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 universities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label universities. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2015
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Racism on College Campuses
Can you believe it? In 2015, we are still seeing racism on college campuses. One would assume that students who attend college come from the more educated middle or upper classes and; therefore, are more open to people of other races.
That certainly is not the case at the University of Oklahoma, where a racist video surfaced last week. Members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity can be seen singing a song to the tune of “If You’re Happy and You Know It”, vowing never to have black students in their fraternity, using racial slurs like the “N” word, and talk about lynching them from a tree (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 11, 2015). This is absolutely despicable.
University of Oklahoma David Boren responded quickly by suspending the fraternity and expelled two students who lead the song once they were identified in the video. He called the students “disgraceful” and said he hoped the students would leave town, offering to buy them a one way ticket out of town. It should be noted that the national office of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity also suspended the chapter at Oklahoma. I applaud President Boren for his fast and decisive action. In my opinion, he did the right thing.
However, President Boren’s decisions are now being called into question. Did he act too quickly without having all of the facts? Is the fraternity students’ song considered free speech? Did he deny the students who were expelled their due process rights? Legal experts are now suggesting that Boren went too far and will open the university to legal challenges.
What is typical in situations like this, once the attorneys have been consulted, is for the president to issue a very carefully worded and legalistic statement about the inappropriateness of the incident in question, state that an investigation will ensue, how students involved will be given their due process rights, and if the evidence suggests campus rules have been violated, the appropriate actions will be taken based on the student code of conduct and the student handbook, the rules and regulations for students.
Too often, our decisions as university presidents are greatly influenced by university attorneys because we don’t want to subject the university to more lawsuits. Case in point is the recent incident at the Pennsylvania State University where members of the Kappa Delta Rho fraternity posted pictures of nude and unconscious female students on a secret Facebook where only members of the fraternity had access. The Facebook page also included pictures of drug sales and hazing. In response, Penn State University President Eric Barron stated that “an investigation was underway, the university has its own judicial process for student conduct which will be followed, we want to make sure we do this right, we are committed to due process, that the right people are brought to justice, and anybody who is responsible for that type of truly offensive behavior is punished” (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/penn-state-vows-punish-those-behind-kappa-delta-rho-page-n326031). It’s clearly, a very measured response that was most likely influenced by legal counsel.
It should be noted that the female students in the pictures did not consent to having their pictures taken much less posted on a Facebook page. Officials at both Penn State and the fraternity headquarters have suspended the Kappa Delta Rho chapter.
Are Oklahoma and Penn State isolated incidences? Clearly not. The national office of Sigma Alpha Epsilon is investigating two of its other chapters for alleged displays of racism, at Louisiana Tech University and the University of Texas at Austin. The University of Washington is also investigating claims that members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity shouted racist comments at black students participating in a march protesting violence against blacks last month as they passed the fraternity’s house. The University of Maryland at College Park is investigating a racist and sexist email allegedly sent in January of 2014 by a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity. However, it recently came to light when it was published online (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 13, 2015).
Colleges and universities across the nation should use these situations as a way to discuss racism in our country. Faculty on campuses across America should use what happened at the University of Oklahoma or other universities to teach students to explore their beliefs and be more tolerant of other races different from their own. These are typically called “teach-ins” and can be very useful to examine subjects that can be very controversial. After all, isn’t that what universities are all about? Educating and providing young men and women with information that can help them be more enlightened and become more informed members of our society, should be the mission of all universities.
Racism on college campuses will not end after the University of Oklahoma or Pennsylvania State University incidents. However, we must send the clear message that racism will not be tolerated on our college campuses. We must continue to issue appropriate punishment for these despicable acts. This won’t eliminate racism in American, but it will certainly send the message that racism has no place in higher education.
That certainly is not the case at the University of Oklahoma, where a racist video surfaced last week. Members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity can be seen singing a song to the tune of “If You’re Happy and You Know It”, vowing never to have black students in their fraternity, using racial slurs like the “N” word, and talk about lynching them from a tree (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 11, 2015). This is absolutely despicable.
University of Oklahoma David Boren responded quickly by suspending the fraternity and expelled two students who lead the song once they were identified in the video. He called the students “disgraceful” and said he hoped the students would leave town, offering to buy them a one way ticket out of town. It should be noted that the national office of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity also suspended the chapter at Oklahoma. I applaud President Boren for his fast and decisive action. In my opinion, he did the right thing.
