Joining Instructions For Form Five Students 2011: Fill & Download for Free

To forgive this kind of debt, then act as if you’ve done something great, kind, and just, is like ripping off the band-aid on a still hemorrhaging wound and declare your patient healed.The problems with higher education are many-fold and killing the one thing that is actually forcing the necessary changes is probably a bad idea.First, college is becoming the only ticket to the American dream. As recently highlighted in a speech by Senator Hawley, families with a four year degree now control three quarters of American wealth. This is a 50% increase from just 1989.[1][1][1][1] This is unjust. It clearly says that for the small business owner, the type of individual who just sees a problem and solves it in his community for some profit, a class of individuals who have traditionally been the backbone of the American economy, those doors are now closed to prosperity. Now, for you to prosper you must:1) Go to college2) Get the right degree3) Get a good job with a big companyThis path is safe, but unsustainable. It is also antithetical to American history, where the greatest gains were made by people who broke out to solve problems with nothing but the clothes on their backs and an idea, be that a new way to drill for oil or that this town really needs a grocery story.But then, the college loan happened. You see, at the point in your life when you are most likely to take risks, America’s Millennial generation are saddled with tens of thousands, even a hundred thousand dollars or more in student loan debt. They must get a good job to pay off those loans. However, thanks to other forces working against them, the degrees themselves are respected less than ever before by managers who rightly understand they don’t have the skills that business needs.This is a disaster. Traditionally, we’ve always relied upon the creativity of strong entrepreneurs, not mega billionaires mind you, but the kind of millionaires you see at church on Sunday none the wiser of their success, to help solve the problems in our community. Whether they run the local meat packing plant, are the thrifty plumber, or the woman who turned her side hustle of selling art that transformed into a t-shirt printing business that now hires six local employees, these people traditionally kept America alive through the adaptability and seeking small prosperity where needs could be found. Not to fault any of the large companies, but we weren’t built to service oligarchs like the controllers of Coke, Disney, and Amazon. The modern education system we currently have only caters to these companies and other major blue chips like them, but robs America of the true genius of the people who get a college degree.Next, who is actually affected by these college loans? It isn’t who you think.For perspective, in 2008, the crisis for students holding massive debt on their degrees crashed headlong into a collapsed jobs market, suddenly made people realize how worthless their degrees were. While student debt and the increase in tuition had been steadily increasing for decades, it was only then that people started to treat the situation as a crisis. Economists would be quick to point out that much of this would be explained by simple inflation, what happens when tons of free money is pumped into systems where customers have little incentive to check the price before buying. College loans are part of that metric, but so are the grants offered to poorer students as a ticket to their great fortune.Most people imagine a college graduate and think of some poor person who has had to overcome a life of poverty just to be straddled with debt slavery. Yes, the debt crisis is real, but the victims aren’t quite who you think. Thanks to many needs based grant programs, which reward huge amounts of money on the basis of parental income and with no consideration of merit or how prepared the student is for college, ungodly amounts of money have flowed into the American education system from American tax payers. Grants like the Pell Grant are so lucrative that colleges do whatever it takes to get a person who is financially qualified to get the grant, regardless of whether they are equipped for college or not. The grant is paid into their tuition, helping many to not need to take out expensive loans. It helps ensure that they can go to college, sure, but at what cost?In 2008, the point where the student debt crisis became a real subject of concern for many Americans, the amount available for Federal student grants was allocated at $13,989,305,000. By 2011 it had ballooned to $35,772,935,000, leveling off to today where the expenditures are around $28 billion.[2][2][2][2]Note that while millions railed against exploitative rising tuition rates ever since, they have still continued to go up as the money given via federal government programs increased. For perspective on the significance of these grants to the higher education industry, a back of the napkin estimation of total tuition for all colleges to be around $393.5 billion in 2013[3][3][3][3], meaning that this one grant alone made up somewhere in the neighborhood of 8% of all student tuition. Calculating, however, for just public university tuition of $205.4 billion, the amount paid by Federal grant money comes closer to 15% of student tuition paid to those universities.Note, that’s every year that the US Federal government pays to college students from lower-income families.Because of the way the grants are paid out, however, the grants are actually hurting not only the people who receive the grant, but everyone else, as well. I want to be clear, when the Higher Education Amendments of 1972 were passed, Pell Grants seemed like a great idea to allow students who traditionally didn’t have access to college to get it. Since then, however, seeing the lucrative opportunities for wealth generation at taxpayer expense, schools have been steadily redesigning themselves to take advantage of grants such as these. How? For many, it meant lowering the threshold of entry to millions of students not ready for college, or where the academic rigor required was more than their talents would allow. Everyone should be legally allowed to go college, but not everyone should be admitted because not everyone can pass. But then the next phase in this evolution takes place. The bar is lowered for these students in several ways. First, the actual coursework and load is made easier, such as padding degrees with useless courses that the students don’t want and which don’t help them in their careers, but which are hard to fail. Often these courses are saturated in ideological bias, reflecting the culture of the professors. Second, the actual coursework is made easier so that fewer students drop out. When the schools adapted to being an institution whose job was to cash checks from the federal government, rather than relying on the tuition of scholarships and the donations of highly performing graduates, then they lost the value of the degree.There is a reason that the special forces like the SEALs and Delta have the reputation of never losing. Pictured below is part of Navy SEAL swim training, also called “drown-proofing”. Candidates must swim while bound in loose restraints they could easily break free from, even by accident. If they break the restraints during their swim, they fail the event. Only a small percentage of humanity could even attempt this training, so it serves as one of the many filters to gain entry into the SEALs.Simply put, not everyone can be a SEAL. Exclusivity based on excellence ensures the value of understood worth to the individual for being a member of a particular culture. College used to be this same sort of filter — an institution where, if someone had graduated from a four year degree program, it was understood that they were some of the most intellectually capable people in the nation. Colleges and Universities no longer have the reputation of reliably creating scholarly graduates. Instead, college is treated more as a place to make connections than as a challenging rite of passage for America’s educated class.Note, this isn’t all colleges. In the US, we have the strange reputation of having a whole generation holding near worthless degrees, while also having the best colleges in the