New Sports-Leadership Center: The Answer to the Problems in College Athletics?

What a great idea!  A new center focused on examining the problems in college athletics and hopefully identifying and testing some viable solutions.  I say hopefully, because I am a bit skeptical.  

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014, William Powers, Jr., President of the University of Texas at Austin, announced the opening of the Center for Sports Leadership and Innovation to “help coaches instill strong character in high school players and teach college athletes how to manage their money better” (Chronicle of Higher Education on-line, 12/17/14).   More universities should follow the example.  President Powers should be commended for his leadership.  However, instead he will step down as president in June of 2015 after much publicized clashes with Governor Perry and some of the members of the Board of Regents appointed by Perry.

President Powers goes on to say that "As a society, we should be doing everything we can to leverage the enormous popularity of athletics to develop leaders and cultivate integrity".  In addition to teaching teamwork and discipline, he said, sports can be "a force for good."  There is no debate about the inherent good that comes from college sports and the impact it has on student athletes, students in general, and the broader community.

The center will receive $300,000.00 in start-up funds from President Powers’ office via the Longhorn Network.   The director of the new center will be Daron K. Roberts, a former student-government president at Texas, guest analyst for the Longhorn Network, and a guest lecturer in humanities at the university where he teaches a course in Leadership Strategy in Sports.  He has served as an assistant coach with three NFL teams; the Kansas City Chiefs, Detroit Lions, and the Cleveland Browns; as well as an assistant coach with West Virginia University.  He received a B.A. in Government from UT-Austin (2001), a Master’s of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government (2004) and a law degree (2007), both from Harvard University.  He certainly has the academic qualifications and work experience to lead the center.

The creation of the center is a good start toward addressing the problems that exist in colleges sports.  The public is tired of hearing about how college athletes are accused of sexual assaults and university administrations sweeping it under the rug.  We are tired of reading about cheating scandal after scandal to help make blue chip athletes eligible to play college sports.  We are tired of college athletes not attending classes, having term papers written for them and passing classes without lifting a finger.  Hopefully the new center will address these and many of the other problems intrinsic to college sports.

I find it interesting that President Powers announced the creation of the new center on the same day the local news reported that a grand jury in Travis County (Austin), Texas had indicted two former Texas football players on sexual assault charges in connection with an on-campus incident with a female student in June.  It should be noted that Texas Head Football Coach Charlie Strong suspended both players one month after the sexual assault allegations and in August dismissed them from the team.  This is the appropriate and correct action college coaches should take once there is sufficient evidence to determine that the student-athletes were involved in the sexual assault or any other serious violation of the student code of conduct.

It was reported that the center will work with high school coaches to develop a training and certification program which will help them detect and intervene when players exhibit troubling or violent behavior. A pilot program will focus on high school football and girls’ basketball.  

According to the announcement, the center will also develop a financial literacy program for the university’s athletes. A one-hour pilot course will start in the fall and will be taught by financial professionals and former athletes will help teach the students how to manage loans, credit-card debt, and other financial matters. These skills will be useful for anyone, including the vast majority of college athletes who don’t go on to play sports professionally.  However, the course would obviously benefit the smaller subset of high-profile players who might cash in on their athletic skills.  In my opinion this should be a standard course for all college students, not just athletes.  

Interestingly enough, the one-hour financial literacy comes on the heels of recent legal rulings about compensating college student athletes.  In August, a federal judge ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had violated federal antitrust laws by unreasonably barring high-profile athletes from earning money off of the use of their names, images, and likenesses. The NCAA has appealed the decision and if upheld, it could allow some football and basketball players to earn thousands of dollars a year in deferred compensation for the commercial use of their images.

I believe that the problems in college athletics are rooted in money.  For example, how can a head coach of a major college football program earn $5,000,000 a year and the president earn only $500,000 a year.  Or take the recent example of the University of Michigan, my alma mater, which has offered Jim Harbaugh, head coach of the NFL San Francisco 49ers, $8,000,000.00 to be the head football coach. Apparently, $8M is higher than any head football coach makes in the NFL. My point exactly!  A salary of $8M is a drop in the bucket compared to the $137M operating budget for the football program at Michigan and football is projected to make a surplus of $9M. Until we remove money from the equation, the problems will continue to exist.  A $5M or now $8M, if Harbaugh accepts, a year salary is a great incentive to cheat, keep your job, and your enormous salary.

The creation of the new Center for Sports Leadership and Innovation is a great start in an attempt to address the problems facing college sports.  However, I feel a more comprehensive approach needs to be taken.  Other university presidents with major NCAA Division I sports programs need to step forward and create other “think tanks” that can study the problems, find solutions, implement them, and create best practices that can be disseminated to all college sports programs. After all this is what our students and the public deserve.

Gainful Employment Rule: The Death of For-Profit Colleges?

This past week, Secretary Arnie Duncan, U.S. Department of Education, released the final “Gainful Employment” regulation aimed primarily at protecting college students from incurring large loan debts while getting a college education.  The intent of the final version of the regulation will hold career programs accountable to ensure that their students are successful in getting an education that leads to a good paying job without incurring large debt in student loans.  The new rule will go into effect July 2015 and will have a huge impact primarily on the for-profit colleges who offer career training programs.

The final regulation comes after years of debate, revisions, and litigation.  The first version of the regulation was issued in June of 2011 and had two provisions: 1. The college’s cohort student loan default rate and 2.  The college’s debt-to-earnings ratio for its graduations in a given program.  The two provisions would have negatively impacted career training programs at community colleges and for-profit colleges.  The final version dropped the first provision, the student loan default rate, which was viewed by many as a major win for community colleges who had argued for elimination of this provision.  The elimination of the loan default rate is projected to save as many as 500 programs, most of which are at for-profit institutions.

The gainful employment rule now requires all career training programs, whether at private or public colleges, to prepare students for “gainful employment in a recognized occupation.”  Essentially, the program must ensure that the loan payment of a typical graduate can NOT exceed 20% of his or her discretionary income or 8% of his or her total earnings once the student graduates and gets a job.  Career training programs that exceed these levels will be at risk of losing the ability of their students to access federal student financial aid programs.  At stake is the potential loss of federal funding for financial aid, estimated to be $200 billion.

