By Richard Vedder
My new junior sidekick Jim Coleman keeps me informed on the day's news in higher education, and two pieces, one from INSIDE HIGHER ED and one from the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION caught my fancy today.
Cliff Adelman is one of the brightest and shrewdest observers of the higher education scene around today, a former U.S. Department of Education official who has moved out of the Maryland Avenue bureaucracy and continues to make informed commentary, much of which makes people very uncomfortable (and appropriately so).
Cliff's new study claims that Americans talk a lot about accountability but really do little about it. As an aside, I was reading a major study from the 1970's that said the real issue in higher education was accountability --and 30 years later, it STILL is an issue, meaning there is an awful lot of talking and very little action.
Cliff says, "look at Europe." As part of the decades long Bologna Protocol, EU nations have long worked together to coordinate some of the ways they do higher education. Cliff notes that at every level of education, there are learning outcome expectations, such as for the bachelor's degree. The bachelor's degree in history at all the schools means certain content is covered, that persons hiring new holders of that degree can expect certain minimal learning, if the graduate went to an elite French school or a lower prestige, non-flagship school in, say, Spain or Greece. Everyone is singing the same song, albeit sometimes in different keys, or with different styles.
On the minus side, Americans believe that vast diversity of offerings and a lack of standardization is a virtue --greater choice of products. Yet there is probably an optimal amount of standardization of outcomes that is desirable --and we are not there. We cannot begin to agree on curricular content among American universities, many of which are private and the public ones are in 50 jurisdictions. We talk a lot about standards of accountability, and have even taken a few modest moves in the direction of achieving it (the VSA process that a few hundred schools have agreed to), but what we have done is pretty pathetic. Whether the Bologna approach is optimal (it strikes me as vaguely like what some State Department of Educations try to do to individual school systems in K-12) or not, I don't know, but I usually find that Cliff is more right than wrong.
Move west to Colorado, where I read that the University of Colorado may have to alter the terms on over 100 scholarships if an anti-affirmative action initiative passes this fall. Tough. Assessing students, faculty, or other employees largely on the basis of race or gender is morally wrong and fundamentally un-American, as voters from Michigan to Washington have pointed out, but the higher education establishment refuses to accept. I am presiding over a panel Thursday on higher education that includes Hank Brown, former CU president (who finally got rid of Ward Churchill), and I am anxious to here what he has to say about the initiative.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Does Research Help or Hurt Teaching?
By Richard Vedder
The Pope Center is going to be running an interesting dialogue (their Clarion Call blog) between Yours Truly and several other economists, one a rough contemporary of mine (my good friend Jim Gwartney at Florida State), and other younger scholars (e.g., Russ Sobel of West Virginia University). It is an outgrowth of a presentation a year ago at the Association for Private Enterprise Education meetings in some ritzy foreign resort --Cancun if I recall correctly (to which most participants no doubt traveled at taxpayer expense for a little R and R mixed in with some amiable scholarly interchange).
The issue: does faculty research help or hinder the enterprise of offering quality instruction to students? The answer, I think (and probably most of the commentators in the Pope Center forum available online agree) is "both." Most of the time, a good researcher can be a better teacher because of the knowledge gained and the enthusiasm for the scholarly discipline reinforced by scholarly research, but if research becomes excessively time consuming, senior professors abandon students to ill trained graduate students, sometimes with dubious language capabilities.
As part of a massive CCAP project done for Forbes. com on college rankings (which will be unveiled in a few weeks), we have looked at student attitudes towards professors at various institutions --over 500 overall. As a generalization, universities with a strong research orientation find their students LESS satisfied with the instruction they receive than those with a lesser research orientation, especially traditional liberal arts colleges. In other words, in the real world there is a trade-off between teaching and research, at least in the minds of the consumers, the undergraduate students.
The incentive system at most schools is strongly biased towards heavy emphasis on research. Patiently counseling students wins you no salary increases or tenure, but writing articles does. Spending time carefully preparing for class is less remunerative than reallocating time so you skim on class preparation and write one more paper a year. There is still too much of a "student be damned" attitude in American higher education. The Pope Center dialogue does not pick that up much, but it is nonetheless an interesting read. I want to thank Jane Shaw and our other good friends at the Pope Center for making this little exchange available to the broader public.
The Pope Center is going to be running an interesting dialogue (their Clarion Call blog) between Yours Truly and several other economists, one a rough contemporary of mine (my good friend Jim Gwartney at Florida State), and other younger scholars (e.g., Russ Sobel of West Virginia University). It is an outgrowth of a presentation a year ago at the Association for Private Enterprise Education meetings in some ritzy foreign resort --Cancun if I recall correctly (to which most participants no doubt traveled at taxpayer expense for a little R and R mixed in with some amiable scholarly interchange).
The issue: does faculty research help or hinder the enterprise of offering quality instruction to students? The answer, I think (and probably most of the commentators in the Pope Center forum available online agree) is "both." Most of the time, a good researcher can be a better teacher because of the knowledge gained and the enthusiasm for the scholarly discipline reinforced by scholarly research, but if research becomes excessively time consuming, senior professors abandon students to ill trained graduate students, sometimes with dubious language capabilities.