world. That’s because we have a multitude of colleges, but what I tell young people is that really there are only about a hundred that matter. At any given time, if you go to one of these schools, the degree you earn will be respected anywhere you go. Rather than looking for a job, top firms will have recruiters at the colleges looking for you. They don’t go to just any college, but only the best. For kids with particular careers in mind, I give slightly different advice. I say that then there are only about ten. They need to know those 10 colleges and do whatever it takes to get into all of them. For example, my home-state of Oklahoma has the Oklahoma State University, which has some of the world’s best Agriculture and Petrochemical programs in the world. I tell kids that if they want to work in ag or the oil industry, those schools will have it made. But OSU isn’t one of the greatest Universities in general. They are a long way from competing with a Harvard or Yale. That being the case, a person who wants to be in those industries may actually be better off at OSU than those premiere colleges.This matters because thanks to many of the income seeking behaviors of colleges, most colleges not either the Top 100 or the Top 10 for a particular filed are simply getting worse. While this hurts those seeking grants, those hurt most of all aren’t the people who receive the Pell Grant, but those just wealthy enough not to have it as a right, such as most Middle Class children. They have the hardship of getting a degree, but being forced to pay the whole way for it. When they graduate, however, they discover that, because they went to one of thousands of nameless colleges, the degree they earned isn’t respected by hiring managers.The idea that go to college is a path to security has been shattered through government subsidization of needs based income grants offered by the tens of billions.Next we need to talk about where the money is going.The New York Times made it very clear by detailing how some schools were buying off their students in a never ending fit to fill seats, prioritizing luxuries for students over student education.When Louisiana State University surveyed students in 2009 to find out what they most wanted in their new recreation complex, one feature beat out even massage therapy: a lazy river. [4][4][4][4]And while Louisiana boasts its lazy river, students pictured below watched “Jaws” at a “dive-in movie” at Missouri State’s aquatic center.Party pools and other such extravagant luxuries are becoming the norm across colleges in the United States, primarily among the lesser renown universities. Rather than trying to bring in students on the promise of high earnings after college, the experience of college is what is sold, even though no one in history has had this experience when they went to institutions of higher learning. No, but that isn’t stopping universities like UCF from building a “Recovery Cove” because a lazy river is what is necessary to deal with “anxiety of student life”.While railing against an ever increasing bureaucracy is normally an austerity driven conservative talking point, left leaning news has noted the explosive growth of the “student life” facilitation. For example, the UK’s Guardian reported a 33% increase in the number of managers in higher education from 2005 to 2010[5][5][5][5], Huffington Post noted a “problematic boom” in higher ed administrators [6][6][6][6], and Bloomberg reported that, “For every $1 spent on instruction, $1.82 is spent on non-instructional things such as 'academic support, student services, institutional support, public service' and a catch-all category called 'other,'” according to the National Center for Education Statistics.[7][7][7][7]The number of non-academic administrative and professional employees at U.S. colleges and universities has more than doubled in the last 25 years, vastly outpacing the growth in the number of students or faculty, according to an analysis of federal figures.In all, from 1987 until 2011-12—the most recent academic year for which comparable figures are available—universities and colleges collectively added 517,636 administrators and professional employees…— Huffington PostI just have to comment on this for a second and be straight with readers. I paid for college with the GI Bill. I had to literally be shot at to pay for college. After four years in the Marines and two trips to Iraq, where I was leading teams of Marines by the age of 22, starting college was perhaps the easiest exercise I was ever forced to endure. That was hard. That there exists a movement to give students such overwhelming “therapy” options like a lazy river due to the “stress” of college both disgusts me and makes me lose respect for an entire generation.Yet, this movement continues, where students are treated like fragile snowflakes always on the cusp of annihilation, and one more program, facility, or luxury is what they need to survive this cruel, cruel world… that only seems to exist on the campus itself. This is part of how simply filling seats at colleges is bloating the college bureaucracy. To accommodate the “needs” of more students and give them the “best experience” possible, not only are millions being spent on expensive recreational centers like those above, but also in providing services never before offered as a means to entice students who don’t know better. To keep this growing infrastructure in place, colleges have also grown the number of managers and administration over the school, with far less going to actually improving academic facilities than “student life”.This focus on “student life” has caused other problems with education, first by providing so much that students are coddled and feel entitled to be taken care of at any expense, never understanding that college isn’t actually a place to have an amazing time, but to learn and be challenged as preparation for life. It’s like a four year trip to Disney World with sex, booze, and no rules, while also with free private counselling for an ever growing list of disorders and sources of victimization — which never includes the consequences of all sex and booze.This phenomenon reached a peak where students offended by the nature of their classwork could and often did rise up against their professors for saying things that “triggered” the students. “Triggered” by the way, is a term that has been popularized since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It relates to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, where someone who experiences an actual event that placed them in severe trauma (such as nearly being killed in a car accident or surviving a roadside bomb) will experience symptoms of a panic attack around otherwise mundane occurrences which were related to their experience. An example would be a dog barking before a bomb going off, then the brain writes in that dogs barking are related to bombs, so hearing a dog “triggers” someone with PTSD. It’s actually the brain of a trauma patient working too well, being hyper sensitive to perceived threat to try to keep them safe. That actual information about the disease was so miss-communicated in the early days after the wars began, where anything surrounding PTSD and veterans simply looks like men in uniform being sad.Real PTSD is nothing at all like that. It’s just a simple picture to illicit sympathy without understanding. So-called “Social Justice Warriors” on college campuses, however, have stolen the language of the disease to support that their feelings of victimization upon dealing with uncomfortable subjects or people whom they disagree. For them, being “triggered” simply means being forced to deal with ideas and feelings that are unpleasant, conflict with their preconceived notions of the world, or make them feel conflicted or even convicted by their failure to measure up to their own supposed moral standards. That’s exactly what college is meant to do, to give people a better understanding of the world and give them the right mindset to deal with that in a way that benefits everyone. Now, however, we have a spoiled and tyrannical student body, bolstered by an army of ideologically minded administrators that can both be used to attack not just the curriculum, but visiting speakers, and even each other.What I mean by the last