While students at for-profit colleges represent only 11% of the total higher education population, they account for 44% of all federal student loan defaults, according to the U.S. Department of Education press release issued on Thursday, October 30, 2014.  Additionally, students attending  two-year for-profit colleges can pay as much as four times the cost of attending public community colleges.  More than 80% of the students attending for-profit colleges take out student loans compared to less than 50% at public community colleges.

The Education Department has estimated that, based on their current data, approximately 1,400 career training programs serving 840,000 students would not meet the new regulation.  The press release did not mention how many colleges would be affected, but it did state that 99% of the 1,400 programs are in for-profit colleges.  This is particularly critical for for-profit colleges, since 90% of their revenue often comes from tuition through federal financial aid programs.

However, all programs will have the opportunity to make changes that can help avoid sanctions.  And according to the Department of Education, many colleges have already initiated changes to improve their programs.  Specifically, some colleges have instituted trial periods before their students have to commit. This allows students to decide if the program is a good fit for them.  Others have reduced the length of time to complete their programs and yet others have reduced the cost of their programs.  It should be noted that a few schools have actually closed programs in some locations that were judged to be performing poorly.

Moreover, there is room for improvement in many of these programs, whether they be public or private, for-profit or non-profit.  To encourage improvement, the Education Department is creating an inter-agency task force to help ensure proper oversight of the for-profit colleges.  The task force will include representatives from the Departments of Justice, Defense, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and will even include the attorneys general from each state.  The intent is to leverage each agencies’ resources and expertise in an effort to better protect the interests of students and taxpayers.  The task force began meeting this year and will meet as needed, but at least once each quarter.

Critics of colleges and universities are not happy with the new regulation.  They feel that the Department of Education has watered down the initial regulation that was supposed to protect students who took out loans.  Student and consumer advocacy groups have pushed the Department to include college dropout rates. They feel that the debt-to-earnings provision looks at only students who complete their program and not at the students who failed to graduate or who dropped out.  The concern is that the new rule allows career programs, where most students take out loans but few graduate, to continue using taxpayer money to bury students in debt that they can’t repay as long as they limit the debt to the few students who do graduate.  On the other hand, Education Department officials contend that programs would still be required to report their completion and cohort student loan default rates.  They believe that disclosing this information would help prospective students and their parents understand their chances of succeeding in a given program.

As you can imagine, the for-profit colleges have been very critical of the Department and the new regulation. They claim that the Department has caved in to the pressure of the community colleges while ignoring the concerns of the for-profits.  According to Steve Gunderson, president and chief executive of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities and their main lobbying group, “the gainful employment rule is nothing more than a bad faith attempt to cut off access to education for millions of students who have been historically undeserved by higher education.”

I believe that the U. S. Department of Education is headed in the right direction, but I agree with critics that it didn't go far enough to include a school’s student cohort loan default rate or its student dropout rate.  We have to start somewhere and this is a good start.  We must address the high loan default rate of institutions of higher education.  In times of limited resources, we must make the best use of taxpayer money.  But, rather than close programs based on one single metric, we should offer assistance to those 1,400 programs that are identified as not meeting the new regulation and do everything we can to ensure they will be successful.  If they refuse the help or choose to not make improvements, then after sufficient warnings, the programs should be sanctioned or closed.  One final point, the new regulation does allow sufficient warning in my opinion.  Programs that fail both debt-to-income tests twice in any three-year period or are in the zone for four consecutive years will be ineligible for aid.

College Rankings: The Other Side of Best

At the start of each fall semester, prominent periodicals provide rankings of the best colleges and universities.  They examine the quality of colleges within universities, for example, engineering versus business, and they even drill down to the discipline level, ranking of various departments from accounting to zoology.  The most common examples are U.S. News and World Report or Washington Monthly, which produce very detailed rankings of colleges and universities across the country.

However, what you don’t see on the newsstands is the rankings of the worst colleges.  Only recently, the Washington Monthly examined 1,700 four-year colleges and universities and used a different rankings methodology to identify the twenty worst colleges in America.   They produced 4 different lists of the worst colleges based on selected criteria.

The first list of worst colleges was based on four criteria.  They examined: 1. The net price, which they defined as tuition minus grants and scholarships; 2. The high average student debt, which is the amount of money students borrowed to attend; 3. The high cohort loan default rate, a federal measure that tracks the percentage of each college’s freshman class that defaults on their student loans within three years of beginning to repay them;, and 4.  The low graduation rates.  Not surprisingly, the list of the 20 worst colleges was made up of all private colleges, of which 11 were for-profit and nine were non-profit schools and included two Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s).  There were no public universities on this list.  I don’t want to point fingers at these colleges, so I  won’t identify them.

The second list was based solely on low graduation rates.  It used two criteria to measure completion of the bachelor’s degree.  The first was the bachelor’s degree graduation rate and the second was the number of degrees awarded for every 100 full-time equivalent students.  While not providing a detailed explanation, the Washington Monthly also, factored into this ranking a college’s borrowing rate and gave it equal weight to the cohort loan default rate, the median borrowing amount, and the net price.  Like the first list, all of the colleges on this worst list were private,  12 were for-profit and eight were non-profit.  Four of the schools on this list were HBCU’s and none were public institutions.  Four schools appeared on both lists.

The third list examined each college’s debt in relation to its borrowing rate.  This list also included part-time students by counting the ratio of degrees awarded per 100 full-time equivalent students, thus including all students whether full- or part-time.  Sadly, of the  20 colleges on this list,  12 were HBCU’s and two of these schools are public universities.  Of the remaining  18 schools,  10 were private non-profit and the other eight were private for-profit colleges.  While this does not speak well for HBCU’s, it must be noted that HBCU’s have historically provided a college education to African Americans when there were refused admission to other colleges and universities.  And until recently, all of the students attending HBCU’s were first-generation and low income.

The final list of worst colleges took into account graduation rates, but adjusted by the percent of minority and low-income students it enrolled and graduated.  Low-income was defined as the number of students who received Pell Grants.  The list also considered the net price of attendance for the Pell Grant recipients.  Using these criteria, the list was very different compared to the previous three lists.  None of the schools in this list were HBCU’s.  However, the list was made up of small and expensive private non-profit colleges.  Only five of the schools were private for-profit.

