The Judaic studies CORE structure is changing as well. Students will still be required to take six semesters of CORE plus fourteen additional Judaic studies credits, but there will be a reduction in credit earned for study in Israel - a maximum credit number of 27 will replace the current one of 36. This means that students who study in Israel after high school will be earning the equivalent amount of credit as students who elect to come to SCW as freshmen.While surely Stern is trying to portray itself as more serious in the academic world by doing this, and there is certainly something to be said for that, the simple truth is that this decision will likely cost them students in the coming years. If I'm not mistaken, not only Touro University but also CUNY's Queens and Brooklyn Colleges offer more credits for the year in Israel (not to mention all the smaller programs that likely are less competition toward Stern). When prospective students in many fields are deciding what college to attend, and are planning on attending a school in Israel for a year (or two), they want to know that when they come back they will have as many credits as possible. This factor along with cost are two major factors where Stern loses against its primary competitors after this decision, and while certainly YU will argue that their education is of a higher caliber, it is hard for them to show demonstrably better results down the road for their alumni in recent years.
This is a situation where Stern (or YU) seems to have been blinded by the desire to keep itself in the top tier of university rankings at the expense of catering to its core demographic. The people who wish to attend Stern are bright, and mostly religious, young Jewish women who quite often wish to spend a year or more in Israel to learn, to study, to self-inspire, and to be inspired. They are quite often people who can be successful wherever they attend college, and whom Stern needs more than they need Stern. By offering further disincentives to attending Stern over those other options, Stern seems to be making a rather large mistake.
Maybe I'm missing something-
ReplyDeleteI read this as Stern saying that one's year in Israel is going to be equivilant to a year in Stern.
1 to 1.
No?
Thought about writing about that in the piece. Agreed that that's the attempt, except:
ReplyDelete1) Most people take more than 27 credits in a year in Stern. 27 is probably the minimum load that full-time students take, or close to it (24).
2) Why do they feel the need to lower the credits they'll take from Israel to make them "even"? It's as if they're punishing the ones who go to Israel to be "fair" to the ones who don't.
3) They should award whatever the (accredited) schools give [within reason]. If that's 36, it should be 36. If that's 32, make it 32. If they want to take certain credits and not others, make that the point. Don't just give it a lower cap.
4) What exactly is the objective? Don't fill up credits with weaker courses? They'll just fill it on the end with other weaker ones. If the objective is to create a stronger core in Stern, they can do that without discrediting Israel credits - the stronger (longer) core requirements can exist while still taking those credits. It may just end up that a student graduates with more than 120 credits at the end.
Just to elaborate on (1) above, people we know take 18-21 credits a semester, and one talked about taking 24 once if I'm not mistaken.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't seem right that one year of study in Israel should count for more than one year of study in the U.S. And I doubt this will change anything. It's not as if UCLA or Harvard will give any credit for a year of study in Israel. So where would these perspective Stern students go instead?
ReplyDeleteJust a few quickie points--that's Touro College, not Touro University. While they are in the process of putting together what is needed to become a university they still are not there yet.
ReplyDeleteCUNY does not have a uniform policy for accepting the Israel credits; each school decides on its own. As of now 32 is the maximum allowable number of transferable credits, and there is no guarantee that you will get all 32. They do not accept credits from every seminary/yeshiva, only those that they deem "accredited," however they decide that. The credits are considered blanket credits, not counting towards core, required and major concentrations. If you need a large number of credits for your major/minor concentration you can end up graduating with well more than 120 credits, so the Israel credits don't save you anything by being transferred.
That 9 credit difference that Stern is considering won't make a difference to those who are seriously considering Stern and is just an excuse for those who might be borderline or who like to say they would go to Stern but wouldn't do it when push comes to shove.
Fern - Touro, Queens, Brooklyn
ReplyDeleteProfK - Thought they had it already! Oh well. :)
People generally get the full 32, and know in advance that this is the case. If a person wouldn't be getting the credits, obviously this debate wouldn't apply to them.
You assume that Stern starts "above" the other schools, which may or may not be true, but certainly every factor plays a role. If those 9 credits = an extra semester at another $20k, yes, that's a huge difference.
Whoa, slow down a little.
ReplyDeleteG is correct. The idea behind lowering the credit requirement is because it is unfair to give
students who were in Israel a credit advantage over their counterparts who came to Stern as freshmen.
It's as if they're punishing the ones who go to Israel to be "fair" to the ones who don't.
Punishing? Ma pitom? It's the other way around - it's unfair to the girls who DON'T go to Israel that their peers get more credit.
I personally do NOT think this will affect Stern's application/enrollment to a large degree, and if there are people who only come to Stern because they can get more credit for Israel and not for any other reasons (and I think that there are many more benefits to Stern than just receiving a lot of Israel credit), then I think they are already entering with a somewhat skewed attitude.
