity pays dividends. I don't shy away from anything relevant (in short bursts). Football, politics, game of thrones, etc. Here is a (but silly) anecdote: A couple of years ago, I was teaching a grad class in the fall. I mentioned a football reference, but didn't get much traction from the class of 50. I asked how many actually followed football. 7 students raised their hands. I said "I quit this job", walked out and came back in after a few seconds... everyone laughed, some of them clapped, but one kid (a back bencher, of course) actually had a football with him and pointed it at me. I asked him to throw it, ran half a route and caught it. This was week 2. I had the class for the entire semester. Bottomline is, being relatable goes a long way.

5. Be lenient, but set boundaries

      Students will be grateful if you do simple things such as moving a submission deadline because they have a congested week, etc. But I also make sure, from the outset,  that there are some aspects with zero compromise (quality of submissions, messing up units, etc).

6. Give a heavy, but well-justified workload

     I can't come up with a reason as to why students respond well to this, but almost every course I've taught has had long, hard homeworks (at least from the perspective of most of the class), but it doesn't seem to piss them off and I end up getting good reviews. If they see that you care enough, they'll be willing to walk the mile.

7. Iterate, provide context

     With the evolution the internet (and other things), students have a shorter attention span (duh!), less patience (duh!) and are less receptive to abstract concepts than ever before. However, it becomes easier to explain abstract concepts (or long derivations) by quickly providing context and iterating on it.  I cut through the first pass very quickly and will purposefully be vague about the details. I'll get to the end, provide context and then re-do the derivation a bit more carefully. Sometimes I conveniently move difficult things towards the end of a lecture, so I can re-do the entire thing again in the next lecture.

8. Provide the big picture

    Telling students what the big picture / overall goals are at the beginning / every so often / at the end of the semester goes a long way. Always emphasize the essential components of the course and try to make sure everyone at least gets the big picture and not bogged down by the finer details.

9. Care

     Students are real people too.. and some of them have problems that real people have. Asking an (appropriate) personal question during office hours can go a long way in establishing a relationship that is mutually beneficial and enhances learning outcomes.

10. Show them that you care

     As important as #9.

11. Don't fake it, let loose (once in a while)

     If you try to be someone your personality doesn't easily lend itself to, be prepared for an uphill climb. If you swear in real life, feel free to swear (tread lightly of course). I drop a few "I can prove this claim, but it is going to be unnecessary bullshit" . If you hate Ohio, do throw in a few "This sucks worse than the state of Ohio."  Point is... let loose.

12. Confuse them (once in a while)

     Sometimes, I pose a question and deliberately give a wrong answer. I would soon emphatically correct it, but seeding a bit of self-doubt helps them work through the process and makes the concept more likely to remember.

13. Use technology, but don't abuse it

     This one is obvious. Show videos, throw in slides once in a while, use fancy active learning tools. There is no such thing as a terrible tool unless you use it unwisely.

14. Read up on education research

     And tell me what it says ;). I haven't done this, but seriously, I am sure one can gain from it (at least anecdotally).

Greatest sports stories of 2016

2016, for all its geo-political miseries, was one of the greatest years in sports. So here is an attempt to capture (and rank) the important moments. Of course, it is impossible to be objective on a topic like this, but most lists I've read are not only terribly subjective, but also biased (this side/that side of the pond, etc) and incomplete. So here is my take on it, broken down into (4 equally weighted categories on a scale of 10). Of course, individual/olympic athletes are going to be downgraded, but hey, that's the way the world works. I also made a list purely based on achievement in globally relevant sports.

Stories:
Team/Individual     Shock value / Significance to fans / Global importance / Achievement in that sport
1. Leicester city        10; 10; 8; 7
2. Cleveland Cavs      8; 10; 9; 7
3. Djokovic                6; 7; 9; 10
4. Usain Bolt             6; 7; 8; 10
5. Portugal                 8; 9; 8 ; 6
6. Chicago Cubs        7; 10; 5; 7
7. Michael Phelps      8; 6; 7; 9
8. Simone Biles         5; 4; 5; 10
9. Katie Ledecky       4; 4; 5; 10
10. Serena Williams  4; 5; 7; 9

Achievements:
1. Simone Biles
2. Katie Ledecky
3. Usain Bolt
4. Novak Djokovic (only because he tanked half the year)
5. Michael Phelps
6. Lebron James
7. Serena Williams

Plays:  (Team sports.. only championship games matter)
1. Villanova    
2. Carlos Brathwaite
3. Irving / James

Performances:  (Individual sports.. only finals matter)

1. Wayde van Niekerk (Olympic 400m)

2. Katie Ledecky 
3. Simone Biles

Univ of Michigan Aerodynamics exam from 1942, etc

As I was preparing to set my own Aerodynamics exam, my department chair sent me this gem from 1942. http://umich.edu/~caslab/docs/1942_Aero_Exam.pdf
It is pretty amazing that this was barely 37 years after the Wright brothers' first flight. Of course, my mind is permanently blown courtesy of the fact that U Michigan offered an Aeronautics degree within a decade of the first flight (also the oldest Aeronautics program in the country.. beating MIT by a year or so). Felix Pawlowski - an amazing human was mostly responsible for that. In fact, the exam linked above was his.