part is a phenomenon that is entirely owed to the growing power of the campus administration. As the administrations grew, so did their biases. This I outlined in much greater detail in another answer, but let it serve to say that the overwhelming bias in many of these institutions is enough to dangerously use their power to irreparably hurt their own student’s lives. Such is the power to enact sweeping punishments on students based on pure accusation with no basis in reality, but deeply rooted in political or ideological agendas. Few better examples exist than the “college rape epidemic” which resulted in many students being wrongly “convicted” in kangaroo courts of college tribunals.Perhaps this was because enough people read The Atlantic, which chose last week to run a three-part series by Emily Yoffe on the sexual-assault policies in question. The series demonstrated exhaustively what anyone paying close attention already knew: The legal and administrative response to campus rape over the past five years has been a kind of judicial and bureaucratic madness, a cautionary tale about how swiftly moral outrage and political pressure can lead to kangaroo courts and star chambers, in which bias and bad science create an unshakable presumption of guilt for the accused. [8][8][8][8]Most famous of these was the case of the Duke Lacrosse team scandal beginning in 2006. It was one of the earliest cases where an accusation without proof (and later proved false) smeared the reputation of students with the wrong identity by campus mobs. In spite of the boys’ vindication, the Duke case seemed to inspire copy cat accusations across a campus culture obsessed with “rape-culture”.This ruined the lives of many innocent young men and happened at the behest of mobs of virtue signaling students led by their ideologically minded professors. It was made possible, however, through a bloated campus administration system with the power to kick students based on the “optics” of the case, as deemed by the university’s legal, HR, and marketing teams.So yeah, that’s kind of a problem.Next, we need to talk about the loans themselves. Did you know that college loan debt is one of the only kinds of personal debt that can’t be removed via bankruptcy?That’s insane. I understand why, but it’s still insane.College kids are generally in an age of life where they are not particularly adept at making extremely responsible life decisions. Taking out these kinds of loans is, by nature, a very risky endeavor for a lending institution, traditionally speaking. Frankly, I think that few of us suffer from the delusion that there weren’t many young graduates who abused bankruptcy to get a free education, filing bankruptcy after an expensive education process. One might look to doctors, who would be greatly benefited from such a shystie move. If I was making doctor pay, I would be happy to live in a nice apartment for seven years after graduation, as I save up for an amazing home, free from the burdens of debt the rest of my fellow graduates must endure. Why start life off $200,000 grand in the hole with interest? There is a very good reason that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act extended to education loans — people exist who abuse the system.Lending also isn’t a right you are owed. With government based loans, such as those provided either directly through the Department of Education, or indirectly through companies like Sallie Mae, the idolized notion is that paying back your loan frees up money for the next person. Forgiving that doesn’t just mean the money goes away. It creates a liability for the taxpayers who did pay for the education in the first place, and who may have zero interest in creating another young holder of a Gender Studies degree with no functional utility to the nation. At the very least, ensuring that the student is forced to pay, ensures that the taxpayer isn’t left footing the bill for degrees that frankly, aren’t an investment into our collective future. However, a more honest look is to look at these loans as business. For private lending, giving money must come with interest to pay for the lending institution’s own overhead, as well as grow to service others. People who default on their loans spell disaster for lending institutions, making it so that no one has access to them when the bank itself goes under. This is particularly true, when they default en masse. This is what happened in 2008 beginning with real estate, but these institutions are free to grant these loans to anyone when they know that the person is on the ropes to pay it off.Look, I’ve tried to be fair to both sides. It seems pretty clear that a few people abused the system and ruined it for everyone, but it also seems clear this idea to prevent bankruptcy is simply erecting a dam which is getting ready to burst.Bankruptcy must be an option to escape this debt, at least, for future students. For lending institutions who made deals with the understanding that bankruptcy wasn’t an option, then they should be protected. If you agreed to it, then that debt is yours, but in the future, people who take out student loans should maintain the right to bankruptcy.What does that do for lending institutions?It forces them to treat students who petition for such loans to compete for them again, and more importantly, it forces the banks to really look at who they are saddling with this kind of debt.“Oh, you’re the valedictorian of a class of 350 kids, was active in STEM advanced courses, competed and won in local robot races, and want to study Robotics and Engineering at a reputable university? You bet we’ll loan you the money, Miss Surething.”vs.“Oh, you graduated 400th in a class of 350? Well golly, that’s impressive in its own way. And you’re interested in studying Performing Arts degree because learning to dance has always been one of your life goals. Neat. And a minor in Communist Theory? Well, good for you, Comrade, but have you heard of GoFundMe?”When you place the risk on banks and other lenders, you ensure that only those loans which have a high likelihood of being repaid are awarded. This opens many doors, but just as important, closes the door to many paths of suffering. Will this reduce the amount of funds currently being given out to pay for expensive degrees? Yes, it absolutely will, but like any good economist will tell you, that will also reverse the trend in increasing student tuition everywhere. At the same time, colleges will again have the reputation of only churning quality students pulling quality degrees and really question the need of a lazy river for therapy purposes. We’re seeing the paths of suffering taking place right now, where people who took on expensive loans to pay for degrees that are worthless from colleges no one respects are overcome by debt they can’t pay. Most of those kids should have never received their loans in the first place.But what do we need to solve this problem? It isn’t to forgive the debt. That’s the opposite of what we need.The explosive rise in student tuition is explained very simply by the runaway effects of cheap money at the onset being funneled into schools where people stopped questioning how much it was going to cost. Whether it was owed to Pell Grants or to student loans, inflation in education has created a system where the costs of admittance are higher than the reward for many, if not most degrees. But at least they can contemplate this unpleasant reality as they float down the lazy river at the rec center.Forgiving this debt, and the many bad decisions that went into it, will only ensure that the same bad decisions continue. Not just that, but seeing others get bailed out is the first step on believing that you have a right to something, and when you believe that a luxury college student life experience is your right and that the consequences will certainly be forgiven, you really don’t make wise decisions. Forgiving the debt will only contribute to the growth of tuition more as people take on wilder loans and campuses respond by increasing tuition to match.Lastly, forgiving this debt is repulsively unjust.If literally everyone who went to college had this same shared experience with these loans, then it would make sense that something would need to be done about it. But everyone doesn’t have this experience. For