Don't shut out military recruiters

I believe that I am in a unique position to comment on your April Speak Out debate ("Should schools limit military recruiters' access to students?"). I have been in the Army for 20 years and am now serving my second career in higher education as a veteran service counselor at a large urban college in New York.

I think that Jill Wynns' comments are shortsighted and possibly may be influenced by the affluent demographics surrounding her school district. I work with about 275 students at my college, most of whom I believe would say that had they not been contacted, they never would have had an opportunity to attend college due to their socioeconomic status....

When Ms. Wynns shuts out recruiters from her high school, these are examples of what she is depriving her students of:

1. A college fund that could run up to $60,000 for just a four-year regular enlistment.

2. A GI Bill that could net a veteran up to $800 per month for full-time studies and a drilling reservist up to $272 per month (more depending on the unit) for their studies. And this is projected to go up to a ceiling of $1,100 per month in a couple of years!

3. New York state also has a tuition assistance plan that will pay full tuition for drilling reservists in addition to some of the benefits above. I'm certain that other states offer a similar benefit.

4. Options to repay up to $20,000 worth of loans for a reserve commitment in certain skills and bonus cash for enlisting for certain skills.

5. The opportunity to work in the best part-time job in America--the National Guard or U.S. Army Reserve. Where else could a student go to work for one weekend per month and 15 days in the summer, earn these sorts of educational reimbursements and get paid?

How could an educator who was justifiably concerned about access to higher education deprive students of the opportunities to learn about these benefits? The socially and economically advantaged have many informational resources available to them to learn about Harvard, Princeton and Yale. The disadvantaged have their parents, teachers, friends and whatever they can pick up in their ill-equipped career resource rooms.

--Steve Wallace
Rochester, NY

Reform graduate study

Paul DeMoulin is guilty of a great non sequitur--and worse--in his "Doc'd: Why a Ph.D. is a fast ticket to the unemployment line" (February, Off the Tower). While he is right in decrying the exploitation of graduate students in engineering and the sciences (as, indeed, is true in other disciplines), his statement that "Professors should be hired to teach, and researchers should be hired to research" only threatens to deepen the existing divide between teaching and research faculty. This leads to another sort of exploitation--that of adjunct and other part-time/ temporary faculty.

While the missions of various institutions of higher learning vary, with some placing more emphasis on teaching or research, as the case may be, students and institutions overall benefit most from professors who engage in both teaching and research. Not only do they keep current in their disciplines, but they also remain enthusiastic and interesting.

The divide between teaching and research has encouraged "money-saving" administrative agendas that stress overreliance on part-time/temporary faculty. These temporary faculty are hired to teach fixed content provided and developed by a few "superstar" research professors, who, by way of compensation, have light or nonexistent teaching loads and whose research thus mostly benefits themselves.

The sad reality of the academic job market is no secret; the other condition--the exploitation of adjuncts--should not be, either. More of an answer may lie in reforming the system of graduate study--not to funnel people into research or teaching, but to direct resources more effectively and fairly, so that no group--graduate students or adjunct faculty--is exploited.

--M.L. Plochocki-Williams
Jersey City, NJ

Skipping class is the tip of the iceberg

Your April article on the problem of attendance in college classrooms ("Why do students skip class?" Campus Clips) is only the tip of the iceberg, if you'll permit the cliché. Ignorance is a challenge that can be addressed and alleviated; but what do you do about attitude and ethics?

What do you do about students who come to class only when they are in the mood? Students who are constantly late? Students who take jobs with hours at the scheduled time of class--and who expect to show up only for the midterm and final? What do you do about the fact that most of the class does not read the textbook or get their work in on time, if at all? What do you do about the blatant and obscene problem of Internet plagiarism and Internet "slam books" on professors--that advise what teacher is "easy," for example? What do you do when in spite of all this, students expect "A's"?

And, if they don't get these "A's" the students or their mothers and fathers will harass you constantly on the phone, even offering bribes. Sometimes they make death threats!

Do you go to college administrators? Forget it! They are too frightened and hidden in their office wombs--and will probably blame you.

If you, yourself, work conscientiously, prepare lessons and study further in your field; if you love your academic discipline and are serious about teaching (and have not become cynical and unethical yourself), how can you honestly remain in front of such classrooms?

What I have been describing is occurring all over the country, from community colleges to our most elite and expensive universities. For this reason, there is an exodus of professors leaving the profession--not because of money.

And, if the good teachers are forced to leave and so many of our college students are cheats, manipulators and superficial, what does that say about the future of the country--and of the world?

--Gloria Calcina del Vecchio
Yardley, PA