As you can see  by  the different variables used to produce the above four lists, creating a list of the worst, or for that matter best, colleges, requires making judgments that can have adverse effects on those colleges.  And the judgments we make does not mean that all colleges are equal and judged equally.  A college that enrolls 90% low-income, first-generation, minority students is not the same as a highly selective, private, expensive Ivy League school.

Recently, the Obama administration set out to devise a college rating system that would treat each college and university fairly.  They quickly found out that minority serving institutions (HBCU, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Native-American Serving Institutions, etc.) could not be rated with the same criteria as the typical university.  At stake would be the loss of federal funding for financial aid and other programs, $200 billion to be exact.  As you can imagine, college and university presidents are opposed to the idea.  Their key argument is that institutions of higher education are extremely diverse with very different missions, costs and students.

I am writing about this subject not to belittle the colleges on these lists, but to bring to the forefront a major problem that exists in America.  We can’t treat all colleges equally, because they are not all created equal.  We must look at ways to help minority serving institutions be more successful.  We must do research to determine what factors aid minority students at succeeding in college.  We must examine those colleges who have high success rates with minority students and determine what they are doing right.  We must then disseminate the best practices to all the colleges that serve minority students and provide incentives so that they adopt the best practices.  These are the schools who are educating the future workforce, the future leaders of America.  We must ensure that they are successful.

Controlling Tuition Costs

    A common complaint you hear these days by students and parents is the rising cost of college tuition, in some cases, a dramatic raise in tuitions and other fees.  University administrators argue that the increase in tuition and fees is needed to maintain a quality education for their students.  In order to maintain a quality education, universities have to attract top notch faculty, which translates into paying these professors high salaries. 

    Critics of colleges and universities argue that a college education is already overpriced.  To add insult to injury, after students and their parents pay exorbitant costs for a college education, graduates can’t find work, as many of the undergraduate majors do not lead to good paying jobs immediately upon graduation. 

    Students and their parents are now questioning the value of a college education and evidence of this is the leveling of enrollments, or in some cases enrollment decreases, that we have seen recently in higher education institutions.   College and university administrators have been heeding this concern and are instituting tuition freezes, tuition leveling and even tuition cutting.  Tuition freeze is typically defined as tuition that is kept unchanged for a specified number of years; however, other fees and room and board charges are typically increased each year. Tuition leveling is where tuition is frozen for four or more years for each class, but college increases tuition for each successive incoming class. This is also known as a guaranteed tuition rate or tuition lock.  As the name implies, tuition cuts are where the college reduces tuition by a certain percent, 10%, 20%, or more, and is invariably a one-time event.  One side effect of tuition cuts is that the college will also cut financial aid at the same time, since financial need will be reduced for all students.

    A survey by conducted FastWeb last year indicated that 21 colleges cut tuition by as little as 8% to as much as 50%.  Some of these schools were very creative in cutting tuition, for example, cutting in only certain degree programs or only in-state tuition.  One of the positive results of cutting tuition is an increase in student enrollments, which can make up for the lost revenue in tuition.  One college in the survey cut tuition by 42% and saw an increase of 60% in freshmen students. 

    In the same survey, 64 colleges were reported to have frozen tuition.  Tuition was held constant for a period of four years, but tuition was increased for each new freshman class entering the university in subsequent years.  If a student dropped out and returned, they would have to pay the new tuition rate at the time of reentry, typically higher tuition.   

    Thirty-two colleges reported that they had instituted tuition leveling.  This is becoming popular among college students and parents as costs are held constant, which allows them to better plan for the cost of college.  Students are now viewing tuition leveling or tuition cutting as a contractual agreement between the college and the student. Tuition freezes are considered more common in community colleges and public four-year colleges and less common in private four-year schools.

    However, students much be cautious not to assume that those colleges that have frozen tuition will keep it frozen throughout their entire college education. During times of a recession, as history has demonstrated, college and university administrators raise tuition to make up for the loss of state and/or federal funding.  Moreover, the trend during the last several decades has been for states to decrease funding for their colleges and universities. If the trend continues, tuition freezes or cuts may not be possible.

As a former president, I can tell you that freezing or lowering tuition is a very difficult and tricky task.  The costs of operating a college or university are typically fixed costs and rarely, if ever, do they decrease.  If anything, operating costs like utilities, employee benefits, to name a few, usually raise at rates higher than the cost of living.  Employee salaries are another major cost of operating a university and being able to give salary raises when you are freezing or cutting tuition, can be difficult, if not impossible.  For most colleges and universities, tuition is the major source of revenue. 

    I commend the colleges and universities who have frozen or lowered tuition.  I hope that other institutions of higher education follow the example set by these colleges.  If colleges and universities do not become more cost effective, I fear that future students will begin to vote with their feet.  The signs are already there. 
   

Sexual Assaults on College Campuses

Two months ago I wrote about sexual assaults on college campuses. I provided some startling statistics such as 1 in 4 women (25%) will be victim of a sexual assault on college campuses during their academic career.  This is totally unacceptable. 

This week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation explicitly requiring colleges and universities that receive state funds to more clearly define consent in students’ sexual encounters.  The new law ushered in the concept of “yes means yes” rather than “no means no,” which has been the norm.  What this means is that students must now seek affirmative consent from their partners before a sexual encounter and maintain the affirmative consent during the activity.  The law states that consent can be revoked at any time and the absence of “no” is insufficient to give permission to have sex.  

One of the important provisions of the California law is that it requires colleges and universities to create comprehensive training and outreach programs for everyone on campus.  California’s colleges and universities are responding quickly.  The University of California System has developed an on-line training and information module and requires all students to complete the module before they can register for courses.  Furthermore, the University of California and the California State University systems have already changed and adopted policies that are consistent with the new law. 

One of the key criticisms college administrators face is that their policies against sexual assaults do not clearly define consent.  Federal and state legislators and victims’ rights activists have been applying increasing pressure on colleges and universities to strengthen their sexual assault policies. At the core of the criticism is how consent is defined or in some cases not clearly defined.