example, me. I paid for college with the Montgomery Post 9/11 GI Bill. It paid my whole way through. To earn that degree, I had to first give four years of my life in service to the country, with the understanding that I may get shot at (which I was) and may even die having never felt a shred of that benefit. When people talk about forgiving their debts, I ask why? Why is it justice for millions such as myself to earn their education, and to take that seriously, when others get to expect it be given to them as a right after they picked degrees they would never be able to use?Where’s the justice in that?Others, such as my wife, worked their way through college. We worked together to pay her debt so that we wouldn’t be saddled with expensive loans as our marriage kicked off. What about the millions of people who both work and go to school, just so that they don’t sell off their future for decades? Where is the justice for them when kids floating down the lazy river get a bail out?Or how about that family that, whether they like it or not, are going to be paying the taxes one way or another for this “forgiveness”? Now they, no matter their income level, are going to be splitting the bill to cover some $1.3 trillion in bad student loan debt? That money could have gone to providing infrastructure, better schooling, or could have simply not been taken away from them. That way, they could do what they wanted to, or needed to, with it. Instead, the taxpayer must give from their family to pay for the lifestyle of people who aren’t their kids. It’s only a little bit when you split it across all Americans. Yes, but it’s something that the people who ultimately paid for it don’t get anything back from. There is a word for people who are forced to give money and receive nothing in return for it — robbery. Forgiving this debt, at least as it has been done in the past, is robbing from American tax payers.No, the cold hard honest truth is that there needs to be pain. This is what is needed, what wise cultures do… they allow themselves to feel pain that they deserve — the kind of pain that echoes.The students who took on bad debt to pay for bad degrees need to feel pain. throughout generations. I don’t want them to suffer more than anyone else out of spite, but they need to be a lesson to their younger siblings and to their children of the extreme importance of picking the right college, the right degree, and in only the most extreme of situations… the right student loan, or maybe even question going to college at all and exploring other options.The colleges also need to feel pain. The policies that caused this inflationary wave of energy need to be cut off. Those colleges that built their campuses around providing luxuries unnecessary for student learning and achievement need to suffer for exploiting their students. Future students need to see the presence of a lazy river as a sure sign that this college is only out to milk them for decades of labor and avoid that institution like the plague. Colleges need to stop with the nonsense bloating of their administration and the unnecessary and expensive luxuries being doled out to ensnare kids into joining — particularly the poorest among them paying for college via tax payer funded grants.There also needs to be pain on the lending institutions who, for years, have been handing out loans irresponsibly to people who couldn’t afford them because their degrees didn’t match the current needs of the nation… or anyone. Sometimes this is the government, sometimes the colleges themselves, and sometimes private lending institutions. Perhaps all three need to hurt. Because lenders were backed by laws built with reasonable intentions in mind, it was presumed that the lenders didn’t need to do the necessary thing for their customers of not providing a loan they know can’t be paid off. Instead, they didn’t even ask this question, just fulfilling the wishes of anyone who filled out the necessary paperwork. Now tens of thousands of kids are suffering because people who had all the tools to predict this outcome had no incentive to simply say, “no.”Pain. That’s what’s needed for the future. To reform the practices that led to colleges getting out of control, there needs to be real pain that people feel in such a way that changes to the systemic processes are demanded. A quick fix won’t do it. It will just transfer the pain to people who are the last to deserve it, while signalling to everyone else that they are now free to engage in even more financially devastating behavior because literally no one is being held accountable.But pain, and fear of pain, will lead to better decisions. Fear of pain will be what forces future students to make better choices. Fear of pain will be what forces lenders to lend to more reliable students. Fear of pain is what will force colleges to lower tuition rates.Pain — pain and fear. That’s what we as a nation need to suffer because of the failure we’ve dug ourselves into it, and dealing with that pain and suffering like adults is our one and only opportunity to learn from the experience and not pass on more suffering to future generations.Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. - War ElephantFootnotes[1] Senator Josh Hawley’s Speech at the 6th Annual American Principles Project Gala[1] Senator Josh Hawley’s Speech at the 6th Annual American Principles Project Gala[1] Senator Josh Hawley’s Speech at the 6th Annual American Principles Project Gala[1] Senator Josh Hawley’s Speech at the 6th Annual American Principles Project Gala[2] Funding Status -- Federal Pell Grant Program[2] Funding Status -- Federal Pell Grant Program[2] Funding Status -- Federal Pell Grant Program[2] Funding Status -- Federal Pell Grant Program[3] Richardson Kilis's answer to What is the total amount spent per year on university tuition in the United States?[3] Richardson Kilis's answer to What is the total amount spent per year on university tuition in the United States?[3] Richardson Kilis's answer to What is the total amount spent per year on university tuition in the United States?[3] Richardson Kilis's answer to What is the total amount spent per year on university tuition in the United States?[4] Making a Splash on Campus [4] Making a Splash on Campus [4] Making a Splash on Campus [4] Making a Splash on Campus [5] The irresistible rise of academic bureaucracy[5] The irresistible rise of academic bureaucracy[5] The irresistible rise of academic bureaucracy[5] The irresistible rise of academic bureaucracy[6] 'It's A Lie. It's A Lie. It's A Lie'[6] 'It's A Lie. It's A Lie. It's A Lie'[6] 'It's A Lie. It's A Lie. It's A Lie'[6] 'It's A Lie. It's A Lie. It's A Lie'[7] As Tuition Increases, So Do College Bureaucracies[7] As Tuition Increases, So Do College Bureaucracies[7] As Tuition Increases, So Do College Bureaucracies[7] As Tuition Increases, So Do College Bureaucracies[8] Opinion | Liberalism and the Campus Rape Tribunals[8] Opinion | Liberalism and the Campus Rape Tribunals[8] Opinion | Liberalism and the Campus Rape Tribunals[8] Opinion | Liberalism and the Campus Rape Tribunals