As part of a massive CCAP project done for Forbes. com on college rankings (which will be unveiled in a few weeks), we have looked at student attitudes towards professors at various institutions --over 500 overall. As a generalization, universities with a strong research orientation find their students LESS satisfied with the instruction they receive than those with a lesser research orientation, especially traditional liberal arts colleges. In other words, in the real world there is a trade-off between teaching and research, at least in the minds of the consumers, the undergraduate students.
The incentive system at most schools is strongly biased towards heavy emphasis on research. Patiently counseling students wins you no salary increases or tenure, but writing articles does. Spending time carefully preparing for class is less remunerative than reallocating time so you skim on class preparation and write one more paper a year. There is still too much of a "student be damned" attitude in American higher education. The Pope Center dialogue does not pick that up much, but it is nonetheless an interesting read. I want to thank Jane Shaw and our other good friends at the Pope Center for making this little exchange available to the broader public.
No Sucker Left Behind
By Richard Vedder
The title of this blog is the title of a book by Marc Scheer. It is a guide written for parents and students preparing for college. If you think I am a little harsh on colleges, you haven't seen anything. Scheer's critique would drive most of my Establishment friends up the wall, attacked for being a polemical screed that fails to capture all that is good and noble in higher education. To be sure, Dr. Scheer uncovers virtually every scam and tactic used by colleges to maximize their income and minimize their obligations to their customers, and certainly scholarly balance is not present in his commentary. But it is still an interesting little book, and is pretty well documented (over 800 footnotes).
Scheer believes colleges deceive their customers --big time, and in dozens of different ways. They use financial aid as a device to maximize income from the customers rather than help the needy, as we are told. They take kickbacks from student loan providers to whom they steer students to borrow from --often on poor terms. Students think they are going to school for four years when in reality it is more likely to be longer --five years or even more. They often lie to donors, using money for different purposes for which gifts were intended. They force students to pay extra fees for things the students don't want, like activity fees to use recreational facilities or attend athletic events. They force the students to eat crummy dorm food that is overpriced and non-nutritional. They charge far more for housing than market conditions warrant, using their monopoly power to exploit students. They use low paid graduate students, many who speak English poorly, to teach, while tenured faculty do not find undergraduate students worthy of their time and attention. They overstate the alleged financial gains from a college education --big time. Scheer points out many great American successes never finished college, including in the computer business alone Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs. Etc. etc.
I do think Scheer overdoes things a bit, occasionally exaggerating and implicitly assuming that virtually every college does nearly all the outrageous things outlined in the book, when in reality most of them do only some of them occasionally. He fails to point out very often that there are a lot of good and decent people in the higher education business who truly want to help people maximize their intellectual or economic potential. Nonetheless, I think he is right to call attention to the fact that colleges are not always the saintly institutions interested in student welfare that they would like to have you believe.
In any case, Scheer's book is available from the Common Courage Press, and is a lively, if somewhat inflammatory read --and, unfortunately, more right than wrong.
The title of this blog is the title of a book by Marc Scheer. It is a guide written for parents and students preparing for college. If you think I am a little harsh on colleges, you haven't seen anything. Scheer's critique would drive most of my Establishment friends up the wall, attacked for being a polemical screed that fails to capture all that is good and noble in higher education. To be sure, Dr. Scheer uncovers virtually every scam and tactic used by colleges to maximize their income and minimize their obligations to their customers, and certainly scholarly balance is not present in his commentary. But it is still an interesting little book, and is pretty well documented (over 800 footnotes).
Scheer believes colleges deceive their customers --big time, and in dozens of different ways. They use financial aid as a device to maximize income from the customers rather than help the needy, as we are told. They take kickbacks from student loan providers to whom they steer students to borrow from --often on poor terms. Students think they are going to school for four years when in reality it is more likely to be longer --five years or even more. They often lie to donors, using money for different purposes for which gifts were intended. They force students to pay extra fees for things the students don't want, like activity fees to use recreational facilities or attend athletic events. They force the students to eat crummy dorm food that is overpriced and non-nutritional. They charge far more for housing than market conditions warrant, using their monopoly power to exploit students. They use low paid graduate students, many who speak English poorly, to teach, while tenured faculty do not find undergraduate students worthy of their time and attention. They overstate the alleged financial gains from a college education --big time. Scheer points out many great American successes never finished college, including in the computer business alone Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs. Etc. etc.
I do think Scheer overdoes things a bit, occasionally exaggerating and implicitly assuming that virtually every college does nearly all the outrageous things outlined in the book, when in reality most of them do only some of them occasionally. He fails to point out very often that there are a lot of good and decent people in the higher education business who truly want to help people maximize their intellectual or economic potential. Nonetheless, I think he is right to call attention to the fact that colleges are not always the saintly institutions interested in student welfare that they would like to have you believe.
In any case, Scheer's book is available from the Common Courage Press, and is a lively, if somewhat inflammatory read --and, unfortunately, more right than wrong.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
I Respectfully Disagree
By Richard Vedder
I like Margaret Spellings --a good deal. She has been a force for good in higher education, prodding the Establishment to innovate, to be more transparent, and to do good things. At the Education Summit in Chicago Thursday and Friday, she called together top leaders and got them to agree to push for positive change ---more transparency and measurement, better high school/college coordination and "articulation" (whatever that is), etc. She has raised hell about the awful state of accreditation, and wants accreditation to be a force for positive change, not merely a cartel of good old boys and girls that stifles innovation.