Research Universities in America : Part 1

One of the (few) areas that distinguishes this country from the rest of the world is higher education - more specifically,  research universities. About a 100 institutions of higher learning (you can see a list here) can be classified as research universities (or universities with a very high level of research activity) and a great number enjoy a preeminent position globally. These entities thrive in a very unique ecosystem with large student bodies/campuses (typically above 25,000 students and spread over hundreds/thousands of acres), massive budgets (typically more than a billion dollars) and engaged in the business of "knowledge creation" (rather than "knowledge transmission" which is the goal of teaching-centric institutions).  Quite interestingly, even within the United States, the general public is not very aware of the level of excellence these universities have accomplished as impressions get built mostly on reputations of undergraduate programs.  In a series of posts, I will try to cover various aspects of these amazing institutions. I've been reading a few books, especially Cole, Geiger and Slosson.

A historical journey has to always begin with the creation of the first American college.. Harvard, which was instituted in 1636. Growth of American colleges was, however, slow initially (the next college was started 60 years later), but picked up in the 19th century. By the time of the civil war, about 100 or so "major" colleges were in existence. Before 1850, these colleges were in the business of educating future church ministers and elites and the typical college appears to have about 5 teachers and 100 students. Here is a rough timeline of the various stages of evolution between 1850-1920. We will look at this in more detail:

1850s: Natural sciences gain foothold
1860s: Utilitarian objectives are institutionalized
1870s: Post-Graduate training and research started
1890s: Abrupt acceleration (enrollment, especially in engineering and sciences), fundraising
1920:  Universities established patterns of structure and financing recognizable today.

By the time of the civil war, languages, mathematics, philosophy and history were being taught at a very basic level. In other words, the US didn't have a single true university, but post-bachelor's education in the style of German advanced universities was being looked at with great envy. The Germans were the first to transform universities from teaching to research, starting in the 1820s. Though research had existed in European universities before this time, it was not organized in any form (Isaac Newton was paid to teach and performed research as an amateur). The distinguishing aspect of German research universities was a formal structure which allowed for "search for truth irrespective of utilitarian applications," i.e., a focus on basic research. Until late in the 19th century, many Americans tended to pursue post-bachelors education in Germany and most brought back the experience and vision to America. 

1850s: Initial efforts

Though Harvard and Yale began tinkering with the Lawrence scientific school and Sheffield scientific school (both in 1847), respectively, these institutes were focused on providing advanced practical training. Henry Tappan, the first president of the University of Michigan, came up with a prototype of the American research university in 1851 and wanted to replicate the German model in Ann Arbor. He emphasized research and laboratory activity in the course of study. While Tappan was able to institute part of his plan, he did have serious clashes with the rest of the administration.

1862:  Morrill land grant act

The first "quasi-research" universities were enabled to a great degree by the Morrill land grant act in 1862,  whereby "lands belonging to the US government were transferred to the states on condition that proceeds from their sale of land was to be used to establish colleges (and later universities) to teach practical science, primarily in agriculture and the mechanical sciences".  This act led to some of the great universities of today to be founded (Illinois,  California, etc), and strengthened many existing universities.

1876: Johns Hopkins University

While Tappan had sown the seeds of the research univeristy and the Morrill act enriched them, the founding of the Johns Hopkins University in 1876 is much cliched as "perhaps the single most decisive event in the history of learning in the Western Hemisphere."  JHU not only replicated the German model, it also added a distinctive American touch (the German system was seen to be rigid and authoritarian). Though JHU originally provided advanced graduate instruction, it produced much more PhDs than elsewhere in a few years; established a number of research journals and JHU graduates took their ideas to the rest of the country. Yale awarded the first American PhD in 1861, but was outnumbered very soon by JHU. JHU had a small number of highly distinguished faculty who were free to pursue advanced ideas. It is interesting that even now, JHU and Michigan are #1 and #2 in terms of annual research expenditure.

1890s:  Beginnings of fundraising 

The major American universities of today sit on mountainous cash piles (effectively, tax-free hedge funds) running into the several billions of dollars each, dwarfing competition from the rest of the world. The establishment of Yale alumni fund (1890) was a singular event that was successfully imitated by the rest. Yale was able to get $11,000 from 385 grads and this model and other private universities.  By 1905, Harvard was able to raise $100k from the 1880 class. 

