Last month, the Board of Directors of Sweet Briar College made the decision to close the school. The Board identified two major factors in its decision: the “insurmountable financial challenges and years of intractable admissions problems” (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 3, 2015); and the decision to close was made in spite of the fact that the college has an $84 million dollar endowment. The college will officially close August 25, 2015 leaving approximately 300 faculty and staff without jobs. Sweet Briar is a small liberal arts, all-woman’s college.
A closer look at the problems facing Sweet Briar reveals that students today are less inclined to attend a small, rural liberal arts college and more specifically, women are not choosing to attend same sex colleges. This is evidenced by the fact that the college currently has 523 students, yet their target was 800. In 2013, the college had a $23 million deficit in its budget. Some experts suggest that this is not out of the ordinary for similar colleges relative to its total assets. However, a perplexing issue was the loss of approximately $4 million of income in 2013 on its investments compared to the previous year (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 5, 2015).
Additionally, the college’s discount rate (the amount of money the college offers in scholarships and other financial aid to enroll students) is at 62%, up from 42% in 2009, which was simply not sustainable according to the Board. The current cost of attending Sweet Briar, which includes tuition, fees, and room and board, is $47,000, according to the college’s website (http://sbc.edu/catalog/college-fees-2014-15).
In an attempt to save the college, the members of the Board examined several options such as admitting men, merging with other similar colleges, and overhauling its current educational programs. The Board members even considered spending part of the college’s endowment; however, as with most gifts to colleges, they come with restrictions. Of the $84 million in the college endowment, $56 million came with restrictions by the donors for a specific use. Moreover, the Board concluded that admitting men, which some of the other all-female colleges had done to survive, would require large amounts of time and money, which Sweet Briar did not have.
On the heels of the Sweet Briar College closure comes a new book published on March 3, 2015 entitled The End of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere, by Kevin Carey (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 2015). The premise of the book is that higher education as we know it today will cease to exist, except for a small handful of institutions of about 15 to 50. Today’s college will be replaced by free massive open on-line courses, or MOOCs, and the new wave of badging also known as micro-credentials.
Carey believes that a student will no long have to spend four to five or six years and thousands of dollars to receive a bachelor’s degree. Instead, a student can now take a MOOC on the internet at an accredited university free of charge and an organization will soon appear that will certify the learning that has been achieved in the course. Provided for free or at a very low cost, the certification or badges, as Carey suggests, will verify the equivalent education and training that one currently receives in a bachelor’s program. There you have it…., the end of higher education.
I would suggest that it is not quite that simple. A system such as higher education, which has been in place for approximately 1,500 years, will not come to a screeching halt that quickly. You have to keep in mind the students go to college not just to take courses and receive a degrees. Students also go to college to experience all of the extra-curricular activities such as sports, student government, student clubs, fraternities and sororities, living away from home, and a host of other out-of-classroom experiences. These experiences cannot be provided by the MOOCs.
Moreover, one of the major problems in higher education today is the high dropout rates and the low graduation rates among students. The national average for freshman to sophomore retention, also known as third semester rate, is 67.6% for all institutions of higher education, according to the American Colleges Testing Service (http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/retain_2014.pdf). One other important data point to consider is the completion or graduation rates. The national average for all institutions is 59% in six years, according to data provided by the National Center for Education Statistics. This means that colleges and universities graduate slightly over half of the students they admit during a period of six year (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cva.asp).
A study conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education analyzed the movement of a million users enrolled in MOOCs through sixteen courses offered by the university during a one year period. The researchers wanted to identify key transition points for users, such as when users entered and left courses, as well as when and how users participated in the courses. The study also considered how engagement and persistence varied based on various course characteristics.
The results of the study suggest that MOOCs have relatively few active users, that user “engagement” falls off dramatically, especially after the first two weeks of a course, and that few users persist to the end of the course. Specifically, on average, 4% of the users completed the courses and completions rates ranged from 2% to 14% depending on the course. No surprisingly, courses with lower workloads and fewer homework assignments had slightly higher course completion rates. Another interesting finding was that on average, only half of those who registered for the courses even watch the first lecture. The course with the largest enrollment had 110,000 students and the smallest had 13,000 students. Students came from countries such as the United States, India, Brazil, Britain, Canada, Russia, Spain, China, Germany, and Australia.