But I disagree with one big part of her farewell address (I suspect) to the higher education community, available here.
She said at the end of her remarks, "By educating 20 million more people over 20 years, we will increase our Gross Domestic Product by 500 billion dollars...Half a million more people will be employed..."
Where is the evidence? More than doubling enrollments in 17 years (what she is proposing) will mean reaching out to more and more persons of limited cognitive skills and questionable work habits. Do we need college educated clerks in discount retail stores, or college educated beauticians or mail carriers (12 percent of whom already have college degrees?) Brit Kirwan (Maryland higher education czar) notes in chatting with me that some of those mail carriers may have earned their degree in anticipation of moving up the occupational ladder --true and a good point, but we cannot have a nation of all chiefs and no followers.
What about the evidence that higher state university appropriations are not associated with positive economic growth? Indeed, my guess is that a doubling in enrollments, in and of itself, would lower GDP--shifting resources away from a highly productive economic machine governed by market discipline and to a less productive sector with stagnant productivity and a tendency to fight cost reduction, qualitative improvement, and change. To be sure, true structural reform in the system could modify that outcome, but frankly I am skeptical.
I like Margaret Spellings --a good deal. She has been a force for good in higher education, prodding the Establishment to innovate, to be more transparent, and to do good things. At the Education Summit in Chicago Thursday and Friday, she called together top leaders and got them to agree to push for positive change ---more transparency and measurement, better high school/college coordination and "articulation" (whatever that is), etc. She has raised hell about the awful state of accreditation, and wants accreditation to be a force for positive change, not merely a cartel of good old boys and girls that stifles innovation.
But I disagree with one big part of her farewell address (I suspect) to the higher education community, available here.
She said at the end of her remarks, "By educating 20 million more people over 20 years, we will increase our Gross Domestic Product by 500 billion dollars...Half a million more people will be employed..."
Where is the evidence? More than doubling enrollments in 17 years (what she is proposing) will mean reaching out to more and more persons of limited cognitive skills and questionable work habits. Do we need college educated clerks in discount retail stores, or college educated beauticians or mail carriers (12 percent of whom already have college degrees?) Brit Kirwan (Maryland higher education czar) notes in chatting with me that some of those mail carriers may have earned their degree in anticipation of moving up the occupational ladder --true and a good point, but we cannot have a nation of all chiefs and no followers.
What about the evidence that higher state university appropriations are not associated with positive economic growth? Indeed, my guess is that a doubling in enrollments, in and of itself, would lower GDP--shifting resources away from a highly productive economic machine governed by market discipline and to a less productive sector with stagnant productivity and a tendency to fight cost reduction, qualitative improvement, and change. To be sure, true structural reform in the system could modify that outcome, but frankly I am skeptical.
Four Transitions at CCAP
By Richard Vedder
I don't write much about us --our little but growing research center. But I feel compelled to write about four transitional developments.
1) HALF CENTURY OVER. I am just completing a 50 year involvement in higher education. I entered college in 1958. Things have changed a lot since then. I think, however, the overall average quality of the learning experience has NOT improved, perhaps in part an inevitable consequence of reaching further down the gene and motivational pool of talent as colleges expand -- both faculty and student talent. When I entered an elite private university (Northwestern) in 1958, the tuition was $795 ---a year. The NU tuition has more than tripled in real terms since --typical of other schools. Kids attend classes in nicer classrooms, sleep in fancier quarters, and have nicer rec facilities today, but the learning experience has not improved at many campuses with the reduction in standards arising from grade inflation and other factors. I fear we have expanded quantitatively but not qualitatively, although an exception may be with respect to scientific research efforts at university.
2) BRYAN MOVES ON. CCAP would not be a viable organization today without the quiet, behind the scenes efforts of Bryan O'Keefe, my Associate Director and dear friend. Bryan is going on to law school at Dickinson this fall, and Pennsylvania's gain is CCAP's lost. We will miss him a lot.
3) ANDY FINISHES HIS FORMAL EDUCATION. Andrew Gillen becomes my new number one sidekick as Bryan transitions out. Andy is quiet, reserved, but very bright --and growing on the job every day, becoming more assertive and impressive by the hour. He is helping me write a book on universities and human welfare that will be the sequel to GOING BROKE BY DEGREE, and increasingly I lean on him for advice and counsel. In August, Andy should pass his final examination for the Ph.D. degree in economics. That will be an occasion for great celebration.
4) MATT TURNS 21. Why do I keep teaching despite being past the regular retirement age? Because of guys like Matt Denhart, Whiz Kid in Chief. Matt is 21 today, and I have never had a student (and I have had over 10,000 in my career) I liked more than Matt --he is bright, hard working, dependable, good humored, and gives good advice. He acts like an experienced adult. Mark my words, he will be a huge success some day in whatever he does. I hear rumors that he drank too much celebrating his birthday, but that is part of the college life transition to adulthood as well --learning from experiences both social and academic.
I have the best team of persons I have ever worked with helping me, and all of them are 27 years old or less. It makes me young again, keeps me going, and propels CCAP to ever greater efforts to be part of the solution, not the problem, in higher education.
I don't write much about us --our little but growing research center. But I feel compelled to write about four transitional developments.