1890s: Growth

A few universities grew very rapidly, especially in the engineering and science disciplines. Michigan, for instance, had enough students to have a separate college of Engineering with 300 students in 1895 (this number quadrupled in 10 years). While most universities grew, only four (Harvard, Michigan, Penn and Yale) had more than 2000 students.

1900: AAU

The research landscape became more organized by the founding of the Association of American Universities (AAU) "by a group of fourteen Ph.D.-granting universities to strengthen and standardize American doctoral programs." 12 of these 14 universities (Columbia, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, Yale, Michigan, Berkeley, Wisconsin, JHU, Stanford, Cornell, Chicago) along with MIT continue to be at the top of the pecking order to this day. Membership in the AAU is highly coveted and as of 2013, there are 60 member universities.

1900s: Fundraising takes off
Universities became the major beneficiaries of the bonanza of the Gilded age as they attracted a clear majority of charitable offerings until 1910. This era also coincided with the uptick in fund-raising tactics (which continue to this age) organized by the universities themselves. Multi-million dollar gifts became commonplace at the richer universities.

1900-1920: Getting there
In 1900, the total US expenditure on research was just $11M. This number grew to $345M by 1940, setting the environment for academic research. By 1920,  the transformation from teaching to research-orientation was complete. All faculty members were expected to contribute to the growth of knowledge and the American research university as we know it was in place. In fact, if you look at this fascinating book written in 1910 (about the 14 original research universities), you will be amazed.

You are much safer now than ever before

It annoys me to no end when the 24/7 media circus and the human tendency to fixate on highlights completely skews perspective. Let's start with your typical "the way the world is going... " after every horrid incident that you read in the news. 

Sure, until the last crime stops in the world, we need to worry about such things (and it is not my intent to trivialize the bad side of society), but let's look at numbers regarding US crime statistics. This chart (from Pew) gives you an idea of the last 20 years, but let's put it in words: Rapes are down to 1/6th of the level of the 90s, Non-fatal firearm crime is down to 1/5th, and homicide rates (down by more than 50% across the board and MUCH more in major cities.. yes.. you got me.. Detroit is an exception) have been dropping at such a fast rate that now we're looking at numbers not seen in more than 100 years.. and possibly ever! Sorry gun control nuts, I am indeed on your side, but please don't spell out wrong facts while stating your case (which is just). Also, America bashers, violent crime in the US is now actually less than that in the UK and "Europe" and it has been so for 15 years... and yes.. this is a selective stat - homicide rates in the US are much higher..

Below is what the US public thinks about crime rates in the past 20 years.

Of course... and before you blame stupid Americans about it, the British are pretty much the same (they're wrong about everything too).

Democracy is obviously the answer to modern governance, but if the public are so wrong about basic things (that independent article is great fun.. read the parts regarding job seeker's allowance vs foreign aid and welfare cheating), what is the point? 

And it is not just the US and UK that have seen a decline in violence.. have a look. 

Now, in the bigger scheme of things, as Steven Pinker explains in his WONDERFUL book "The Better Angels of our Nature", a preview of which can be found here , we're living in the "most peaceable era in the existence of our species". At both small and large time scales, things are continually improving, and at a  good pace. Now.. of course, we can't take things for granted AND there is no guarantee that things will continue the way they are (at least at the micro scale - I am confident about the overall trend). We are naturally wired to operate on highlights and recent events, but the next time something horrible happens, I hope the media at least makes an effort to add a proper background.

Now, as to why exactly US crime has been dropping (interesting because it is lower than many developed countries), here are some specific reasons other that what Pinker gives : better law enforcement, more incarcerations more abortions (sorry!), the internet, some social programs, urban rejuvenation projects, better security, lead paint (!!), etc.

I have a thousand more things to say on this topic and better links to post, but as always, my blogging budget is too low (besides the football game just ended on TV and I've finished dinner). I have, however, done you (not as in 'you' but as in 'the general public other than you') a big favor. Click this link. Peace.

Edit: Wow.. quite a few messages, eh!  Let me add that declining violence is not always a guarantee by any means and even though you're safer, it will never be safe enough in any large country... and sure the police in most US cities are under tremendous pressure with meagre resources to fight crime with, so articles like this may appear to be in poor taste, but that is not the point. To quote Pinker "As one becomes aware of the historical decline of violence, the world begins to look different. The past seems less innocent, the present less sinister. One starts to appreciate the small gifts of coexistence that would have seemed utopian to our ancestors. For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment that we can savor". Though Pinker's arguments relate directly to the longer time scales, there are some lessons to be learnt.