MOOCs are here to stay and I predict we will continue to see an increase in the use of MOOCs; however, they will not replace colleges and universities and certainly will not shut down our current system of higher education. MOOCs will certainly create more competition among colleges and universities, but this will not be the cure for the problems that exist in American higher education today.
Twenty-one colleges closed their doors in 2013, the most recent data available, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_317.50.asp?current=yes). Will we see more colleges close in the coming years? I believe we will. Just last week Harrington College of Design announced it will close its doors in 2018 for the same reasons: enrollment and revenue declines (http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/jp/harrington-college-of-design-will-close?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en). Harrington College is a small for-profit institution with an enrollment for 350 students.
Will we see the end of colleges and universities as we know them today? Not in my lifetime. However, college administrators must begin to make a paradigm shift to meet the demands of the new learner, today’s college student. Colleges must lower their costs, be more efficient and cost effective. They must do a better job of managing their endowments. A college cannot lose $4 million of income from investing its endowment and remain in business. Colleges cannot continue to do business as usual or they will not survive; case in point Sweet Briar College. Otherwise students will vote with their feet and we will see more colleges close its doors.
Showing posts with label Chronicle of Higher Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chronicle of Higher Education. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2015
Monday, March 9, 2015
Increasing Graduation Rates at Community Colleges
Last week, MDRC released a report on the evaluation of the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs or ASAP as it is known. The program nearly doubled the three-year graduation rates of community college students who started in remedial classes. This is impressive given that graduation rates of community college students are extremely low. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, only 20% of the students who enter public community colleges complete a certificate or associate degree in three years (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cva.asp).
ASAP is a comprehensive, long-term program designed to increase the success and ultimately the graduation rates of community college students. The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), was created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies. It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization dedicated to learning what works to improve programs and policies that affect the poor (http://www.mdrc.org/about/about-mdrc-history).
ASAP was created by the City University of New York (CUNY) system office and implemented in 2007 with funding from the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity at Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, and LaGuardia Community College. In 2009 CUNY system leaders approached MDRC about evaluating the program and they accepted.
The program has four major components that provide structure and support for up to three years and is designed to address multiple potential barriers to student success in community colleges. First, the program requires students to attend college full-time, are encouraged to take developmental courses early, and to graduate within three years. This is important because it sets high standards by issuing requirements, and it sends the right message about getting done on time if not earlier. Second, it has a student services component, which requires students to receive comprehensive advisement from an ASAP-dedicated adviser with a small caseload. Students also receive career information from an ASAP-dedicated career and employment services staff member, and extensive tutoring from ASAP-dedicated staff. The third component requires students to enroll in blocked or linked courses in their first year. The blocked courses consist of two or more courses grouped together with seats reserved for ASAP students. Students are also required to enroll in an ASAP seminar during their first few semesters covering topics such as setting goals and study skills. The fourth has a financial support component where students receive a tuition waiver that covers any gaps between financial aid and college tuition and fees. Students also receive free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent on participation in key program services, and free use of textbooks.
According to the report, the ASAP program costs $16,300 per student, which is 63% more than what CUNY spent per student on usual college services. The report goes on to assert that the cost was actually lower because ASAP generated so many more graduates over the three-year follow-up period than did the usual college services.
In the study, MDRC used a random assignment research design to evaluate the impact of ASAP intervention strategies on students’ academic outcomes over a three-year study period compared to students who received the usual services and courses at the colleges. The study targeted students who met the following eligibility criteria at the point of random assignment: had family income below 200% of the federal poverty level or were eligible for a Pell Grant (or both); needed one or two developmental courses to build math, reading, or writing skills; had previously earned 12 credits or fewer; were New York City residents; were willing to attend college full time; and were in an ASAP eligible major (http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_es.pdf). Eligible students who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to either the program group (typically called the experimental group), students who had the opportunity to receive the intervention strategies or services offered by ASAP, or to the control group, students who received the usual college services with no intervention strategies or special services.