1) HALF CENTURY OVER. I am just completing a 50 year involvement in higher education. I entered college in 1958. Things have changed a lot since then. I think, however, the overall average quality of the learning experience has NOT improved, perhaps in part an inevitable consequence of reaching further down the gene and motivational pool of talent as colleges expand -- both faculty and student talent. When I entered an elite private university (Northwestern) in 1958, the tuition was $795 ---a year. The NU tuition has more than tripled in real terms since --typical of other schools. Kids attend classes in nicer classrooms, sleep in fancier quarters, and have nicer rec facilities today, but the learning experience has not improved at many campuses with the reduction in standards arising from grade inflation and other factors. I fear we have expanded quantitatively but not qualitatively, although an exception may be with respect to scientific research efforts at university.
2) BRYAN MOVES ON. CCAP would not be a viable organization today without the quiet, behind the scenes efforts of Bryan O'Keefe, my Associate Director and dear friend. Bryan is going on to law school at Dickinson this fall, and Pennsylvania's gain is CCAP's lost. We will miss him a lot.
3) ANDY FINISHES HIS FORMAL EDUCATION. Andrew Gillen becomes my new number one sidekick as Bryan transitions out. Andy is quiet, reserved, but very bright --and growing on the job every day, becoming more assertive and impressive by the hour. He is helping me write a book on universities and human welfare that will be the sequel to GOING BROKE BY DEGREE, and increasingly I lean on him for advice and counsel. In August, Andy should pass his final examination for the Ph.D. degree in economics. That will be an occasion for great celebration.
4) MATT TURNS 21. Why do I keep teaching despite being past the regular retirement age? Because of guys like Matt Denhart, Whiz Kid in Chief. Matt is 21 today, and I have never had a student (and I have had over 10,000 in my career) I liked more than Matt --he is bright, hard working, dependable, good humored, and gives good advice. He acts like an experienced adult. Mark my words, he will be a huge success some day in whatever he does. I hear rumors that he drank too much celebrating his birthday, but that is part of the college life transition to adulthood as well --learning from experiences both social and academic.
I have the best team of persons I have ever worked with helping me, and all of them are 27 years old or less. It makes me young again, keeps me going, and propels CCAP to ever greater efforts to be part of the solution, not the problem, in higher education.
Three Good Moves Towards Transparency and Accountability
By Richard Vedder
My wife told me that I might be wasting my time serving on the Spellings Commission, because nothing would get done. I must say at many times I shared her doubts, and almost did not sign the final report. In retrospect, however, I think the Commission did some good, albeit not enough, to promote higher education change for the better. Secretary Spellings and the Commission both have been calling on colleges to tell us more about what they are doing, and what outcomes we are getting from students. Three examples of this process are:
1) The Collegiate Learning Assessment test is being given by a growing number of schools, and more are reporting results on it. I have been rebuffed in attempts to actually SEE the test, so my support of this effort is somewhat conditional, but I am told that it measures some important learning attributes, such as critical thinking skills, reasonably well. Giving the test to entering freshman and graduating seniors and publishing the results nationwide would give us a marvelous indicator of student academic progress, assuming the test is, in fact, all that it is cracked up to be.
2) The National Survey of Student Engagement, and its community college counterpart, is now given at hundreds of institutions. It tells us what students actually DO in college --how hard they work, how "engaged" they are. The aggregate numbers I have seen are somewhat sobering and depressing, suggesting college kids spend too much time playing and not enough time working (and I do believe "playing" is part of the collegiate experience). The main weakness is that many, many schools do NOT report publicly their Nessie scores. State governing boards should force the public schools under their tutelage to do so as part of a common source of information on schools under their jurisdiction --and I am one generally opposed to too much regulation of schools from governmental bureaucrats.
3) The Voluntary System of Accountability is an effort of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) that is a direct outgrowth of the Spellings Commission. It forms a common format and data base for all schools to report, and be available as part of a College Portrait. Some 264 schools have become part of the VSA, including some big and important ones. In the Big Ten Conference -arguably the biggest and best of our state universities among the athletic conferences --some very important schools have joined (e.g, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa) while others have not (e.g., Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State). I have looked at the format of the VSA and am generally impressed, although we still need a good "value added" indicator. Interestingly, the top schools in the US NEWS public university rankings --Cal Berkeley, Michigan, Virginia, UCLA --are NOT part of VSA --are they afraid of telling people what goes on? The schools involved enroll, I would estimate, probably 4 million students and involve at least one-third of the bachelor's degrees awarded annually. It is a very good start, but one that needs to be enhanced, both by numeric expansion and by increasing information provided.
There are other efforts, such as the UCAN project involving over 600 private schools initiated by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) which also deserve applause.
We also need more concerted efforts to have a uniform financial accounting system across universities, with far more transparency of information on financing--maybe even listing of checks written (as done by one Oregon school).
Nonetheless, some progress is being made, which is pretty good for a sector that is notoriously secretive about itself despite the fact that it is in the business of dispensing and creating knowledge.