The crucial part of “yes means yes” is that it shifts the burden of proof from the victim of a sexual assault to the assaulter.  Instead of the victim having to prove that she said “no” to sexual activity, the accuser has to prove that the victim clearly consented to the sexual activity.  Too often our judicial system puts the blame on the victim rather than on the perpetrator.  You often hear comments like, “No wonder she was raped, look at how she was dressed.”  We all understand that one of the basic rights in our legal system is that you are innocent until proven guilty.  However, in cases of sexual assault, it is time we require the perpetrator to prove that affirmative consent was given to engage in a sexual activity.  We need to stop blaming the victim.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, began tracking sexual assaults complaints on college campuses.  Since then, the number of complaints has tripled from 11 to 33.  And 33 complaints are just through the first half of 2014.  What is more disconcerting, according to the Office of Civil Rights, is that about three quarters of the sexual assault complaints were dismissed or administratively closed.  The Office of Civil Rights categorizes sexual assaults as Title IX complaints.  Sexual assaults now represent nearly 30% of all Title IX complaints.  This dramatic raise is what has legislators and the public alarmed.  One sexual assault on campus is too many, but 33 are utterly deplorable. 

A few colleges have already implemented affirmative consent as part of their sexual assault policies. One such school is Grinnell College.  Grinnell’s policy states that “consent to engage in sexual activity must exist from the beginning to the end of each instance of sexual activity. Consent is demonstrated through mutually understandable words and/or clear, unambiguous actions that indicate a willingness to engage freely in sexual activity.  Consent to one form of sexual activity does not constitute consent to engage in all forms of sexual activity."  Grinnell’s policy is clearly stated and sets the bar high.  All colleges and universities should emulate Grinnell’s policy on sexual assaults, so that consent is clearly defined. 

Congratulations to Grinnell College and the other schools who have taken a proactive approach to clearly define consent.  More governors and state legislators should follow the example that California Governor Jerry Brown has established and send the strong message that sexual assaults will not be tolerated on college campuses.  College and university administrators should more clearly define their sexual assault policies to include affirmative consent.  This would go a long way to ensuring that our daughters and sons are safe on college campuses. 

College Student Loan Default Rates:A Measure of Success of Colleges?

Recently, more criticism is being leveled at colleges and universities for not being more successful at “producing” students.  Higher education is being treated like any other business by focusing now on measuring output. Specifically, lawmakers and the public want to know how many students each institution of higher education they advance from one year to the next and ultimately how many they graduate.  One measure of that success that has been in the public eye is the college student loan default rate.

The U.S. Department of Education announced this week that loan-default rates had dropped one percent from 14.7% to 13.7% of all colleges and universities in 2011 compared to 2010.  The Department of Education looks at individual colleges and places them in categories such as public vs. private, two-year vs. four-year, and non-profit vs. for-profit.  The largest drop occurred in the private for-profit sector by 2.7%, even though they continue to have the highest loan default rate of all colleges at 19.1%.  The second highest default rate was among public colleges at 12.9%, and the private non-profit colleges had the lowest at 7.2%.  In examining the data more closely, the two-year private non- and for-profit colleges had significantly higher default rates (25.0% and 20.6% respectively) than the two-year publics (13.6%). The private for-profit four-year colleges had the highest default rate (18.6%), the public colleges had the next highest (8.9%) and the private non-profits had the lowest rates (7.0%).

Despite the drop in default rates, the major concern among critics of colleges is that the Department of Education lowered its standards and is letting underperforming colleges “off the hook.”  However, college administrators point to the weak economy as a major cause of higher loan default rates.  The weak economy has caused more student to borrow money to attend college, which in turn has caused the loan default rate to increase. 

Last year, the Department changed its standards, so rather than measuring default rates for two years, they are now using three years.  And the default rate must not exceed 30% of the total number of student loans for three years in a row or 40% in a single year.  Another interesting, but controversial, change the Department made was to exclude in its calculations multiple loans whether students were in “repayment, deferment, or forbearance status for at least 60 consecutive days,” based on a statement issued by Jeff Baker, Director, Policy Liaison and Implementation, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education.

The penalty for not meeting the standards is the potential loss of federal student aid and possibly other federal funding.  This is a major concern about administrators at colleges as federal student aid funds can be a significant part of the budget of many colleges especially at the private for-profits.  Moreover, administrators in community colleges and minority serving institutions expressed the greatest concern since they typically enroll a significantly larger number of first-generation, low-income students.  These are the students who rely heavily on loans and other types of financial aid since their parents can’t afford to pay for college. 

In a speech this week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told leaders of historically black colleges and universities that none of their institutions would be penalized.   This was welcome news for them and for college administrators at other minority-serving institutions and community colleges. 

However, should minority-serving institutions and community colleges be penalized because they serve a disproportionately larger share of low-income students?  I don’t think so, if anything these colleges should be rewarded for taking on a very difficult task.  But, in an environment where legislators and the public are calling for more accountability and where colleges and universities are now being treated like a business that produces a product, I don’t think these institutions of higher education will be rewarded.  My guess is that we will see more pressure on these types of colleges to do a better job or close their doors. 

On the other hand, it is not clear to me that state legislators will have the intestinal fortitude in the future to close public community colleges and minority-serving institutions in their legislative districts.  After all, institutions of higher education are economic engines for the communities they reside in.  They tend to hire a large number of employees and a subset of their employees (professors and administrators) earn significantly higher wages than the average wage earner in those communities.  Additionally, these colleges and universities are educating the future workforce of our country: the first-generation, low-income, minority and immigrant population that is increasing exponentially in this country.  I suspect that if a legislator proposed or voted to close an institution of higher education in his or her community, they would not remain a legislator through the next election.

Secretary Duncan took a bold and brave step, in my opinion, in adjusting the default rates of community colleges and minority serving institutions.  Our country needs these types of institutions of higher education to not only survive, but thrive.  After all, they play an important role in shaping the future of our country by educating a significant subgroup of our workforce and our future leaders. 

The Cost of College Textbooks

My last blog focused on the millions of college students who have started college classes this fall.  One of the daunting tasks facing college students across America is the purchase of college textbooks.  For students and parents who, in many cases, pay for the textbooks, the cost is very high, actually outrageous in some cases. 