All right, so your daughter is in my class, okay? High school English. Let’s say she’s a sophomore.You expect me to prepare your child to be ready for either college or a career when she gets out of high school, right? That’s my job. I’m supposed to teach her how to read and write to prepare her for that.How will any of us know that I’m doing that? Or that she’s performing at a level of proficiency that shows she’s ready for that?That’s what standards do.Standards don’t tell me as a teacher that I have to teach Huck Finn or Animal Farm. They simply lay out standardized skills and content and explain what proficiency in those skills and content look like.As a teacher, I had tons of freedom to decide what texts, what units, what projects, what lessons, what instructional strategies I wanted to use to get your daughter to those levels.Let’s say a standard says this: “Students can analyze how complex characters (e.g., those with multiple or conflicting motivations) develop over the course of a text, interact with other characters, and advance the plot or develop the theme.”[1][1][1][1]I could do this with a lot of literature. I might choose to have the students read Shakespeare’s Othello. Whooo boy are there some complex characters with multiple and conflicting motivations, and some incredibly dynamic interactions with other characters to advance the plot! Themes of revenge, of broken marital trust, all sorts of awesome stuff. Dirty jokes abound that would get me fired if the students actually understood them, but hey, classic text, right?Your daughter could show me her ability to analyze all of that in lots of different ways. She could draft a poster. Write a paper. Illustrate a graphic novel or make her own film adaptation. Those are just a few ideas. I have lots of freedom to give her assignments. I could give her lots of freedom to choose those assignments.The standards tell me (and her) what skills she needs to have and at what level she needs to show me she can meet those standards.Now, let’s say you get a new job towards the end of your daughter’s sophomore year. Your company is downsizing and transferring you from Wisconsin to North Carolina. It’s a bummer for her, leaving all her friends and all. But, you have to go.What happens to her education when she gets to North Carolina, and all of the sudden, the standards are all really different?She gets to school and finds out that in Wisconsin, she had to do geometry and algebra by the end of her sophomore year, but in North Carolina, she’s already supposed to have had trigonometry her sophomore year and her junior year, she’s supposed to do geometry, which she just took. She hasn’t taken trig yet. Does she get stuck with a bunch of sophomores in her new school when she’s a junior? Does she repeat geometry?What if North Carolina’s standards figure she’s supposed to have mastered a whole bunch of skills and concepts that Wisconsin doesn’t even have in their standards at all?And what if Wisconsin’s standards are aligned with local businesses and colleges, but North Carolina’s haven’t been revamped in twenty years and don’t address things like basic computer literacy?That’s a problem, right?That’s precisely where the Common Core Initiative came into play in the early 2000’s.A little history lesson is in order.In 2001, Congress re-authorized and amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, or ESEA. You’ll better know that re-authorization as No Child Left Behind. (NCLB was replaced in 2016 with another re-authorization of the ESEA called the Every Student Succeeds Act.)One of the key focuses of NCLB was that it massively expanded the amount of data gathered by schools, through testing and through other means. This was compiled by the federal government and state governments, and was supposed to help teachers identify areas of proficiency and weakness for students. It tied funding to standardized testing, and required schools to make an adequate yearly progress (AYP) goal. Failure to meet the AYP meant massive loss of funds.But it also left all that testing development up to the states, and left it to the states to set their AYP goals.And it said nothing about standards. States could (and did) have wildly varying standards. Maryland required teaching trigonometry. Neighboring Virginia didn’t.A number of organizations were formed to help make sense of this sudden treasure trove of data. One of these was the Grow Network, founded by Rhodes Scholars David Coleman and Jason Zimba.One of the key problems they ran into was how to compare various states when the standards were completely different. Another key problem was that all of this data was still essentially useless in helping schools figure out how to get students successful for college and career readiness in the 21st century.The last major push to create standards had taken place in the late 60’s. They’d been amended piecemeal since, with one major reform push in the 80’s and 90’s, but other than adding some degree of technology skills, the patchwork set of standards from state to state were woefully out of date with modern career and college expectations and wildly different from state to state.And those standards were often so expansive that no teacher could possibly address all of them in a single year. So, teachers often had to pick and choose which ones to address, and had to focus on hitting as many as possible at relatively shallow levels of proficiency, rather than requiring deeper mastery of fewer essential standards.The standards also tended to be rather vague. The Wisconsin Model Academic Standards were still in use when I was in undergrad. We spent several weeks of one of my courses during my Methods of Teaching semester (five classes taken simultaneously that had an intensive focus on how teach secondary ELA,) on just how to break down the standards and turn them into usable guidance.Coleman and Zimba aimed to fix all that.Their goal? Work with business and college leaders, educators, administrators, everyone who had a stake in public education, and develop a set of modernized standards that could be adopted everywhere. Not from a federal top-down mandate, but a grassroots state-led coalition.They started the Common Core State Standards Initiative in 2008, laying out an ambitious plan in an essay to the Carnegie Corporation for clearer, fewer, higher standards.They wanted to focus on real-world applications of literature, math, and science, and bake those right into the standards. What would the students have to do in college and careers? That was what should be in the standards. Practical work.Coleman and Zimba found that lots of people were interested in this idea. The Council of Chief State School Officers immediately signed on to be a part of it. The National Governors Association signed on in a wide rare moment of bipartisan support for the initiative, loving the state-led approach. Coleman flew to Seattle to pitch the idea to Bill and Melinda Gates for financing. Bill was immediately supportive of the idea, and proceeded to pour a great deal of funding into the initiative. Policy institutes ranging from the progressive Center for American Progress to the conservative United States Chamber of Commerce jumped in.Jeb Bush made it a central push of his education plan in Florida. Mike Huckabee was an early supporter and championed the standards as a way to improve education nationwide.Even the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, jumped on board and hailed the effort as “essential building blocks for a better education system.”Honestly, this looked like one of the first times when everyone was on board. Teachers. States. Businesses. Colleges. Everyone.Seriously, when was the last time the American Federation of Teachers and Mike Huckabee were on the same side of anything? That’s how much everyone involved thought this was a great idea.The people working on the initiative were hopeful that they could maybe get a dozen to fifteen states to sign on initially, if they were really lucky. They expected more like ten.More than thirty-five signed on almost immediately.Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education for the Obama Administration at the time, saw this as a golden opportunity to improve the failings of No Child Left Behind while working on a replacement law, and got Congress to authorize a big pot of money and No Child Left Behind waivers for states willing to adopt any set of new, updated standards that even resembled the new proposed Common Core. All but two of the remaining holdouts (Rick Perry in Texas, and Sarah Palin in Alaska) jumped on board to get the federal dollars and NCLB waivers.So, from 2008–2011, the Initiative worked to create draft standards, starting with mathematics and English/Language Arts. This was not done in secret or behind closed doors, but the nation kind of had some other things dominating the news cycles at the time.And in the meanwhile, the Tea Party, deeply mistrustful of all things federal, came to the national forefront.So, when states started enacting the new standards in 2011 and lots of federal dollars went to it, Tea Party Republicans lost their minds about it.Insane conspiracy theories spread like wildfire about these new standards, which from the Tea Party’s perspective seemed to apparently just arise from nowhere. They must be a secret George Soros project to indoctrinate children with liberal, progressive values! Any wacky or ill-conceived assignment became examples of “Common Core Curriculum.” (Again, remember - the standards don’t