However, President Boren’s decisions are now being called into question. Did he act too quickly without having all of the facts? Is the fraternity students’ song considered free speech? Did he deny the students who were expelled their due process rights? Legal experts are now suggesting that Boren went too far and will open the university to legal challenges.
What is typical in situations like this, once the attorneys have been consulted, is for the president to issue a very carefully worded and legalistic statement about the inappropriateness of the incident in question, state that an investigation will ensue, how students involved will be given their due process rights, and if the evidence suggests campus rules have been violated, the appropriate actions will be taken based on the student code of conduct and the student handbook, the rules and regulations for students.
Too often, our decisions as university presidents are greatly influenced by university attorneys because we don’t want to subject the university to more lawsuits. Case in point is the recent incident at the Pennsylvania State University where members of the Kappa Delta Rho fraternity posted pictures of nude and unconscious female students on a secret Facebook where only members of the fraternity had access. The Facebook page also included pictures of drug sales and hazing. In response, Penn State University President Eric Barron stated that “an investigation was underway, the university has its own judicial process for student conduct which will be followed, we want to make sure we do this right, we are committed to due process, that the right people are brought to justice, and anybody who is responsible for that type of truly offensive behavior is punished” (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/penn-state-vows-punish-those-behind-kappa-delta-rho-page-n326031). It’s clearly, a very measured response that was most likely influenced by legal counsel.
It should be noted that the female students in the pictures did not consent to having their pictures taken much less posted on a Facebook page. Officials at both Penn State and the fraternity headquarters have suspended the Kappa Delta Rho chapter.
Are Oklahoma and Penn State isolated incidences? Clearly not. The national office of Sigma Alpha Epsilon is investigating two of its other chapters for alleged displays of racism, at Louisiana Tech University and the University of Texas at Austin. The University of Washington is also investigating claims that members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity shouted racist comments at black students participating in a march protesting violence against blacks last month as they passed the fraternity’s house. The University of Maryland at College Park is investigating a racist and sexist email allegedly sent in January of 2014 by a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity. However, it recently came to light when it was published online (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 13, 2015).
Colleges and universities across the nation should use these situations as a way to discuss racism in our country. Faculty on campuses across America should use what happened at the University of Oklahoma or other universities to teach students to explore their beliefs and be more tolerant of other races different from their own. These are typically called “teach-ins” and can be very useful to examine subjects that can be very controversial. After all, isn’t that what universities are all about? Educating and providing young men and women with information that can help them be more enlightened and become more informed members of our society, should be the mission of all universities.
Racism on college campuses will not end after the University of Oklahoma or Pennsylvania State University incidents. However, we must send the clear message that racism will not be tolerated on our college campuses. We must continue to issue appropriate punishment for these despicable acts. This won’t eliminate racism in American, but it will certainly send the message that racism has no place in higher education.
Friday, January 23, 2015
A New Way to Rate Colleges and Universities President Obama’s College-Ratings Plan
Last month the Obama Administration unveiled its long-awaited and much-criticized plan to rate colleges and universities. While the overall intent is admirable, the details are causing much consternation among college and university administrators and trade union representatives. However, students, consumer groups and critics of higher education have applauded the Obama Administration for proposing the new college-ratings system.
The idea for the plan was first announced by President Obama in his State of the Union address three years ago. He put colleges and universities on notice stating that his administration would not continue to subsidize rising tuition costs. A year later, in an August of 2013 speech at the University of Buffalo, as part of a three-campus tour, he denounced the high cost of a college education and promoted his plans to make colleges more affordable. The initial plan, or proposal as it was called, was to rate colleges based on measures of access, affordability and student outcomes, and to allocate federal aid based on those ratings. Thus for example, students attending higher-rated institutions could obtain larger Pell Grants and more affordable loans.