University Rankings

Discussion about university rankings seem to be getting a lot of  press worldwide over the past few years, an interesting development because it used to be mostly an American obsession. Part of the reason - in my opinion -is that in the past, most people outside the US could afford to ignore rankings on the grounds that they were biased toward criteria that make the most sense in an American setting. 

ARWU Rankings

All the ignoring (well a good portion of it anyway) went out of the window in 2003 when a Chinese university (Shanghai Jiao-Tong) made a comprehensive ranking of world universities (apparently in an attempt to evaluate where Chinese universities stand and to eventually get them to the highest level). The criteria that this ranking uses is purely based on metrics that signify world class research such as Nobel Prizes, publications in top journals, citations of publications, etc. As subjective as they are, it turns out that these rankings are harder to ignore because every good university pretty much cares about such metrics. This has especially become a sore point in Continental Europe (and China and India) because just as in the other rankings, not many representatives are present. These rankings are updated every year and here are the 2012 numbers near the top and also for a few universities that I care about:

1. Harvard
2. Stanford
3. MIT
4. Berkeley
5. Cambridge
6. CalTech
10. Oxford
17. Johns Hopkins
20. Univ of Tokyo (Highest rated Asian university)
22. Michigan
23. ETH, Zurich (Highest rated European university)
38. Maryland

Some interesting facts:
- No Chinese or Indian universities in the Top 150
- Only one European univ in Top 25
- 17 of the Top 19 and 36 of the Top 50 are in the US
- 3 of the Top 6 and 6 of the Top 18 are in California

I would think that these numbers may be biased towards science-specific schools but then, rankings of specialized areas are also detailed (since 2007). Here are the Engineering rankings:

1. MIT
2. Stanford
3. Berkeley
4. Illinois
5. Texas
6. Santa Barbara
7. Michigan
13. Toronto (first non-US university)
14. Maryland
15. Cambridge
18. ETH Zurich
19. CalTech (no clue how this happened)

One Indian university (Indian Institute of Science) appears in the Top 50 and Top 100 in some disciplines.

Times World University Rankings

A broader set of criteria "teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook" are apparently considered in the Times Higher Education Rankings.   These rankings are also quite meticulous as Thomson Reuters seems to have put in a lot energy. Here is how this looks

1. CalTech
2. Oxford
3. Stanford
4. Harvard
5. MIT
7. Cambridge
9. Berkeley
12. ETH, Zurich
16. Johns Hopkins
20. Michigan
33. Illinois
97. Maryland (somewhat understandable as undergraduate programs aren't as highly regarded)

So what do I make of this? First of all, ranking universities isn't a very scientific thing to do and comparing universities across countries is so incredibly difficult. But you can definitely be assured that a Top 25 or a Top 50 university in either of the above rankings is among the absolute best in the world.

US News Rankings (of American Universities) : Undergraduate program
These rankings are no more scientific than anything else (but perhaps more reliable because standardized criteria apply much better in a national setting), but these matter a great deal as the American obsession with rankings plays a practical role (in school selection, hiring, etc unless you're talking Ivy league). While most university administrators (and department chairs) will pooh-pooh these rankings, I can guarantee you 100% that they care about these and very deeply so.  Department chairs and school Deans make improved showing in these rankings as one of their main job responsibilities. Here are the 2013-14 overall rankings (most Americans go by these numbers when they quote a ranking):

1. Harvard
1. Princeton
3. Yale
4. Columbia
4. Chicago
6. MIT
6. Stanford
10. CalTech
13. Johns Hopkins
21. Berkeley !
29. Michigan !
46. Illinois !
58. Maryland

Needless to say, every single school in the Top 20 is a private institution.

US News Ranking of Engineering schools (Graduate programs):
As a professor (or a grad student) these rankings start getting very relevant (criteria include acceptance rate, research funding per faculty member, membership in National Academies, etc)

1. MIT
2. Stanford
3. Berkeley
4. CalTech
5. Illinois
9. Michigan
19. Maryland
25. Johns Hopkins

US News Ranking of specific departments (Graduate level)
When each subject gets ranked, it gets pretty serious and department chairs (while they may publicly dismiss it as beauty pageants) get a bit nervous. Here are the Aerospace Engineering rankings.

1. CalTech
1. MIT
3. Stanford*
3. Michigan
5. Georgia Tech
6. Purdue
7. Illinois
8. Texas
11. Maryland

* Case in point: Last year we were #1 and we got self-congratulatory emails and discussion in faculty meetings. This year, rankings dismissed.

All said and done, people also use their own judgement to a good degree when choosing a school or a department, but rankings play a considerable role in reducing clutter.