My wife told me that I might be wasting my time serving on the Spellings Commission, because nothing would get done. I must say at many times I shared her doubts, and almost did not sign the final report. In retrospect, however, I think the Commission did some good, albeit not enough, to promote higher education change for the better. Secretary Spellings and the Commission both have been calling on colleges to tell us more about what they are doing, and what outcomes we are getting from students. Three examples of this process are:
1) The Collegiate Learning Assessment test is being given by a growing number of schools, and more are reporting results on it. I have been rebuffed in attempts to actually SEE the test, so my support of this effort is somewhat conditional, but I am told that it measures some important learning attributes, such as critical thinking skills, reasonably well. Giving the test to entering freshman and graduating seniors and publishing the results nationwide would give us a marvelous indicator of student academic progress, assuming the test is, in fact, all that it is cracked up to be.
2) The National Survey of Student Engagement, and its community college counterpart, is now given at hundreds of institutions. It tells us what students actually DO in college --how hard they work, how "engaged" they are. The aggregate numbers I have seen are somewhat sobering and depressing, suggesting college kids spend too much time playing and not enough time working (and I do believe "playing" is part of the collegiate experience). The main weakness is that many, many schools do NOT report publicly their Nessie scores. State governing boards should force the public schools under their tutelage to do so as part of a common source of information on schools under their jurisdiction --and I am one generally opposed to too much regulation of schools from governmental bureaucrats.
3) The Voluntary System of Accountability is an effort of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) that is a direct outgrowth of the Spellings Commission. It forms a common format and data base for all schools to report, and be available as part of a College Portrait. Some 264 schools have become part of the VSA, including some big and important ones. In the Big Ten Conference -arguably the biggest and best of our state universities among the athletic conferences --some very important schools have joined (e.g, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa) while others have not (e.g., Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State). I have looked at the format of the VSA and am generally impressed, although we still need a good "value added" indicator. Interestingly, the top schools in the US NEWS public university rankings --Cal Berkeley, Michigan, Virginia, UCLA --are NOT part of VSA --are they afraid of telling people what goes on? The schools involved enroll, I would estimate, probably 4 million students and involve at least one-third of the bachelor's degrees awarded annually. It is a very good start, but one that needs to be enhanced, both by numeric expansion and by increasing information provided.
There are other efforts, such as the UCAN project involving over 600 private schools initiated by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) which also deserve applause.
We also need more concerted efforts to have a uniform financial accounting system across universities, with far more transparency of information on financing--maybe even listing of checks written (as done by one Oregon school).
Nonetheless, some progress is being made, which is pretty good for a sector that is notoriously secretive about itself despite the fact that it is in the business of dispensing and creating knowledge.
Friday, July 18, 2008
More on the Higher Education Summit
By Richard Vedder
At the end of his superb remarks at the Higher Education Summit in Chicago telling how California State University (466,000 students on 23 campuses) is dealing with increasing access, the incomparable Charlie Reed noted that a pet peeve of his was the input-based rankings that pressure schools to spend money, and give no credit for having high proportions of poor and minority students.
I piped up, as usual, saying partial relief is on the way, and that CCAP is teaming with Forbes to bring out the Forbes rankings of colleges, looking at such things as student satisfaction with instructors and post-graduate vocational distinction. I blasted the US News rankings in the process, earning a moderately stern rebuke from Ben Wildavsky, a good friend and former US News college guru. Later I got support from others (Peter McPherson of NASCLGU) who despise the US News rankings. The issue even got briefly discussed in a private dinner I attended with Secretary of Education Spellings.
I do not despise the US NEWS rankings. They are well done and meet a consumer need. They have served a great purpose --the public craving for information. But they are incorrectly constructed from the standpoint of what matters --what the consumers think and how they perform.
In any case, CCAP is working hard with Forbes to see that rankings appear, within the next month or so on Forbes.com. Stay tuned.
At the end of his superb remarks at the Higher Education Summit in Chicago telling how California State University (466,000 students on 23 campuses) is dealing with increasing access, the incomparable Charlie Reed noted that a pet peeve of his was the input-based rankings that pressure schools to spend money, and give no credit for having high proportions of poor and minority students.
I piped up, as usual, saying partial relief is on the way, and that CCAP is teaming with Forbes to bring out the Forbes rankings of colleges, looking at such things as student satisfaction with instructors and post-graduate vocational distinction. I blasted the US News rankings in the process, earning a moderately stern rebuke from Ben Wildavsky, a good friend and former US News college guru. Later I got support from others (Peter McPherson of NASCLGU) who despise the US News rankings. The issue even got briefly discussed in a private dinner I attended with Secretary of Education Spellings.
I do not despise the US NEWS rankings. They are well done and meet a consumer need. They have served a great purpose --the public craving for information. But they are incorrectly constructed from the standpoint of what matters --what the consumers think and how they perform.
In any case, CCAP is working hard with Forbes to see that rankings appear, within the next month or so on Forbes.com. Stay tuned.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
A Test of Leadership
By Richard Vedder
Sara Martinez Tucker hit a home run at the Secretary of Education's Higher Education Summit going on in Chicago. She called for a major recasting of the nation's system of financial aid, beginning with reducing the FAFSA form from over 100 questions down to nine. Although she did not talk much about it, she also said she wants to make the student the center of the system -- getting money to kids, not to financial aid offices is how I interpret that. She also wants to make federal aid the "foundation", not the residual in the process. I think she means there needs to be less possibility for colleges to play games with grants, reducing institutional aid to offset federal grants, for example. Amen. Amen. Amen. She was a little vague on a few things, I suspect because her White House colleagues don't want to upset the apple cart in this election year.