As part of the plan, the U.S. Department of Education announced a series of forums that were be held to discuss the plan and gather feedback on the new ratings system. At each of the forums, criticism was abound about the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all system of rating colleges. Concerns were raised about a large number of issues: the diverse nature of colleges and universities; how to account for the differences in institutions’ missions and profiles; how retention and graduation rates, employment and continuing-education rates, and loan-repayment and default rates will be used. Other concerns included the data collected by the U.S. Department of Education is deeply flawed; would the new ratings system discourage colleges and universities from enrolling minority and low-income students since they tend to have low success rates; and finally, it will be impossible to please everyone. One national organization of university administrators proposed a simple system of rating colleges based on "social responsibility" by assigning a silver, gold or platinum rating.
The Obama Administration’s new plan has proposed looking at measures such as a college’s average net price, its students’ completion rates, the percentage of its students receiving Pell Grants, labor-market outcomes, and loan-repayment (or rather loan-default) rates. The last two metrics were very controversial during the lengthy fight over the "gainful employment" rule, which was released at the end of last year.
However, the new plan has been condemned more for what it didn’t include than for what measure were included. For example, critics denounce the plan because it doesn’t assign weights to each metric nor does it offer a plan for how similar institutions will be grouped. It also doesn’t provide a specific format for the ratings and it doesn’t clarify whether the department will publish a single, composite rating, or a series of ratings.
University administrators have expressed concern that the plan will punish colleges and universities that serve low-income students and those that prepare graduates for much-needed but low-paying professions. The worry is that a rating system that doesn’t adjust for student demographics and institutional mission, could force colleges to turn away at-risk students, perhaps relax their graduation standards, or even drop degrees in low-paying fields in order to receive higher ratings in the new system.
Additional criticism has focused on how federal data is collected and reported. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Education considers only first-time, full-time students in calculating graduation rates. It does not take into account part-time students or students who stop-out for one reason or another, but return at a later date to complete their degrees. It seems unfair to rate colleges and universities on partial or flawed data. This could certainly mislead prospective students and their parents into making decisions about institutions without knowing the all of the facts.
The overall goals of the new plan are to help colleges improve, to help students make better informed decisions about which college or university to attend, and to allow policy makers and the public to hold institutions accountable for their outcomes. And the carrot on the stick is to tie the awarding of federal aid to how institutions are rated.
Administration officials, however, are quick to point out that they have listened to the input and the new ratings system will be divided into separate categories for two- and four-year institutions. The new system may also include the differences in institutional characteristics such as degree offerings, program mix, and selectivity. Officials in the department are also considering whether to adjust the metrics to account for student demographics, students’ parental income, first-generation status and college standardized test scores.
One measure administration officials will not include in the new plan is the debt-to-earnings ratio. This caused much criticism in the debate over the controversial gainful employment rule. Another major concern has been over labor-market outcomes of college graduates. Officials have stated that the new plan will not compare colleges on which of their graduates earn more money. Instead it will set a threshold that salaries of graduates much meet. For example, it could be multiplier of the minimum wage or possibly earnings over the poverty line. The goal is to have colleges prepare graduates for employment at a level that will enable them to pay their bills.
One important key factor will be whether Congress will support the administration’s new college-ratings plan. Republicans, who now have control over the Senate and the House, have previously stated their opposition to the new plan. They feel that the federal government has no business rating colleges and universities and they have threatened to cut off funding for this effort.
Despite the threat by Republicans, Administration officials have said that the department will still be on track to release the first ratings by the start of the 2015-16 academic year. The department will continue to take public comments on the new plan through mid-February. This means that the new college-rating system will be in place in eight months.
A system to rate colleges and universities is an excellent idea, in theory. A new college-ratings system would benefit everyone, but most importantly it would benefit the consumer, our students. However, the devil is in the details. If the new system could take into account all of the various aspects of the diversity that exits in higher education institutions across the county, then I am all for it. If it were that simple, it would have already been created. But it is not a simple matter. That’s why the Obama Administration and the U.S. Department of Education are struggling to come up with a new college-ratings system. Will the new college-ratings system please everyone, I don’t think that going to be possible, but I hope I am proven wrong.
The idea for the plan was first announced by President Obama in his State of the Union address three years ago. He put colleges and universities on notice stating that his administration would not continue to subsidize rising tuition costs. A year later, in an August of 2013 speech at the University of Buffalo, as part of a three-campus tour, he denounced the high cost of a college education and promoted his plans to make colleges more affordable. The initial plan, or proposal as it was called, was to rate colleges based on measures of access, affordability and student outcomes, and to allocate federal aid based on those ratings. Thus for example, students attending higher-rated institutions could obtain larger Pell Grants and more affordable loans.