The sample consisted of 896 students who completed a Baseline Information Form (BIF) to determine if they met the eligibility criteria listed above. Roughly two-thirds of the students in the research sample were women and most were relatively young. Seventy-seven percent (77%) were 22 years of age or younger when they entered the study. The study sample was racially diverse and reflected the collective student body at the three community colleges, which no racial majority. The majority of students sampled lived with their parents, were unmarried, and did not have children.
The results of the study suggest that 40% of students in the ASAP program graduated in three years compared to 22% in the control group or those students receiving no intervention strategies. Additionally, ASAP students completed an average of 48 credit hours compared to 39 credit hours by the control group. Finally, 25% of the ASAP students enrolled in a four-year university compared to 17% in the control group.
A detailed, in depth analysis of the services offered by ASAP provides revealing information that could explain why students in the program were found to be more successful. ASAP students were required to enroll full-time, take remedial courses early, and strongly encouraged to graduate in three years. ASAP students were advised by an academic advisor with a student-advisor load of 60:1 or 80:1, 95% of these students met on average 38 times with their advisors in the first year. Compared to non-ASAP students who had advisors with a student-advisor load of 600:1 and 1500:1, 80% of those students met on average six times. With regard to tutoring, 74% of ASAP students received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of 24 times during first year. Compared to non-ASAP, 39% of those students who received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of seven times in the same period. Eighty percent (80%) of ASAP students met on average of nine times with career and employment services staff during the first year compared to 29% of non-ASAP students who met on average two times with career and employment services staff during first year
While blocked or linked courses were offered to ASAP students, few took a complete block of courses; however, most of these students took an ASAP seminar course for three semesters compared to non-ASAP students whose block course enrollment was not tracked and some of these students took a freshman seminar or student success course in their first year. Finally, 3% to 11% of the ASAP students received tuition waivers, all ASAP students received free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent upon participating in ASAP and all ASAP student received free use of textbooks. None of these services were provided to non-ASAP students.
Two-tailed t-tests were conducted on the percent of ASAP students enrolled each semester over the three-year period compared to non-ASAP student enrollments and the differences were statistically significant in the first two years, but not in the third year. This is essentially a statistical test to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group (ASAP students) versus the control group (non-ASAP students) T-tests were also conducted on the differences between the percent of students who graduated in the ASAP group versus the non-ASAP group, credit hours earned between the two groups, and the percent of student who went on to a four-year college after three years in the community college and each was highly statistically significant. However, recall that two-thirds of the students in the sample were women, which could account for a higher success rates. Numerous research studies, including my own research, have demonstrated that women tend to do better in college than men. Also, additional higher order statistical analyses such as predictive statistics, like regression analysis, were not employed. It would have been informative to understand, via regression analysis, if there is a casual relationship between the intervention strategies and student outcomes. In other words, did the ASAP services cause students to be more successful in the community colleges? However, it should be pointed out that social science research is not perfect.
It makes sense that with this much attention paid and the large number of support services offered to ASAP students, it is only logical that these students would do better and thus succeed at higher rates compared to typical community college students. My own experiences in developing student recruitment and retention programs, provides further evidence that programs which offer these many services and pay this much attention to students do, in fact, increase student success. Early in my career, I developed a student support program with many of the same intervention strategies offered in the ASAP program and other strategies such as shadow courses. I didn’t include blocked courses initially; although, in later programs I developed and did experiment with blocked courses. I offered scholarships from money I had raised and used it with other forms of financial aid to provide a free college education to the participants. However, participants had to participate in all of the services offered by the program in order to receive the scholarship. Students were monitored weekly and scholarship money was distributed monthly, based on participation in the program. Student success in the program increased dramatically.