The idea behind lowering the credit requirement is because it is unfair to give
ReplyDeletestudents who were in Israel a credit advantage over their counterparts who came to Stern as freshmen.
it's unfair to the girls who DON'T go to Israel that their peers get more credit.
This is exactly my point. Seeing as how this does not help the ones who didn't go in any way, it is merely a way of pulling back the ones who do go to Israel down to the same level. While yes, this makes things more "fair", there's simply no reason for it other than that, and that's not a particularly good reason from a "we're trying to attract students" standpoint. We can safely assume that nobody was not coming because they felt it unfair that Israel-bound students got too many credits.
I personally do NOT think this will affect Stern's application/enrollment to a large degree
That could be. But it certainly didn't help it, and even a few students makes an impact. See the effect Lander ended up having on YU's admissions. Moreover, much of the impact will be indirect - each student who doesn't go makes it less likely others will go, either. They don't have the positive experiences to relate, they have no reason to push Stern as a place for younger friends to look into, etc. And if they are successful, it minimizes the impact Stern has vis a vis its education.
if there are people who only come to Stern because they can get more credit for Israel and not for any other reasons (and I think that there are many more benefits to Stern than just receiving a lot of Israel credit), then I think they are already entering with a somewhat skewed attitude.
I doubt that anyone comes just because of Israel credit to any school. But it's naive to think it doesn't play a large role - certainly there are people who attend certain seminaries and not others for credits, and certainly if there were no Israel credits people would not go nearly as often. Like I said in the post - there are some large factors that go into choosing a college. Tuition is one, and that certainly is not in Stern's favor. It used to have in its favor its education, its atmosphere, and its understanding of its demographic - supporting that year in Israel by giving it 36 credits. By doing this move, it chips away at its own draw, making the other factors loom larger. When you strip it down to "well, we're a Jewish school and will give you a better education", then you'd have to be really giving that much *better* of an education. If people find that to be less true than it used to be, it will suffer on that end as well.
Note: As proof to the last statement, Lander has seen a large increase by adding a short semester after Pesach for 9 credits. This lets people stay in Israel for a longer period (important to them) without impacting their total credits earned (also important to them). Sure, it's just 9 credits, but that difference is enough to get them to come to Lander. Would most have come anyway? Hard to say - certainly some would have - but presumably they're taking away from other places as well.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting note: it used to be the case (just a few years ago)that almost everybody who went to Queens or Brooklyn got 30 credits for their year in Israel. Not anymore. Today, most people are getting a maximum of 18. I've heard the major exception to that are girls who went to Michlalah; since it is a real college, the seminary credits transfer with greater ease...
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I see both sides of the issue here. Only time will tell if enrollment is affected. As of now, I believe the biggest loss in enrollment for YU to Touro is happening becuase of cost, not anything else.
Anon - If Queens/Brooklyn are only giving 18 now instead of 30-32, then this move makes a lot more sense.
ReplyDeleteAnd agreed that the losses to Touro are more financially based, although people who are debating can get pushed by smaller issues.
Yes, but do they count towards the MRS degree? ;-)
ReplyDeleteSorry.
Just a thought, could this be because US colleges are getting wise to the fact that many of the credits being given out by Israel seminaries/yeshivas are, to be blunt, less than legitimate?
ReplyDeleteJA - Depends where they went. Each seminary has a different amount of credits. :)
ReplyDeleteG - I'm sure that plays a role, but why should it matter? If people won't respect the YU degree because it takes Israel credits, then they should take none. If they respect it, then taking 9 more shouldn't be much of a difference. No?
I think I agree with your general point about this matter. However, I have to agree that a lot of the credits received for Israel study are pure BS.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, it's all or nothing!!!
ReplyDeleteThen again, well, maybe not. Perhaps there is what to be said for some credits but not all.
Regardless, btwn the two pts (this one and the one in my original comment) there more than enough legitimacy on which to base Stern's decision.
Maybe the boys yeshiva's credits are BS- being that guys get credits for "sitting and learning" (yeah right)>. But when I went to Israel we took legitimate Judaic classes, similiar to the ones Stern gives (Bible studies, Jewish,Medical Ethics etc), and we actually had tests and got grades for our classes it was not just a stupid BTL for "No Torah Tuesday".
ReplyDeleteThe idea behind lowering the credit requirement is because it is unfair to give
ReplyDeletestudents who were in Israel a credit advantage over their counterparts who came to Stern as freshmen.