As part of the plan, the U.S. Department of Education announced a series of forums that were be held to discuss the plan and gather feedback on the new ratings system. At each of the forums, criticism was abound about the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all system of rating colleges. Concerns were raised about a large number of issues: the diverse nature of colleges and universities; how to account for the differences in institutions’ missions and profiles; how retention and graduation rates, employment and continuing-education rates, and loan-repayment and default rates will be used. Other concerns included the data collected by the U.S. Department of Education is deeply flawed; would the new ratings system discourage colleges and universities from enrolling minority and low-income students since they tend to have low success rates; and finally, it will be impossible to please everyone. One national organization of university administrators proposed a simple system of rating colleges based on "social responsibility" by assigning a silver, gold or platinum rating.
The Obama Administration’s new plan has proposed looking at measures such as a college’s average net price, its students’ completion rates, the percentage of its students receiving Pell Grants, labor-market outcomes, and loan-repayment (or rather loan-default) rates. The last two metrics were very controversial during the lengthy fight over the "gainful employment" rule, which was released at the end of last year.
However, the new plan has been condemned more for what it didn’t include than for what measure were included. For example, critics denounce the plan because it doesn’t assign weights to each metric nor does it offer a plan for how similar institutions will be grouped. It also doesn’t provide a specific format for the ratings and it doesn’t clarify whether the department will publish a single, composite rating, or a series of ratings.
University administrators have expressed concern that the plan will punish colleges and universities that serve low-income students and those that prepare graduates for much-needed but low-paying professions. The worry is that a rating system that doesn’t adjust for student demographics and institutional mission, could force colleges to turn away at-risk students, perhaps relax their graduation standards, or even drop degrees in low-paying fields in order to receive higher ratings in the new system.
Additional criticism has focused on how federal data is collected and reported. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Education considers only first-time, full-time students in calculating graduation rates. It does not take into account part-time students or students who stop-out for one reason or another, but return at a later date to complete their degrees. It seems unfair to rate colleges and universities on partial or flawed data. This could certainly mislead prospective students and their parents into making decisions about institutions without knowing the all of the facts.
The overall goals of the new plan are to help colleges improve, to help students make better informed decisions about which college or university to attend, and to allow policy makers and the public to hold institutions accountable for their outcomes. And the carrot on the stick is to tie the awarding of federal aid to how institutions are rated.
Administration officials, however, are quick to point out that they have listened to the input and the new ratings system will be divided into separate categories for two- and four-year institutions. The new system may also include the differences in institutional characteristics such as degree offerings, program mix, and selectivity. Officials in the department are also considering whether to adjust the metrics to account for student demographics, students’ parental income, first-generation status and college standardized test scores.
One measure administration officials will not include in the new plan is the debt-to-earnings ratio. This caused much criticism in the debate over the controversial gainful employment rule. Another major concern has been over labor-market outcomes of college graduates. Officials have stated that the new plan will not compare colleges on which of their graduates earn more money. Instead it will set a threshold that salaries of graduates much meet. For example, it could be multiplier of the minimum wage or possibly earnings over the poverty line. The goal is to have colleges prepare graduates for employment at a level that will enable them to pay their bills.
One important key factor will be whether Congress will support the administration’s new college-ratings plan. Republicans, who now have control over the Senate and the House, have previously stated their opposition to the new plan. They feel that the federal government has no business rating colleges and universities and they have threatened to cut off funding for this effort.
Despite the threat by Republicans, Administration officials have said that the department will still be on track to release the first ratings by the start of the 2015-16 academic year. The department will continue to take public comments on the new plan through mid-February. This means that the new college-rating system will be in place in eight months.
A system to rate colleges and universities is an excellent idea, in theory. A new college-ratings system would benefit everyone, but most importantly it would benefit the consumer, our students. However, the devil is in the details. If the new system could take into account all of the various aspects of the diversity that exits in higher education institutions across the county, then I am all for it. If it were that simple, it would have already been created. But it is not a simple matter. That’s why the Obama Administration and the U.S. Department of Education are struggling to come up with a new college-ratings system. Will the new college-ratings system please everyone, I don’t think that going to be possible, but I hope I am proven wrong.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)