The College Board reported the average cost for books and supplies for the 2013–2014 school year was $1,207 at public colleges and $1,253 at private colleges.  But the cost can vary dramatically between the public and private schools.  For example, Harvard University lists on their official website the average cost of books as $3,643 per year, three times the national average.  I also looked at a typical public university, Humboldt State University, in northern California and their average cost of books is $1,612, or 56% less than the average cost of books at Harvard and 33% higher than the national average.  For additional comparison, I examined the cost of attendance at St. Louis Community College and their website lists the cost of books as $1,000.

The Huffington Post reported that the cost of college textbooks has risen 812% since 1978, compared to medical services at 575%, new home prices at 325%, or the Consumer Price Index at 250% over the same period.  Like tuition, the cost of college textbooks has outpaced all other consumer goods. 

An important variable that impacts the cost of college textbooks is the discipline.  College textbooks for mathematics, the hard sciences, medicine, or law will be much more expensive than books in other disciplines.  In other words, a college calculus book will cost a lot more than an introduction to psychology book.  For example, a new college calculus book by James Stewart, 7th edition, touted as the world’s best-seller, will cost $285.50 on textbooks.com or less for a used version of the book, depending on the condition of the book.  An introduction to psychology book will cost $170.75 new on textbook.com and as little as $25 for a used copy. 

Part of what drives up the price of college textbooks is the publisher bundling the books with supplemental material such as work books, study guides or CD’s and access to websites.  When textbooks are bundled, a student cannot buy just the text book. Another strategy textbook publishers use to jack up the price is to issue newer editions of the book.  It is estimated that new editions of textbooks are released on average every 3.9 years. 

I have some solutions to the high cost of textbooks.  I have always told my students to buy used books as they will be much less expensive.  I have also informed student to buy books from students who took the class previously, assuming the professor is using the same book.  I have also suggested to buy a book with a classmate and share it.  However, sharing can have it drawbacks, like not having access to the book when you need it.  Another option to consider would be to buy the books on-line via textbook.com, eBay, or Amazon.  They typically are cheaper than college bookstores.  Other options include renting a text book or buying an e-book or electronic version of the book, but you will need to have an e-reader or a computer.  However, renting a book may not always be cheaper, as you lose money if you don’t take special care of the rental book when you have to return it.  And e-books aren’t always that much cheaper than buying a new book.

I suggest, before renting a book, you should consider the cost of a used book and the money you will recoup when you re-sell it to the bookstore, versus the cost of renting the same textbook.  My students, and most students in the different universities with which I have been associated, have preferred used books over rentals or e-books.  At the bookstore of one university where I worked, 65% of the books stocked and sold were used, and, as a result, the students at that school wanted more used text books. 

Another suggestion is to purchase an older edition of a college textbook since they tend to be cheaper, but one has to be careful that the material has not changed significantly.  Also, if it is a mathematics book, the end of each chapter can be different.  But that can easily be solved by borrowing the new textbook from a classmate and copying the new problem sets. 

One final suggestion and a little known fact that most students on college campuses may not be aware of is that most colleges and universities will place a textbook for their courses on reserve in the library.  This is great for students who can’t afford to buy textbooks, but there is a downside.  Typically, college libraries will not allow students to check out books on reserve or, if they do allow check-out, it will be for a very short period to time, in some cases only a couple of hours. 

I talked to my son, who is a senior majoring in mechanical engineering, and he does not buy e-books, but rather prefers used books and re-sells them to the bookstore if he decides not the keep the book.  An informal survey of his friends confirms that e-books are not a common choice.  They too prefer used books. 

It is worth the effort to do the research and consider all options available before purchasing a college textbook.  It will pay off in the short term and may save you lots of money over the course of four… or five….years of buying textbooks. 

That Time of Year Again: The Start of College And Getting to Know Each Other

It is that time of year again.  Fall is when the summer heat and humidity starts to subside and cool nights begin. It is the start of football season and the Friday night lights or Saturday afternoon games.  It is also the time when our society begins one of its most important tasks, i.e, educating our future workforce and our next generation of leaders. 

From mid-August through early September, about 22.1 millions students will start college or university classes.  In the fall of 2013, public and private two- and four-year institutions of higher education enrolled 21.8 million students:  females make up the majority of the students at 12.5 million and males 9.3 million. This fall, The National Center for Educational Statistics projects that colleges and universities will enroll nearly 22.1 million students, an increase of barely 1 percent.

And 1.5 million college professors, or more specifically referred to by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as post-secondary teachers, will teach these students courses from accounting to zoology and everything in between. A quick glance at course listings of a few colleges reveals some interesting courses such as Elementary Yiddish at UCLA; Tightwaddery or the Good Life on a Dollar a Day at Alfred University; Underwater Basket Weaving, yes folks it does really exist, at Reed College; Introduction to Turntablism, a course to learn how to become a DJ, at Oberlin Experimental College; The Joy of Garbage at Santa Clara University; and my favorite An Introduction to Wines at Cornell University. Why was this course not offered when I went to college?  Although, I was not sophisticated enough to be into, much less, enjoy wine.

As a former college professor, one of the common questions you ask yourself is what do you do on your first day of classes.  You are obviously an expert in the subject matter you are going to teach. But, on the first day almost all professors do NOT begin teaching. And those that do teach on the very first day are viewed as not being cool by the students.  So the pressure it on, what do you do to be cool?  Typically most professors will call the roll, review the syllabus, ask if there are any questions and dismiss class.  Some professors will even introduce icebreaker games so that the professor can get to know the students and the students can get to know each other. 

Josh Boldt, a writer and editor who teaches at University of Georgia, recently wrote an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on this very subject.  After reviewing the syllabus he hands out a note card to each student and asks them to write down three things:  1. their names, 2. where they are from, city and state, and 3. some element of popular culture they currently happen to be following. He tells the students it can be anything like a film, a book, a magazine, a website, a piece of music, whatever they are into at that moment.

This is a very clever idea as it allows the professor to get an immediate glimpse into the personalities of his students and to get to know his students quickly.  It also provides some insight into what interests students these days. Given the age difference between the typical professor and his students, this exercise may provide the professor some valuable information about his students. 