require of me as a teacher anything about curriculum such as lesson planning or assignments or projects.) Irate parents started yelling at school boards about the elimination of teaching cursive handwriting, even though no state required it in their standards prior to Common Core adoption.This literally became the issue that in 2012 unseated one of the most conservative Representatives in the House at the time, Eric Cantor of Virginia, who supported the standards.And that’s where we are today.I headed up CCSS implementation in several districts from 2012–2014. We spent a lot of time with our local CESA district (a regional school support organization in Wisconsin,) working on constructing curricula around the new standards.The first good thing about them is that there are simply fewer standards, and just make more sense than the old standards. They’re more workable and clear.For example, here’s the old Wisconsin Model Academic Standards from the pre-CCSS days. They only advance in requirements every four years of education; 4th grade, 8th grade, and 12th grade. Here’s B12.2, on writing standards for high school seniors:B.12.2 Plan, revise, edit, and publish clear and effective writingWrite essays demonstrating the capacity to communicate knowledge, opinions, and insights to an intended audience through a clear thesis and effective organization of supporting ideasDevelop a composition through a series of drafts, using a revision strategy based on purpose and audience, personal style, self-awareness of strengths and weaknesses as a writer, and feedback from peers and teachersGiven a writing assignment to be completed in a limited amount of time, produce a well developed, well organized, clearly written response in effective language and a voice appropriate for audience and purposeNow, here’s a roughly equivalent standard from the Grade 12 ELA CCSS:CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.11-12.5Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience. (Editing for conventions should demonstrate command of Language standards 1-3 up to and including grades 11-12 here.)The new standards for ELA (English/Language Arts) are bundled differently, but cover essentially all of the same ground. For example, the WMAS standard requires timed writing. The CCSS also require timed writing, but in a different standard section.The CCSS advance every year until high school, and then 9–10 and 11–12 are joined, unlike the WMAS, which advanced every four years (in conjunction with the grades when students were required to take the standardized tests.) The CCSS build skills more progressively and provide a clearer, more incremental road map for students and teachers to follow as a result.The language is clear enough that with minor modification, I was able to make them into learning targets specifically for my students and their parents to have for each unit, so they could see precisely what we were supposed to be learning and at what level they were expected to do it.Our department replaced a few older texts with newer ones and shifted a few around. Romeo and Juliet got moved to freshmen from sophomore English. Huck Finn got ditched mostly because students just hated reading it. We replaced it with a unit of literature circles where students got to read a novel of their choice from among five selections, such as The Bluest Eye and A Lesson Before Dying.We added a sweet biotech research unit to the sophomore curriculum. The students got to debate the Bill of Rights in their junior year.All of that met the new Core Standards. None of that content was mandated by them.One difference in the new standards was a push for more “informational literacy,” not just non-fiction, but texts like scientific or technical writing: the kinds of things students might see in a college or workplace setting. This was designed to be spread out over the entire core disciplinary areas; ELA would be integrated into science, mathematics, social studies. Students would finally see how content areas and disciplines overlapped, particularly literacy and writing.This was a big part of my job when I taught, heading up cross-disciplinary literacy integration around the district. I worked with elementary and secondary educators to incorporate reading and writing skills as part of their science, mathematics, social studies, history, even art and music coursework. Students got used to seeing standardized writing rubrics across all their classes.This was not originally welcomed with open arms by my colleagues, who were afraid it would add to their already overflowing plates. But, with a little help, it didn’t take long before most of my colleagues saw the value in it and I tried to make it as little extra effort as possible to augment their existing work without just creating more of it. Most of that work centered around providing standardized writing rubrics, having the other educators reinforce what we were already teaching in the ELA classroom, and making sure the students used the same reading strategies everywhere.This has already led to improved results across the board. When students are able to apply the same reading, research, and writing skills from ELA in the STEM classrooms and social sciences, their ability to digest and retain that information is greater. They have a greater understanding how to pick apart a technical manual or draft an effective lab report that others can understand. When their ability to communicate effectively improves, so does their ability to more rapidly pick up other skills and content knowledge. It’s a positive snowball effect that promotes good, lifelong learners.That’s one of those new concepts that came with Common Core. Educational researchers had been telling us this for a long time. The new standards made it part of the classroom.The Standards are just a good way for all of the various states to be on the same page for all of our students, and to have 21st century standards that will prepare our students better for life outside of elementary and secondary education.They are not scary. They are not ideological liberal commie cooties or mandatory indoctrination. They are not a federal takeover of education. They do not kill Mark Twain. They do not require funky math.They’re just better versions of what we already had.Thanks for the A2A, Brian McDermott.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. I’m ornery enough today to not put up with it. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.I’m done with warnings. If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.Footnotes[1] English Language Arts Standards " Reading: Literature " Grade 9-10[1] English Language Arts Standards " Reading: Literature " Grade 9-10[1] English Language Arts Standards " Reading: Literature " Grade 9-10[1] English Language Arts Standards " Reading: Literature " Grade 9-10

* CS and IT world has changed a lot. New degrees have emerged. I am going to add data from 2017/18 admission season by October 2018. Till then promote and share this answer.*Let's set your thinking first.The Grad School Statistics We Never Hadhttp://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2017/05/16/university-rankings-are-fake-news/Academic Rankings Considered Harmful!Where you went to college doesn't matter. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/where-you-went-to-college-doesnt-matter-this-is-why?utm_content=bufferbb6ab&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=bufferMany students start their college research with rankings. That’s all well and good. You’ve got to start somewhere. But overall there is NO ranking system, NO acceptance criteria, no matter how perfect, is going to be able to tell you what university is best for your future. Graduate program prestige is a touchy subject for many people. I recommend that students look holistically, by looking at many rankings and university prestige, cost-benefit analysis, curriculum, post graduation job status, research fit, reputation of advisers etc. Of course you’d like to attend the program with the most prestige. But what if that prestigious university you’re in love with is price gouging? What if you’ll have to set back your life plans to be able to afford tuition, never mind the cost of living?Holistic view of the ranks:Look at different sources before settling in one ranking method.Research interests, fit with the adviser and adviser's reputation in the field (I cannot stress enough how important this is to any PhD applicants. #1 priority over anything. PeriodARWU: Academic Ranking of World Universities in Computer Science - 2015 (Helpful to PhD applicants: based on citations, research, impact factor. Much better than USNEWS for science, tech, CS ranking)NSF grant: Universities Report Highest-Ever R&D Spending of $65 Billion in FY 2011 (Helpful to PhD applicants, refer Table 3; Gives you an idea about research expenditures of the school - you want to end up in a college with continuous supply of fund)National Research Council: NRC Rankings Overview: Computer Sciences (Helpful to PhDs, sort by 'Research high'. This shows the quality of research.) Page on phd.org is derived from the NRC ranking.Microsoft Research rank: Page on bit.ly (Click the link or Copy paste the link, Click the field of your research on left, In the middle pane click 'see more ' in top organizations in [your field], Choose '5 years', and then sort by 'North America' or your continents).CSrankings.org, a ranking based on top-tier publication output of CS faculty. Unlike US News and World Report's approach, which is exclusively based on surveys, this ranking is entirely metrics-based. It measures the number of publications by faculty that have appeared at the most selective conferences in each area of computer science. However , this does not capture all top conferences for a particular field , so the ranking is based only on top 3–5 conferences. So, there are flaws in rankings particularly in algorithms, systems, HCI etc. But all rankings have them. Good as a preliminary filter to find faculty working on each field at each school.And finally, USNews Computer Science . Unfortunately many applicants and early career assistant professors use it as a primary filter. Comparing schools based only on USNews rank is a common mistake by PhD applicants. Academics don't look at this ranking highly. This is the baseless , subjective, and perception based, yet most common ranking system out there. Be careful.QS University rankings: Page on topuniversities.com [The research methodology is mostly subjective based. I recommend using this only for Masters and Business programs, not for PhD). In all honesty, QS and THE rankings overvalue European universities. But no one actually cares about it.(CAUTION- academic rankings are bad) Academic Rankings Considered Harmful!Do I want a Masters or a PhD ?For those who want to go on to graduate study, the first decision is whether to pursue a master’s degree or a PhD. The master’s degree usually consists of additional coursework and will give you a stronger foundation of the same sort you had as an undergraduate. Getting a PhD. is a MUCH LONGER/MUCH HARDER commitment (often five or more years), the core of which is an independent research project leading to a doctoral dissertation, and job in academic institutions or research fields.Is it easier to get admitted as a Masters compared to a PhD?It depends how you define "easier". There is no 'yes' or 'no' answer to this. Generally speaking, all applicants should be aware that the selection process is comprehensive and rigorous for PhD admission compared to Masters since there are generally fewer slots for PhDs, and Masters slots are typically not funded (vs most PhD students being fully funded).Money and degree?Sadly in today economy the ability for a student to pay full tuition has become a factor in some admissions decisions. MBA is notoriously known for “rich gets it all”. But this has definitely been the case in CS and IT in University of California, Georgia Tech, which has seen a rise in admitted applicants. In today marketplace, more and more schools are paying great attention to full paid Masters applicants that explained why so many campuses are packed by international students. This puts deserved and talented students behind the wealthy ones.Masters programs may be easier to get into if for no other reason than because you can pay tuition. Eg, University of Southern California, Georgia Tech Masters, University of Pennsylvania, Harvard (extension schools, professional school, and few Master degrees), Dartmouth, Cornell, Stanford, CMU etc. If the question is whether or not one's ability to pay can overcome deficiencies in one's transcript, the answer is "usually" no. The college will not allow an unqualified applicant to get in, but if there are two candidates, and one is high need (smart) and the other is not (slightly less smart), all other things being equal, the full pay student may be the one getting that fat envelope. This is one of the reasons why you see more Master students than PhD students in any schools. PhD programs are more difficult to gain acceptance to because you also receive a salary, health insurance and somebody in the nebulous world of academia pays your tuition (training grants, PI's grants, fellowships etc). The bar for any PhD school is much tougher than bar for any Masters. Example, it may be equally harder or if not more, to get into a top 30–35 PhD school than Masters at a top 5–10 school. Admission is overly critical and competitive at PhD level, and being able to pay tuition has no influence in PhD admission process. Industries and Academics also look very highly of PhD candidates compared to Masters. In some sense, Masters is an advanced bachelors.To confirm my statement look at the data below.***acceptance rate does not translate to how good a school is in research. Acceptance rate is a factor how many students applied to how many slots are available. But that does show overall strength of the program. YOU be the decision maker***------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MIT EECS, MAThe admission rate of applicants to EECS at MIT is approximately 6%. They only have one application process and it is for the Master’s/PhD combined. There is no separate Master’s degree application.Acceptance Rate: 6.4% , 2778 applications and admitted 180 applicants for 2014-2015Source: Emailed [email protected], CAMS: 667 applications, 123 accepted, 92 enrolled (18.4% acceptance rate)PhD acceptance: This past year we had 692 applicants to our Ph.D. program. We accepted 71, with about 50 of them taking us up on our offer. Now 10% might not seem like terrible odds as compared with, say, getting into Stanford as an undergraduate (7% admission rate). But those 692 applicants were already a somewhat self-selected group.Acceptance Rate: 18.4% (MS), 10.26% (PhD)Source: http://cs.stanford.edu/newsletter/past-newsletters/2011(Look for admissions statistics section)Princeton, NJAcceptance: 11 % They do not have statistics for computer science alone.Source: Look at graduate admissions for school of engineering and applied science: A Princeton Profile . Also emailed at [email protected] Tech (CS/HCI/OMS), GASource: Graduate Admissions - Table 4.3Page on gatech.eduAs you can see from first link, the admission rate is around 19% - 30%.PhD in GTECH is way harder than Masters to get admission. Impossible to compare quality of applicants at these two levels.Regular Masters CS with thesis option: As you can see that GTech Masters program is not as competitive to get into (Refer to IInd link). There are 3x to 5x more Masters students than PhDs at GTech. That is a quite significant difference and should tell something about quality of PhD students vs Masters students to get into. Email source says PhD admission rate is 10%.Masters in Interactive Computing/HCI: Total applicants: 350 applicants, Admit: 100 admits, and Enrolled: 50 . Only 50% enrolled. About half of students in Interactive Computing track; the rest are divided among the Psychology, Industrial Design, and Digital Media tracks. The acceptance rate is somewhat lower in the Interactive Computing track, but not significantly. Usually unfunded admission in Masters.Acceptance rate: 28.57%Source: Emailed [email protected] Masters: They also have an online Masters in CS program with Udacity. Acceptance Rate for OMS CS: 50% - 60%[Their on-site/in-person program is ranked top 10 by USNews, NOT the online program]Source: Emailed [email protected], ILEach year the Department of Computer Science at Illinois receives around 1500 applications for the MS and PhD programs and admits around 130 