I was extremely pleased when one of the true heroes in American higher education, Brit Kirwan, chancellor of the University of Maryland system (which has worked systematically to reduce costs, increasing legislative support for the system in the process) said he was enthusiastic about Sara's idea.
The University of Maryland realizes you have to change the culture in order to achieve true cost savings. He has increased teaching loads 10 percent. It has signed lots of articulation agreements that allow ease of transfer from low cost community colleges. It makes students take 12 hours of work outside the classroom (e.g., on-line programs, study abroad), both for educational and cost-saving reasons. It has lowered the average years to graduation from over 5 to about 4.5. Although what it has done is not rocket science, it takes determination. The legislators are starting to trust the university again, and legislative support is up 35 percent in the last three years.
Another guy I think is absolutely great is Charlie Reed, czar of the California State University system. In a future blog I will discuss some things he is doing, not only to cut costs, but to increase accessibility for lower income students.
Sara Martinez Tucker hit a home run at the Secretary of Education's Higher Education Summit going on in Chicago. She called for a major recasting of the nation's system of financial aid, beginning with reducing the FAFSA form from over 100 questions down to nine. Although she did not talk much about it, she also said she wants to make the student the center of the system -- getting money to kids, not to financial aid offices is how I interpret that. She also wants to make federal aid the "foundation", not the residual in the process. I think she means there needs to be less possibility for colleges to play games with grants, reducing institutional aid to offset federal grants, for example. Amen. Amen. Amen. She was a little vague on a few things, I suspect because her White House colleagues don't want to upset the apple cart in this election year.
I was extremely pleased when one of the true heroes in American higher education, Brit Kirwan, chancellor of the University of Maryland system (which has worked systematically to reduce costs, increasing legislative support for the system in the process) said he was enthusiastic about Sara's idea.
The University of Maryland realizes you have to change the culture in order to achieve true cost savings. He has increased teaching loads 10 percent. It has signed lots of articulation agreements that allow ease of transfer from low cost community colleges. It makes students take 12 hours of work outside the classroom (e.g., on-line programs, study abroad), both for educational and cost-saving reasons. It has lowered the average years to graduation from over 5 to about 4.5. Although what it has done is not rocket science, it takes determination. The legislators are starting to trust the university again, and legislative support is up 35 percent in the last three years.
Another guy I think is absolutely great is Charlie Reed, czar of the California State University system. In a future blog I will discuss some things he is doing, not only to cut costs, but to increase accessibility for lower income students.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Title IX Expanding?
by Andrew Gillen
Those who care about the future of science should go read John Tierney's piece A New Frontier for Title IX: Science in the New York Times. He points out that the powers that be are in the beginning stages of implementing Title IX requirements to fields in the hard sciences.
Those opposed to the move have a strong case:
"there is far better research showing that on average, women’s interest in some fields isn’t the same as men’s."
“The freedom to act on one’s preferences can create a more exaggerated gender split in some fields.”
“Colleges already practice affirmative action for women in science, but now they’ll be so intimidated by the Title IX legal hammer that they may institute quota systems... In sports, they had to eliminate a lot of male teams to achieve Title IX parity. It’ll be devastating to American science if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women’s level of interest.”
In other words, no one doubts that women can do science just as well as men, but for some reason**, women tend to choose to go into other fields instead. Since the imbalance appears to be caused by choice, to impose numerical parity would decimate the number of scientists (The number of women would not increase since they would still tend to choose not to go into the sciences, but the number of men allowed would be reduced so as to equalize the numbers of males and females.)
** Discrimination is an unlikely reason. Females now outnumber males in college, so to argue that discrimination is the reason for their scarcity in the sciences, one would have to argue that colleges in general are not discriminating, but that just about every science and engineering department in the country is.
Those who care about the future of science should go read John Tierney's piece A New Frontier for Title IX: Science in the New York Times. He points out that the powers that be are in the beginning stages of implementing Title IX requirements to fields in the hard sciences.
Those opposed to the move have a strong case:
"there is far better research showing that on average, women’s interest in some fields isn’t the same as men’s."
“The freedom to act on one’s preferences can create a more exaggerated gender split in some fields.”
“Colleges already practice affirmative action for women in science, but now they’ll be so intimidated by the Title IX legal hammer that they may institute quota systems... In sports, they had to eliminate a lot of male teams to achieve Title IX parity. It’ll be devastating to American science if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women’s level of interest.”
In other words, no one doubts that women can do science just as well as men, but for some reason**, women tend to choose to go into other fields instead. Since the imbalance appears to be caused by choice, to impose numerical parity would decimate the number of scientists (The number of women would not increase since they would still tend to choose not to go into the sciences, but the number of men allowed would be reduced so as to equalize the numbers of males and females.)
** Discrimination is an unlikely reason. Females now outnumber males in college, so to argue that discrimination is the reason for their scarcity in the sciences, one would have to argue that colleges in general are not discriminating, but that just about every science and engineering department in the country is.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Spellings Commission Revisited
By Richard Vedder
I decided to take a short vacation from blogging, both because I am traveling a good deal on business these days, and because I am trying to work on the sequel to Going Broke By Degree with my sidekick Andy Gillen. But my friend Charlie Miller (chair of the Spellings Commission) called yesterday, and out of it comes today's blog.