But they don't have a credit advantage. A girl who comes to Stern as a freshman usually takes 6 or 7 classes a semester. Each class is 3 credits (generally). That's either 18 or 21 credits a semester which is either 36 or 42 credits a year. That's exactly the same, if not more, than a girl who goes to Israel for the year! Until now, you could have gotten at most 36 credits for your year in Israel. These credits went towards Judaic classes because that's what you were taking. Students who didn't go to Israel were taking a mix of Judaic and secular classes so while they might be behind in the amount of Judaics they have left to take, they are ahead in the secular requirements they have already completed. Therefore, it all evens out. By lowering the credit amount for girls in Israel to 27...that's the equivalent of them taking four classes one semester and five the next - which is the minimum of what one can take at Stern, as opposed to the maximum, which girls who are already at Stern will be taking. This puts them behind girls who didn't go to Israel for the year.
G - I don't follow. If the issue is that the credits aren't respected, then taking 27 is as bad as taking 36. If that is not the issue, then what exactly is it? If it's the 1:1 as you mentioned above, what's the point? You're not helping the people in Stern who are getting less, merely hurting the ones who went to Israel. Moreover, as I said earlier and Erachet just wrote, the ones in Stern are usually getting 36 or more, not 27.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm asking for what the primary reason is and how this solves the issue. I think those two reasons are the most likely, but not only aren't they compelling reasons to start, this doesn't really do anything to change them.
An interesting note: it used to be the case (just a few years ago)that almost everybody who went to Queens or Brooklyn got 30 credits for their year in Israel. Not anymore. Today, most people are getting a maximum of 18. I've heard the major exception to that are girls who went to Michlalah; since it is a real college, the seminary credits transfer with greater ease...
ReplyDeleteQueens has had that policy for at least 7 years. Unless you're coming from Michlalah, you're not going to get more than 18, any it's possible you'll get far less.
Therefore, it all evens out. By lowering the credit amount for girls in Israel to 27...that's the equivalent of them taking four classes one semester and five the next - which is the minimum of what one can take at Stern, as opposed to the maximum, which girls who are already at Stern will be taking. This puts them behind girls who didn't go to Israel for the year.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I see your point.
But this also makes me think - perhaps the point that the administration wants to make is that they *don't* consider a year's worth of study in Israel to be equivalent to a year's worth of study on the campus. Don't forget that many members of the faculty who voted the curriculum into place don't really understand what happens in Israel or why girls should get so much credit for spending a year abroad. Perhaps this could be compared to other universities that have study-abroad programs and see how their students' credits play out.
LWY - I'm under the impression that friends of ours who did not go to Michlalah still received 30-32 credits, but it's possible that that was either 7+ years ago (my age or older) or that I'm mistaken.
ReplyDeleteApple - Agreed that the administration could think that, and that's fine - nevertheless, such a policy change ignores that many prospective students wish to receive a full year's worth of credit (deserved or not) for a year they find to be especially important. If Stern won't give it to them, they might just go somewhere else to get it, which is the point I'm arguing in the post.
If Stern won't give it to them, they might just go somewhere else to get it, which is the point I'm arguing in the post.
ReplyDeleteCould be. However, I think they'll get more credits for the Israel year at Stern than at any other institution, save perhaps Touro (but Touro Brooklyn doesn't quite attract the same crowd, and Touro Manhattan is generally regarded as less academic).
Besides . . . there are other reasons for going to Stern. I got fewer credits for my seminary year and still stayed.
Could be.
ReplyDeleteThat's all it needs. As a related aside, directly from the Observer site, the poll that asks "Is the year in Israel the most pivotal one in your religious development?" is getting an 82% 'Yes' response.
However, I think they'll get more credits for the Israel year at Stern than at any other institution
Depends on what Queens and Brooklyn are actually giving out.
Touro Brooklyn doesn't quite attract the same crowd, and Touro Manhattan is generally regarded as less academic
Granted, but the more Touro girls that succeed out of Manhattan the less that will matter.
Sounds like you're noting everything I said in the post. :)
Besides . . . there are other reasons for going to Stern.
Of course! (Though out of curiosity, what do you think they are?)
As someone who just came to Stern, I would be really annoyed if I was getting less credits for my year in Israel. Seminary can be just as time consuming as, if not more than college, and I think Stern isn't being right by making that year worth less than if I came to Stern as a freshie.
ReplyDeletePlus, Stern is soooooo expensive and I like that I'm only paying three year's worth of tuition. If I got less credits in Israel I might end up on campus for more than three and I doubt my parents would be happy about that, lol.
Of course! (Though out of curiosity, what do you think they are?)
ReplyDelete1. The opportunity to make friends. Plus, a lot of my friends who go to Touro are jealous that I get to relive the fun dorm experience of Israel.
2. Judaic studies that are actually kosher - I know not every teacher is looked upon in the same way, but there are lots of educated, fantastic, dynamic teachers who won't make anyone uncomfortable.