These results are also consistent with the prevailing theory on college student retention. In 1975, Dr. Vincent Tinto posited the landmark theory of student integration, commonly known as the student integration model. Dr. Tinto’s theory of student integration was the basis for thousands of studies and became the most widely studied and empirically tested theory in higher education. While these studies attacked and supported the student integration model, over time Dr. Tinto revised his theory several times. Essentially, Dr. Tinto theorized that if college students integrate academically and socially they will tend to stay in college, be successful and graduate. Conversely, if students don’t “connect” academically and socially with the college or university they tend to drop out.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (February 26, 2015), ASAP has gained nationwide attention. Donna Linderman, who oversees the ASAP program at CUNY, said her office had been "bombarded with requests for information from all over the country." The good news is that CUNY and MDRC are working to replicate the program in other parts of the country, starting with three two-year colleges in Ohio. All states should take heed and provide the money to replicate this program in a small sample of community colleges. If the program works, then it should be implemented at all community colleges. Nearly half of all college students are enrolled in community colleges, 50% are Hispanic, 31% are African American and 44% are low-income, according to the Community College Research Center (http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html). Imagine the positive impact that doubling the graduation rates of community college students would have on our country and the impact it would have on the lives of minority, low-income community college students.
ASAP is a comprehensive, long-term program designed to increase the success and ultimately the graduation rates of community college students. The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), was created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies. It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization dedicated to learning what works to improve programs and policies that affect the poor (http://www.mdrc.org/about/about-mdrc-history).
ASAP was created by the City University of New York (CUNY) system office and implemented in 2007 with funding from the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity at Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, and LaGuardia Community College. In 2009 CUNY system leaders approached MDRC about evaluating the program and they accepted.
The program has four major components that provide structure and support for up to three years and is designed to address multiple potential barriers to student success in community colleges. First, the program requires students to attend college full-time, are encouraged to take developmental courses early, and to graduate within three years. This is important because it sets high standards by issuing requirements, and it sends the right message about getting done on time if not earlier. Second, it has a student services component, which requires students to receive comprehensive advisement from an ASAP-dedicated adviser with a small caseload. Students also receive career information from an ASAP-dedicated career and employment services staff member, and extensive tutoring from ASAP-dedicated staff. The third component requires students to enroll in blocked or linked courses in their first year. The blocked courses consist of two or more courses grouped together with seats reserved for ASAP students. Students are also required to enroll in an ASAP seminar during their first few semesters covering topics such as setting goals and study skills. The fourth has a financial support component where students receive a tuition waiver that covers any gaps between financial aid and college tuition and fees. Students also receive free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent on participation in key program services, and free use of textbooks.
According to the report, the ASAP program costs $16,300 per student, which is 63% more than what CUNY spent per student on usual college services. The report goes on to assert that the cost was actually lower because ASAP generated so many more graduates over the three-year follow-up period than did the usual college services.
In the study, MDRC used a random assignment research design to evaluate the impact of ASAP intervention strategies on students’ academic outcomes over a three-year study period compared to students who received the usual services and courses at the colleges. The study targeted students who met the following eligibility criteria at the point of random assignment: had family income below 200% of the federal poverty level or were eligible for a Pell Grant (or both); needed one or two developmental courses to build math, reading, or writing skills; had previously earned 12 credits or fewer; were New York City residents; were willing to attend college full time; and were in an ASAP eligible major (http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_es.pdf). Eligible students who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to either the program group (typically called the experimental group), students who had the opportunity to receive the intervention strategies or services offered by ASAP, or to the control group, students who received the usual college services with no intervention strategies or special services.
The sample consisted of 896 students who completed a Baseline Information Form (BIF) to determine if they met the eligibility criteria listed above. Roughly two-thirds of the students in the research sample were women and most were relatively young. Seventy-seven percent (77%) were 22 years of age or younger when they entered the study. The study sample was racially diverse and reflected the collective student body at the three community colleges, which no racial majority. The majority of students sampled lived with their parents, were unmarried, and did not have children.
The results of the study suggest that 40% of students in the ASAP program graduated in three years compared to 22% in the control group or those students receiving no intervention strategies. Additionally, ASAP students completed an average of 48 credit hours compared to 39 credit hours by the control group. Finally, 25% of the ASAP students enrolled in a four-year university compared to 17% in the control group.