Charlie told me about a couple studies worth reading. One is the report, out today, from the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) that reviews and assesses the performance of the Spellings Commission. Apparently it is a scholarly, balanced work, done by academics. Doug Lederman reports today in INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION that the work criticizes the Commission some for being confrontational and harsh, and also representatives of various special interest groups for simply saying "no" and not offering constructive alternatives to what the Commission said.
I have not read the NACUBO report. But as a member of the commission and arguably one of its more confrontational members, I say the allegedly harsh tone was needed, that our audience was NOT mainly the higher education community itself, and that strong rhetorical flourishes helped accomplish a significant increase in the dialog over the need and nature of educational reform. We were trying to reach the American public, not just the players within the academy or even the Congress or Administration. Indeed, I preferred the original draft of the report prepared by Ben Wildavsky that was even more severe in its criticism.
Phil Gramm is right. America is increasingly a nation of whiners. The higher ed community is horrified whenever anyone says negative things about it. It is a group of spoiled and highly subsidized members of the chattering classes that needs to get real --something the Spellings Commission said in a very mild and civil way. People are still complaining about the report’s TONE --more than its substance.
Thursday and Friday Secretary Spellings is holding a Higher Education Summit in Chicago. I hope she uses the occasion to say some bold things about the nature and condition of higher education today --and offer some suggested changes, particularly in the bizarre, perverse and dysfunctional way the federal government gets involved in funding. I hope she moves in the direction of supporting empowering students more than financial aid offices, for example, and reducing the incentives for colleges to use federal funds as a means of reordering institutional resources to negate some of the intended impact of federal aid. Example: College A wants to give Kid B a $10,000 reduction in tuition from the sticker price. The Federal Government gives College A $4,000 to distribute to kid B in Pell Grant funds, so the college reduces the amount of its own support to, say, $7,000. The student on net is only $1,000 better off than without the Pell Grant, but the college gets $3,000 more to spend --which it might give as additional "merit" aid to some wealthy kid with a SAT composite of 1580 which it wants to nab to increase its selectivity rating with US News and World Report. The college and other students, not the student for whom the money is intended, is the prime beneficiary of the grant. I don't think Student Financial Aid offices should be getting federal money to disburse --the money should go to the kids themselves --with NO notification to the college in question.
Spellings should, rhetorically at least, advocate change. The White House, tired and largely brain dead, won't let her do bold things, but the time has come to ignore the White House and do the right thing. There are worse things than being fired and thrown off the Ship of State shortly before it sinks. I am eating dinner with the Secretary Thursday night and I hope to give this advice to her. I hope she takes it.
I decided to take a short vacation from blogging, both because I am traveling a good deal on business these days, and because I am trying to work on the sequel to Going Broke By Degree with my sidekick Andy Gillen. But my friend Charlie Miller (chair of the Spellings Commission) called yesterday, and out of it comes today's blog.
Charlie told me about a couple studies worth reading. One is the report, out today, from the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) that reviews and assesses the performance of the Spellings Commission. Apparently it is a scholarly, balanced work, done by academics. Doug Lederman reports today in INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION that the work criticizes the Commission some for being confrontational and harsh, and also representatives of various special interest groups for simply saying "no" and not offering constructive alternatives to what the Commission said.
I have not read the NACUBO report. But as a member of the commission and arguably one of its more confrontational members, I say the allegedly harsh tone was needed, that our audience was NOT mainly the higher education community itself, and that strong rhetorical flourishes helped accomplish a significant increase in the dialog over the need and nature of educational reform. We were trying to reach the American public, not just the players within the academy or even the Congress or Administration. Indeed, I preferred the original draft of the report prepared by Ben Wildavsky that was even more severe in its criticism.
Phil Gramm is right. America is increasingly a nation of whiners. The higher ed community is horrified whenever anyone says negative things about it. It is a group of spoiled and highly subsidized members of the chattering classes that needs to get real --something the Spellings Commission said in a very mild and civil way. People are still complaining about the report’s TONE --more than its substance.
Thursday and Friday Secretary Spellings is holding a Higher Education Summit in Chicago. I hope she uses the occasion to say some bold things about the nature and condition of higher education today --and offer some suggested changes, particularly in the bizarre, perverse and dysfunctional way the federal government gets involved in funding. I hope she moves in the direction of supporting empowering students more than financial aid offices, for example, and reducing the incentives for colleges to use federal funds as a means of reordering institutional resources to negate some of the intended impact of federal aid. Example: College A wants to give Kid B a $10,000 reduction in tuition from the sticker price. The Federal Government gives College A $4,000 to distribute to kid B in Pell Grant funds, so the college reduces the amount of its own support to, say, $7,000. The student on net is only $1,000 better off than without the Pell Grant, but the college gets $3,000 more to spend --which it might give as additional "merit" aid to some wealthy kid with a SAT composite of 1580 which it wants to nab to increase its selectivity rating with US News and World Report. The college and other students, not the student for whom the money is intended, is the prime beneficiary of the grant. I don't think Student Financial Aid offices should be getting federal money to disburse --the money should go to the kids themselves --with NO notification to the college in question.