3. Size. People do pay attention to you in Stern and the professors know your name.
4. Participating in extracurriculars. Stern is the only school where I can actually sing, dance and act in performances. I would never be able to do that at a secular college.
5. Going to a school that is shomer Shabbat and Yom Tov. People may say that this just shelters you from the "real world" of not running into problems, but if I'm going to spend the bulk of my life in the "real world" where I *will* run into these issues, why not enjoy as much time as possible in an environment that DOESN'T give me these problems?
I just thought of these off the top of my head, but there are definitely more that just aren't occurring to me right now :). And yes, I know that probably some of these perks can be found at Touro as well, but their collective presence at Stern definitely is something special.
I don't follow.
ReplyDelete--what else is new
If the issue is that the credits aren't respected, then taking 27 is as bad as taking 36.
--again, perhaps they buy into some of the credits but not all. Why is it an all or nothing issue?
If it's the 1:1 as you mentioned above, what's the point? You're not helping the people in Stern who are getting less, merely hurting the ones who went to Israel.
--not true, you are evening the playing field and protecting your own students. You think the avg student who came as a freshman appreciates someone coming in mid stream and being ahead of them?
Moreover, as I said earlier and Erachet just wrote, the ones in Stern are usually getting 36 or more, not 27.
--even better, that promotes their own students ahead of transfers.
I think those two reasons are the most likely, but not only aren't they compelling reasons to start, this doesn't really do anything to change them.
--Disagree, they are taking a stance that their year of education should be valued at least equally if not higher than that of one who went to Israel...makes perfect sense to me.
Will you PLEASE learn how to use i and /i? Thanks.
ReplyDeletewhat else is new
Snort. :P btw, we watching with you on Sunday?
again, perhaps they buy into some of the credits but not all. Why is it an all or nothing issue?
Because it doesn't make sense. Why would another college treat some of the credits as valuable and others not?
You think the avg student who came as a freshman appreciates someone coming in mid stream and being ahead of them?
Like I said, that's nice, but those are students who are already there and aren't leaving because of it. Nobody is leaving the school because they're upset that other people got Israel credits. "Fair" is nice, but it doesn't pay bills. :)
even better, that promotes their own students ahead of transfers
Now *that* is actually a good argument. *If* they really felt that this will give people an incentive to come to Stern OVER going to Israel for a year, then it's a reasonable ploy. One that might fail miserably (girls want to go anyway, and now they'll go Touro or elsewhere for the extra credits), but certainly plausible.
Disagree, they are taking a stance that their year of education should be valued at least equally if not higher than that of one who went to Israel...makes perfect sense to me.
Not in the practical sense. That was already true because those students were taking cores and won't run the risk of having to take extra courses over 120 credits just to meet requirements. Practically, if Stern is trying to draw students, it makes the most sense to leave it at 36. If they really want to reward those on campus, they can be like many universities and take them on "educational trips" or offer other ways for them to get extra credits without overly increasing their workload.
I think that the best reasoning is to draw students on campus instead of going to Israel (and collect the money for tuition!), but that's not what they stated in the article. They're trying to make it "even", which, again, is noble, but misguided in terms of trying to keep/bring in students.
There is also he almighty dollar to consider.
ReplyDeleteFewer credits waived means more credits taken at Stern means more money in the Stern coffers.
you are evening the playing field and protecting your own students. You think the avg student who came as a freshman appreciates someone coming in mid stream and being ahead of them?
ReplyDeleteRead my comment. They're not ahead of them. They are just ahead in Judaics while those who came as freshmen are ahead in secular requirements.
G - True as well, though that could be a reason to drive students away, too.
ReplyDeleteThey're not ahead of them. They are just ahead in Judaics while those who came as freshmen are ahead in secular requirements.
ReplyDeleteTechnically.
But consider this...do you think both years were of equal academic value? Of academic difficulty?
do you think both years were of equal academic value? Of academic difficulty?
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose it depends on the Israel school. The one I went to - I took some classes that were definitely on par in terms of difficulty and academic quality with Judaic classes at Stern, and, on the flip side, I've taken some Judaic classes at Stern that felt exactly like a class given at an Israel school, and I've also taken classes at Stern that were too easy/a bit of a joke.
Also, in order to get credit for the classes I took in Israel, I had to either write some sort of paper or take some sort of final. I didn't automatically get credit just for signing up for the classes.
To be honest, in my own experience, I don't feel like the credits I received in Israel are of too much less academic quality than the Judaic credits I received at Stern. But I don't know how it is at other Israel schools.
A- it was interesting to read all this hair-splitting pilpul on Stern policies.
ReplyDeleteB- All this talk of Stern is getting me jealous.
C- ~general grumbling noise about being in Israel away from family, friends, opportunities (well) and life~