Once the writing task is completed the students are asked to pair up with another student and share their answers. He then asks the students to trade cards and every student must introduce their partner.  Connections are formed immediately as students learn that they are from the same town as another student in the class, like the same TV series or read the same author.  It makes it easier for students to get to know each other from the beginning. Students now have an easy reason to approach one another, a valuable tool for the shy or timid students in the class.

Josh ends the class right after the introductions and suggests that students are more talkative on the way out than they were on the way in.  And he uses the note cards to take roll until he learns the names of his students.  The added bonus is that he quickly learns something about his students that he might not have otherwise known.  This creates an instant connection with the student and the professor can use this as a way to interact with his students rather than having to use the course subject matter. 

In reading Josh’s article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, it reminded me of what I used to do on the first day of classes.  I have used a similar icebreaker and have asked my students to tell their classmates 3 things about themselves, their names, their home town and one interesting tidbit about themselves. But instead of writing the answers, I ask the students to remember the answers.  Three items are not hard to remember.  The military services ask each recruit to memorize name, rank, and serial number.  Psychologists have demonstrated that the human brain can remember up to seven items. That is why telephone numbers are seven digits. 

Like Josh, I would ask my students to pair up with another student and share their their answers.  I would start the icebreaker by introducing myself, telling my students where I was from and my interesting tidbit that I am an amateur vintner and have been making wine for 15 years.  Then each student was asked to introduce their partner.  It helps “break the ice” and students in my classes have gotten to know each other.  I have found that students will form immediate natural connections as they may be into the same things as other students in the class. 

I did a quick search on the internet and found some interesting ideas for icebreakers to use on the first day of classes.  Here are some suggestions: 1. Categories, organize students into small groups based on categories such as favorite color; 2. Gotcha, form the students in a circle and have them place the right finger on next person's left palm, the objective is to try to grab a finger before yours gets grabbed; 3. Fears in a Hat, have each student write a personal fear anonymously on a piece of paper and place it in a hat.  Each student then randomly selects and reads someone else's fear to the group and explains how the person might feel; or 4. Have you ever? Each student shares an experience and allows the group to celebrate the diversity of students’ past experiences. 

In my opinion, the best icebreakers are those activities that allow the students to get to know each other and allows the professor to get to know the students.  The activity should draw on the students’ personal experiences, but preferably not something private. The icebreaker should be structured so that it is easy for the students to talk.  It should not be about the content of the course you are about to teach.  It should help establish camaraderie among the students.  I suggest you start the activity with yourself so that students get to know you right away.   What do you do on the first day of teaching a college class?

The Price of a College Degree. Is it Worth the Price?

For several years now, Americans have been questioning the value of higher education. Is a college degree worth the thousands of dollars it costs? Does the bachelors’ degree lead to a good paying job? Higher education faces many challenges in the nation. Unfortunately, one major challenge is the escalating cost of a college education. And as Americans question its value, the college degree has begun to lose its prominence in the minds of many Americans. The evidence to support this is the decline in enrollments in colleges and universities throughout the country. The problem has been further fueled by the high unemployment rates and the need by Americans for employment and the promise of a steady income.

The National Center for Education Statistics reported that there was a 2% drop in the enrollment of undergraduates in colleges and universities across the country from 2010 to 2012. Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau reported a decline in college enrollments in the fall of 2012 by half a million students compared to the previous year. According to Census Bureau data the biggest drop was among older students, those 25 and older, and among white students who saw a decline from 67% to 58%. Surprisingly, Hispanic and African American students did not follow the trend, but rather their enrollments increased during the same period, from 11% to 17% for Hispanics and from 14% to 15% for African Americans. More recently, the Chronicle of Higher Education related that college enrollments this past spring semester decreased by 0.8% for the third year in a row. This is compared to a 2.3% decline over the previous one year period. The biggest drop, 4.9%, occurred among four-year for-profit colleges compared to 9.7% decline last year, and at two-year public colleges, which fell by 2.7%. Thirty-seven states saw enrollment declines, while 13 states reported increases.

One logical assumption is that the drop in college enrollments was precipitated by the number of high school graduates not going on to college. The U.S. Department of Labor reported that indeed fewer high school graduates were going on to college last year: 65.9% in 2013 versus 66.2% in 2012. The drop; however, was only 3 tenths of one percent. While this is minimal, it does not account for the larger drop in college enrollments.

Today, the public and politicians expect colleges and universities to provide an education that leads immediately to a good paying job. College administrators can no longer expect students and parents to incur debt to fund an education that in many instances leads to uncertain career opportunities. Higher education has been steadily pricing itself out of the market in the minds of Americans. Data from the National Center of Education Statistics indicate that the cost of college (tuition, fees, and room and board) rose 40% at public institutions of higher education and rose 28% at private non-profit institutions during a ten-year period, 2002 to 2012. According to an August 15, 2012 Bloomberg article, “college tuition and fees have surged 1,120%… since 1978, four times faster than the increase in the consumer price index.”

Nationwide, colleges and universities have gotten so expensive creating a perception that the pursuit of higher learning is no longer as valuable as in past years. U.S. News and World Report, in a recent article, suggested that while tuition prices at public four-year colleges are growing more slowly than they have in more than 30 year, the fact remains that tuition has dramatically outpaced other consumer goods. For example, from 2003 to 2013 college tuition grew nearly 80% while Medicare grew 43.1%, Food and Beverages 31.2%, Housing 22.8%, Men’s Apparel, 6.9% and Women’s Apparel 5.6%, as compared to an increase in the Consumer Price Index of 26.7% during the same ten-year period.

The dramatic increase in college costs has been due in large part to the recession and a weak economy, both at the state and national levels; dramatic cuts in state funds to public higher education institutions; and drops in enrollments, due to the scrutiny of the value of higher education. Inside Higher Ed recently reported that there has been a 7.6% drop in state appropriations for colleges in 2012, the largest decline in a half a century. Forty-one of the fifty states cut their spending for higher education from as little of 1% in Indiana to as much as 41% in New Hampshire. In the last five years spending by states nationwide is down 28%. All but two states, North Dakota and Wyoming, cut funding for their institutions of higher education. Thirty-six states cut higher education funding by more than 20%, eleven states have cut funding by more than one-third, and two states, Arizona and New Hampshire, have cut their higher education spending in half. At the federal level, budget cuts have impacted research programs, student support and financial aid programs and many other programs that support students who attend our institutions of higher education.

