Thursday, October 30, 2014
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.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)