A detailed, in depth analysis of the services offered by ASAP provides revealing information that could explain why students in the program were found to be more successful. ASAP students were required to enroll full-time, take remedial courses early, and strongly encouraged to graduate in three years. ASAP students were advised by an academic advisor with a student-advisor load of 60:1 or 80:1, 95% of these students met on average 38 times with their advisors in the first year. Compared to non-ASAP students who had advisors with a student-advisor load of 600:1 and 1500:1, 80% of those students met on average six times. With regard to tutoring, 74% of ASAP students received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of 24 times during first year. Compared to non-ASAP, 39% of those students who received tutoring outside of class and met with a tutor an average of seven times in the same period. Eighty percent (80%) of ASAP students met on average of nine times with career and employment services staff during the first year compared to 29% of non-ASAP students who met on average two times with career and employment services staff during first year
While blocked or linked courses were offered to ASAP students, few took a complete block of courses; however, most of these students took an ASAP seminar course for three semesters compared to non-ASAP students whose block course enrollment was not tracked and some of these students took a freshman seminar or student success course in their first year. Finally, 3% to 11% of the ASAP students received tuition waivers, all ASAP students received free MetroCards for use on public transportation, contingent upon participating in ASAP and all ASAP student received free use of textbooks. None of these services were provided to non-ASAP students.
Two-tailed t-tests were conducted on the percent of ASAP students enrolled each semester over the three-year period compared to non-ASAP student enrollments and the differences were statistically significant in the first two years, but not in the third year. This is essentially a statistical test to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group (ASAP students) versus the control group (non-ASAP students) T-tests were also conducted on the differences between the percent of students who graduated in the ASAP group versus the non-ASAP group, credit hours earned between the two groups, and the percent of student who went on to a four-year college after three years in the community college and each was highly statistically significant. However, recall that two-thirds of the students in the sample were women, which could account for a higher success rates. Numerous research studies, including my own research, have demonstrated that women tend to do better in college than men. Also, additional higher order statistical analyses such as predictive statistics, like regression analysis, were not employed. It would have been informative to understand, via regression analysis, if there is a casual relationship between the intervention strategies and student outcomes. In other words, did the ASAP services cause students to be more successful in the community colleges? However, it should be pointed out that social science research is not perfect.
It makes sense that with this much attention paid and the large number of support services offered to ASAP students, it is only logical that these students would do better and thus succeed at higher rates compared to typical community college students. My own experiences in developing student recruitment and retention programs, provides further evidence that programs which offer these many services and pay this much attention to students do, in fact, increase student success. Early in my career, I developed a student support program with many of the same intervention strategies offered in the ASAP program and other strategies such as shadow courses. I didn’t include blocked courses initially; although, in later programs I developed and did experiment with blocked courses. I offered scholarships from money I had raised and used it with other forms of financial aid to provide a free college education to the participants. However, participants had to participate in all of the services offered by the program in order to receive the scholarship. Students were monitored weekly and scholarship money was distributed monthly, based on participation in the program. Student success in the program increased dramatically.
These results are also consistent with the prevailing theory on college student retention. In 1975, Dr. Vincent Tinto posited the landmark theory of student integration, commonly known as the student integration model. Dr. Tinto’s theory of student integration was the basis for thousands of studies and became the most widely studied and empirically tested theory in higher education. While these studies attacked and supported the student integration model, over time Dr. Tinto revised his theory several times. Essentially, Dr. Tinto theorized that if college students integrate academically and socially they will tend to stay in college, be successful and graduate. Conversely, if students don’t “connect” academically and socially with the college or university they tend to drop out.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (February 26, 2015), ASAP has gained nationwide attention. Donna Linderman, who oversees the ASAP program at CUNY, said her office had been "bombarded with requests for information from all over the country." The good news is that CUNY and MDRC are working to replicate the program in other parts of the country, starting with three two-year colleges in Ohio. All states should take heed and provide the money to replicate this program in a small sample of community colleges. If the program works, then it should be implemented at all community colleges. Nearly half of all college students are enrolled in community colleges, 50% are Hispanic, 31% are African American and 44% are low-income, according to the Community College Research Center (http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html). Imagine the positive impact that doubling the graduation rates of community college students would have on our country and the impact it would have on the lives of minority, low-income community college students.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)