In response to these budget cuts, colleges and universities have raised tuition to make up the difference. Over the last 25 years, the share of public university revenues coming from tuition and fees has climbed steadily to 47% this year, from 23% in 1987, according to a March 6, 2013 article in the New York Times. Moreover, college administrators, due mostly in response to pressure coming from legislators and governors, have begun to freeze tuition and fees, a move that unfortunately is not sustainable, given that the other costs of doing business will not freeze. As colleges raise tuition costs, the anticipated effect is a potential drop in enrollments. To ameliorate this effect, colleges have discounted tuition by providing scholarships and other forms of student financial aid, a practice that private, high-priced institutions have followed for many years. But rather than adjusting to a new model of doing business when the economy starts to recover, the reliance on tuition revenue has created a "new normal" for higher education funding that is simply not sustainable.

Many Americans have begun to believe that a bachelor’s degree is now the financial equivalent to a high school diploma of ten years ago. However, the most important message that must be disseminated is that with a college degree, graduates are more likely to obtain higher quality and more well-paying jobs. According to College Board, college graduates with bachelor’s degrees have a 61% higher earnings potential than high school graduates.

Historically, higher education was originally created in Greece in the sixth century BC to impart knowledge to the elite and the clergy. It later expanded to medicine, philosophy, mathematics and the study of the nature of humanity and the universe. Through the centuries, higher education has maintained the imparting and expanding of knowledge as one of its primary functions, but what has changed is the characteristics of the students. Today, higher education prepares individuals to think critically, analyze, and draw conclusions to solve problems in an ever increasing global society. Liberal arts degrees, for example, teach these skills, yet a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts does not lead immediately to a high paying job. Therein lies the dilemma for higher education. Does higher education continue to educate students with a centuries old model or does higher education change to meet the needs for our society?

The dilemma institutions face, as they continue to raise tuition and fees at record levels, is that attendance will become out of reach for an increasing number of students, especially minority, first-generation, low-income students, which will diminish dramatically their chances of completing a degree. Horace Mann, the great education reformer of the 19th century, once said, “Education … is the great equalizer…” I am a perfect example of this phenomenon.

One of the primary assumptions in our society is that a higher education degree leads to a good paying job. However, not all college degrees lead to an immediate career and a good paying job, yet increasingly the public and more specifically politicians are expecting colleges to produce larger numbers of job-ready graduates. The challenge facing higher education is to move away from the ancient model of educating for enlightenment and changing the paradigm to meet the needs our society in the 21st Century. College and University presidents, particularly in the public sector, must get together and re-invent the university for the 21st Century. If not, students will vote with their feet as they are starting to do now.

Sexual Predators on College Campuses

Prominent in the news today in the nation and especially in higher education is the problem of sexual assaults on college campuses.  The issue has become so big that it is now considered a crisis.  Just pick up any newspaper or weekly periodical to confirm that sexual assaults are now a major national problem across colleges and universities.  For example, the cover of Time Magazine May 26, 2014 issue reads “Crisis: Sexual Assaults in Higher Education.”

First, let me be clear, sexual assault and rape is not right.  Perpetrators should be convicted to the fullest extent of the law if guilty.  We as a society should not tolerate rapists. It is totally unacceptable.

Consider some frightening national statistics compiled by the New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assaults as reported by Sarah Lawrence College:

• 1 in 4 (25%) women will be a victim of a sexual assault on college campuses during their academic career.
•  At least 80% of all sexual assaults are committed by an acquaintance of the victim.  
• 48.8% of college women who were victims of sexual attacks did not consider what happened to them as rape.
• More than 70% of rape victims knew their attackers, compared to approximately half of all violent crime victims.
• On average, at least 50% of college students’ sexual assaults are associated with alcohol use. In a national study which reported a represented sample of college students, the result found that 74% of perpetrators and 55% of rape victims has been drinking alcohol prior to the assault.  In a survey of high school students, 56% of girls and 76% of boys believed that forced sex was acceptable under some circumstances.  

National attention has been drawn to this issue and has captured the ire of federal legislators.  On Wednesday, July 30, 2014, a bipartisan group of eight senators led by Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, introduced legislation, Campus Safety and Accountability Act, to curb sexual assaults on the nation’s college and university campuses.  The guts of the bill would impose stiffer fines for colleges if they don’t comply with federal rules. The legislation is aimed at flipping current incentives that result in what is being called “sweeping sexual assaults under the rug” to better protecting and empowering students and holding both perpetrators and institutions accountable for sexual assaults.  The bill would also require colleges to conduct surveys to determine the severity of the problem and gives the U.S. Department of Education the power to punish colleges that don’t comply.  It would also take away the power of athletic departments to handle investigations of athletes and require colleges to designate “confidential advisers” to coordinate support services for sexual assault victims.

The legislation comes just a year after a Senate subcommittee released a survey showing that 41% of a sample of 236 colleges had not conducted investigations of alleged sexual assaults during the last five years even thought some of these colleges had reported sexual violence incidents during the same time period.  This is precisely why legislators are upset and are taking action. “Colleges now have no incentive to keep accurate records of sexual assaults” said Sen Kirsten Gillibrand, one of the sponsors of the bill, “we are flipping the incentives” … “Underreporting will have stiff fines and real teeth.” 

Last year Congress passed the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act.  This new law requires public and private institutions of higher education to increase transparency about the scope of sexual violence on campus, to provide more information about standards in college conduct proceedings, and to provide campus- and community-wide prevention education programs.  These new polices must be in place by this fall.

The counter reaction by colleges is represented by Terry Hartle, a senior vice president at the American Council on Education, which represents colleges and universities in Washington Hartle called the legislation "a pretty heavy-handed approach."  He goes on to say that "Sexual assault cases on college campuses are often incredibly difficult to resolve.  I think some of the sponsors believe universities do not want to do the right thing."