recruits between the two programs.Acceptance Rate (MS + PhD combined) : 8.66%Source: Application Evaluation ProcessWisconsin-Madison, WIAcceptance Rate: 20% (MS + PhD combined)Enrollment rate: only 36%Source: http://grad.wisc.edu/education/academicprograms/profiles/229.pdfUT-Austin, TXMS/PhD: ~ 20%. Nearly the same as Wisconsin Madison (MS + PhD combined)Source: [email protected] replied back they are as close to the numbers ~15-20%.Purdue, INFor Fall 2014 we had about 1112 applications for about 82 slots. For Fall 2013 we had about 980 applications for about 54 slots.Acceptance Rate: 7.3% (MS + PhD combined)Source: https://www.cs.purdue.edu/graduate/admission/process.htmlPurdue also has a CIT (computer information technology) degree with very high acceptance rate and a late deadline. But you may be required to pay a lot as a Masters.Harvard, MAAdmits about 8%-9% of applications across their graduate programs. They do not offer admission into the masters degree in Computer Science- at this time they only admit into their PhD program.For the class of graduate students entering in Fall 2014, SEAS received more than 2000 applications across all Ph.D. and master's programs and accepted just under 10 %Source: Emailed [email protected] Mellon University, PACarnegie Mellon overall is hovering around 15-20% (MS + PhD combined). Surprised (too many CS specializations)?? However, the School of Computer Science PhD only is about 6.8% (2012 Statistics: 5071 applicants, 345 admitted, 138 enrolled)The thing you have to note is that every computing specializations within Carnegie Mellon School of Conputing has different requirements and thus different acceptance rates.The admission intake is pretty high at Masters level - a bit higher than peer schools. Is Carnegie Mellon's School of Computer Science easier to get into thancomparative programs at top tier schools?Tip:CMU Heinz is relatively very easier to get into for Information Systems degree (but does not enjoy as much reputation as CS)Few (not all) masters programs at CMU are easier to get into for no other reason than because you can pay tuition as long as you meet minimum criteria for admission.CMU has a INI school focused at information technology, networking, security and technology management. Very good job placement but you may be paying atleast USD 80k-120k for your masters without any scholarship.Penn State CS / IST, PAabout 800-1000 applications for fall semester; about 50-75 applications for spring semester. We accept about 30-50 students for fall and about 6 for spring; most of these are PHD students.Acceptance Rate: 6.25% (fall, MS + PhD combined) ; 12% springSource: Graduate Admissions and emailed [email protected] Science and Technology department: Penn State has a highly reputed interdisciplinary department- CS, Sociology, and Psychology mixed together.M.S. Program | College of Information Sciences and TechnologyUniversity of Pennsylvania CIS/CIT, PAPhD in CIS/CIT : 448 applicants to the doctoral program, 50 candidates admittedAcceptance Rate: 11.16%Masters program in CS : 752 applicants, 135 candidates admittedAcceptance Rate: 17.95%[No Aid for Masters "cash cow' masters program]Masters program in IT: 331 applicants, 58 candidates admittedAcceptance Rate: 17.52%Source for all above: Graduate Program Admissions Statistics[No Aid for Masters "cash cow' masters program]Brown University, RIPhD: 300 applications to our PhD programAcceptance Rate: 16%Masters: About 375 applicationsAcceptance Rate: 22%Source: Emailed [email protected][Masters in CS is relatively easier to get into even though it is an Ivy - a "cash cow" masters program]Cornell University, NYPhD: About 11% for the fall 2015 for both CS and iSchool eachSource: Emailed [email protected] University, NYPhD: 710 PhD applicants and 53 admits for fall 2015 Acceptance Rate: 7.46%MS: MS is relatively easier to get into, higher acceptance rate and does not have financial aid. 'cash cow' masters program.Source: Emailed admission committee at [email protected] Ann Arbor(CS/iSchool), MICS/CE: 618 PhD applications for 64 slots. Masters is higher acceptance rate.Acceptance Rate: 10.35%Source: Computer Science and EngineeringInformation Science: 8.27%Acceptance:145 PhD applications for 12 slots - 5 years averageSource: Rackham Graduate SchoolDuke University, NCPhD and MS about 17 % (As you can see the GRE and GPA criteria for Masters admission is lower than peer schools)Source: Computer Science - Duke UniversityDuke Graduate School (more statistics)Yale University, CTAdmission rate of PhD: ~20% (according to an email response) but the link below says 12%Masters: MS program is course work only and unfunded.Source: Department of Computer Science - Yale University in New Haven, CT - Graduate Program Information at Petersons.comAlso emailed cs office at Yale.University of Washington (CS/iSchool/HCDE), WACS: Over 1400 applications and admitted 150 students. Only 56 PhD students in 2014-2015 cohort. Over the past 10 years or so, the acceptance rate has been about 10%.Graduate School StatisticsEnroll rate: 33%. Typically about 1/3 of the students they admit end up comingSource: grad-admissions@cs.washington.edu---------------------------------------------------------------------------------HCDE (recently established program): For fall 2015, there were total of 86 PhD applications that admitted 7 students.PhD Acceptance rate:8.13%Master’s program received 484 applications and admitted 93 students. Acceptance rate: 19.21%Note: Heavily design and UX oriented, and prototyping based----------------------------------------------------------------------------------iSchool:Admit rate for the PhD program is normally around 15-20%Masters (MSIM) programs are less selective and does not enjoy much reputation. Their masters is a cash cow. However, their PhD is competitive.Acceptance Rate: 23% for MastersSource: Page on uw.eduUniversity of Maryland, College Park (CS/iSchool), MDAcceptance Rate: Overall about 20% of applicants are admitted, and about 1/3rd of them enrollSource: Emailed [email protected] for Prospective StudentsiSchool PhD: ~20%iSchool Masters: See below.iSchool MIM: over 600 applications and admitted just over 100 applicants: 16.66%iSchool HCIM: accepted 60 out of 111 applications, 54.4% [Easy Safety. Do not rush because of the Maryland name. Make sure you check available courses, TA/RA opportunities and industry reaction to this degree]Source: Page on umd.edu and emailed [email protected] Berkeley, CAFor EECS overall, not broken down by degree: "3100 applicants for about 100 slots". Their yield is probably high. They also say the MS CS program "admits very few students."Overall PhD and MS combined: <5%Source: Facts and figuresThey also have an interdisciplinary iSchool. Lower acceptance rate compared to their CS department due to the interdisciplinary nature and high demand of the program. Admits only 5–8 PhDs per year out of several hundred applications. Ph.D. Application InstructionsUniversity of Southern California, CAAcceptance Rate: No [email protected] responded that they do not have that statistic available.[Probably one of the easiest schools among top tiers, to get into for Masters with full pay.]University of California Davis, CAAdmission to the Graduate Group in Computer Science is highly competitive. On average, we receive over 1,000 applications for admission and generally admit the top 10%.Acceptance Rate:: ~10%Source: Prospective Graduate Students - Computer ScienceUniversity of California, Los Angeles, CAAcceptance Rate: 22%Source: Page on ucla.edu(The new data suggests acceptance is lower than this)University of California, San Diego,CAAcceptance Rate for MS: For fall 2015, 900 MS applicants, acceptance rate of 7.5%,Acceptance Rate for PhD: 375 PhD applicants with an admission percentage of 19%(Notice the higher PhD acceptance compared to Masters. This is because UCSD is a top tier research school and usually focus more on PhDs)University of California, Santa Barbara, CAAcceptance Rate: ~ 10% for PhDs. More for Masters. We receive around 400+ PhD applications per year and admit between 30-50 students. Our goal is to have roughly 20-25 students join the program each Fall.Source: Frequently Asked Questions for UCSB Graduate AdmissionsCaltech, CAAcceptance Rate: Still searchingJohns Hopkins, MDAcceptance Rate: Still searching