Having been a president of  a public university, I, for one, took sexual assaults very seriously, making sure the victim(s) received the appropriate services and counseling, the incident(s) were properly investigated, and the alleged perpetrator(s) prosecuted, if the facts in the case warranted.  I can assure you that every college and university president in this country takes sexual assaults very seriously and takes the appropriate actions. In almost all cases it is up to the campus police and the district attorney to determine if charges are to be filed and what charges will be filed, based on the facts of a given case. 

However, one has to consider that not only does the victim have rights, but also the perpetrator.  One of the basic  tenets of our legal system and that of colleges’ judicial process is the right to due process.  Due process is rooted in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and states that “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possession… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” This has been expanded by the U.S. Supreme Court over the years to include the right to a hearing of peers, notice of the charges, right to present evidence and call witnesses, the right to know the opposing evidence, the right to cross-examine opposing evidence and witnesses, the opportunity to be represented by an attorney and other provisions.  I can tell you that every university adheres to the principle of due process in sexual assaults and other incidents that occur on campus.

Terry Hartle’s comments initially can be viewed as defensive on the part of those of us in higher education.  My own experience as a president it that Terry is correct in stating that sexual assault cases on campus can often be very difficult to resolve. Gathering the facts take time and often the victim is reluctant to talk or provide evidence.  On the other hand, the perpetrator often times provides a counter story and evidence suggesting that the sex was consensual rather than forced.  Many campuses now have cameras in the hallways of residence halls and always provide irrefutable evidence that a crime was most likely committed.  It is clearly important that Presidents of colleges and deans of students do the right thing in sexual assault cases by following the colleges’ policies and procedures, applying due process and, if the evidence suggests, push for prosecution.  I believe that every college president in our country does the right thing.   if not, I can assure you he or she would not be president for long. 
 
I have a 17 year-old daughter who will start her senior year in high school this fall.  Having worked in higher education almost all of my entire career, I know intimately what happens in colleges and universities, especially at parties where alcohol and drug use and abuse leads to many sexual assaults. In a time when there is a 25% chance of female students being sexually assaulted, a sober discussion by administrators needs to be started immediately.  I certainly have begun to seriously ponder this question, and will be advocating for more action by college and university presidents in future articles. My daughter will be entering college next year, and I want to know, as a parent, that she will be safe. 

A Win for Affirmative Action? The Federal Appeals Court Decision in University of Texas at Austin Case

Recently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit made big news on behalf of affirmative action in college admissions by upholding the University of Texas at Austin’s right to continue to use race in its undergraduate admissions.  The Austin based university actually uses the “top-ten percent” plan, when essentially guarantees admission to the Austin campus to any student in Texas who graduated in the top 10 percent of his or her graduating class.  The assumption is that since Texas continues to have segregated schools and in some areas of the state minority enrollments are well over 90% in K-12 schools and institutions of higher education. Case in point is the Rio Grande Valley area in south Texas, which is predominantly of Mexican origin.  

The decision came on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which ruled that public colleges could, in fact, continue to use race in admissions, but only if the race based admission policy meets a narrow tailored goal or need of the university and the state. 

A key issue, besides the top 10 percent plan, was the university’s desire to create “critical mass” among minority students through a process called race-conscious holistic review.  However, less than 20% of the class for 2008, the year in question in this case, was evaluated and presumably admitted via the race-conscious holistic review process.  In 2007, UT-Austin admitted approximately 6,300 freshman and this past fall they admitted 7,300 freshmen.  Based on data from the university’s Office of Information Management and Analysis for the fall of 2013, Hispanics make up only 19.1% of overall student enrollment and white students 48.4%. 

According to the recent publication by Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “By 2020, the Texas Hispanic population is expected to outnumber the White population….” thus making Texas a minority-majority or better stated a Hispanic-majority state. According to 2013 U.S. Census data, the state is nearly 40% Hispanic and in some cities in Texas well over 50% to 90% Hispanic.  And it will only get better, or worse depending on your perspective, by the year 2040 state demographers predict that the Hispanic population will grow to 18.8 million (53%) and whites will grow to 11.5 million (32%).  In 1980, whites made up 66% of the state population and Hispanics 20.4%.   Herein lies the crux of the matter, whites don’t want to give up their overwhelming majority share of the resources they currently enjoy.

Based on many years of collecting national data on college-bound students, Hispanic and black students score significantly lower than white students on standardized college admission tests such as the American College Test (ACT) or the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).  In the UT-Austin case for the 2007 entering class, the average SAT score for Hispanics was 1155, for blacks 1073 and 1275 for whites.  Nationally, data reported by the National Center for Educational Statistics for 2011-12, the average SAT scores (Critical Reading and Math scores combined) for Hispanics was 913, for blacks 856 and whites 1063.  The fact is that standardized college admission tests are not race neutral, but that’s a subject for another time.

Shouldn’t Texas and for that matter the United States of America be educating a larger percentage of our minority students, at the very least, equal to their percentage in the population of Texas or the USA?  Our country was founded by immigrants and build off the backs of immigrants.  Minorities and immigrants are increasingly becoming the future workforce of Texas and the USA.  Should we not provide them with a better education?  We know that workers with more education make more money. The future workforce will of course support our retirement plans, pay into the Social Security System, pay taxes and, if highly educated, that translates into more money into the state and federal coffers. 

The key compelling issue I feel is sometimes missed in the debate is that race-conscious admissions allow the state to level the playing field.  We know from many years of collecting data that Hispanics and blacks perform lower on standardized tests compared to whites. Hispanics and black students in this country do not have the same advantages as white students. So, why should Hispanic and black students with lower test scores not be admitted to universities?  Shouldn’t public universities enroll students in proportion to their representation in the state population? After all, UT-Austin is a public institution of higher education and supported by state funds. Hispanics and blacks pay their fair share, just like whites, of taxes to support the university.  19.1% Hispanic student enrollment at UT-Austin is hardly considered a fair, much less reasonable, share relative to the nearly 40% Hispanic population in Texas.  This continued to keep Hispanics back in the 1980’s.  Can one consider the decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeal a win for affirmative action?  I don’t think so.