Spellings should, rhetorically at least, advocate change. The White House, tired and largely brain dead, won't let her do bold things, but the time has come to ignore the White House and do the right thing. There are worse things than being fired and thrown off the Ship of State shortly before it sinks. I am eating dinner with the Secretary Thursday night and I hope to give this advice to her. I hope she takes it.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Graduation Success Rate vs. Federal Graduation Rate: Who’s Telling the Truth?
By Hans Zhong
In 2005, The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rolled out a new system to calculate student-athletes graduation rate, called the Graduation Success Rate (GSR). Before, the NCAA had been using the Department of Education system, known as the Federal Graduation Rate (FGR), to calculate the student-athletes’ graduation rate. However, the NCAA claimed the government’s statistics were misleading, so they created their own system which they believe is a more accurate reflection of student-athletes’ academic progress. So which one is actually giving us the more accurate picture of student-athletes graduation rate?
The FGR system is simpler. It simply asks whether the student-athletes enrolled at the school graduate within six years. A student-athlete who does not receive a diploma at that institution for whatever reasons, including transferring to another school, will be counted against the institution’s FGR. This is an unfair strike against schools because colleges can’t stop people from transferring. Also, the FGR system ignores student-athletes who transfer in and go on to graduate. What’s the point of calculating a school’s graduation rate if they are not going to include some of the students who actually attend and graduate from the school?
The NCAA’s GSR is designed to eliminate these unfair strikes against a school. The system states that student-athletes who leave the school would be eliminated from the denominator as long as they would’ve been academically eligible to compete the following semester and those who transferred in would be included. Problem solved? What about those students-athletes who decided to leave school so they can play professional ball? They chose not to continue their education, so we know they won’t be receiving their diplomas. In other words, they dropped out of school and dropouts should be counted against the school’s graduation rate because we know they won’t be graduating from the school.
The dilemma here is that both the Federal and NCAA’s way of calculating graduation rates does not necessarily tell the entire story. Neither actually gives the true graduation rate for student-athletes. What should we do? Unfortunately, it is hard to create a system that perfectly calculates graduation rates because there is no agreement on what to include and what not to include. The current systems are imperfect, but the only thing we could do is to accept these numbers because they are currently the best measurements available. However, when using these figures, just keep in mind that both systems have flaws.
Hans Zhong is an economics and math major at SUNY Stony Brook and summer intern for the Center for College Affordability & Productivity.
In 2005, The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rolled out a new system to calculate student-athletes graduation rate, called the Graduation Success Rate (GSR). Before, the NCAA had been using the Department of Education system, known as the Federal Graduation Rate (FGR), to calculate the student-athletes’ graduation rate. However, the NCAA claimed the government’s statistics were misleading, so they created their own system which they believe is a more accurate reflection of student-athletes’ academic progress. So which one is actually giving us the more accurate picture of student-athletes graduation rate?
The FGR system is simpler. It simply asks whether the student-athletes enrolled at the school graduate within six years. A student-athlete who does not receive a diploma at that institution for whatever reasons, including transferring to another school, will be counted against the institution’s FGR. This is an unfair strike against schools because colleges can’t stop people from transferring. Also, the FGR system ignores student-athletes who transfer in and go on to graduate. What’s the point of calculating a school’s graduation rate if they are not going to include some of the students who actually attend and graduate from the school?
The NCAA’s GSR is designed to eliminate these unfair strikes against a school. The system states that student-athletes who leave the school would be eliminated from the denominator as long as they would’ve been academically eligible to compete the following semester and those who transferred in would be included. Problem solved? What about those students-athletes who decided to leave school so they can play professional ball? They chose not to continue their education, so we know they won’t be receiving their diplomas. In other words, they dropped out of school and dropouts should be counted against the school’s graduation rate because we know they won’t be graduating from the school.
The dilemma here is that both the Federal and NCAA’s way of calculating graduation rates does not necessarily tell the entire story. Neither actually gives the true graduation rate for student-athletes. What should we do? Unfortunately, it is hard to create a system that perfectly calculates graduation rates because there is no agreement on what to include and what not to include. The current systems are imperfect, but the only thing we could do is to accept these numbers because they are currently the best measurements available. However, when using these figures, just keep in mind that both systems have flaws.
Hans Zhong is an economics and math major at SUNY Stony Brook and summer intern for the Center for College Affordability & Productivity.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Interesting Links
by Andrew Gillen
Forbes has an article on the most lucrative college majors.
HT: Greg Mankiw
Also, Clive Crook points out some readings on eduction.
Forbes has an article on the most lucrative college majors.
HT: Greg Mankiw
Also, Clive Crook points out some readings on eduction.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
$7,376 U --with Quality
By Richard Vedder
One of the positive fringe benefits of running a small think tank is that you get to make new friends and meet interesting new people with intriguing ideas. One such person is Vance Fried. Vance is a lawyer by training who has become a senior management professor at Oklahoma State University, and has done some excellent thinking about the production of higher education services.
Today, Vance has a nice piece in INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION where he claims you can offer a high quality education for $7,376 a year --total cost. The article is a teaser for the longer (about 40 page) study that CCAP is producing and will release in the next week or so.
How does Vance do it? Universities that are inexpensive cannot be all things to all people, and Vance sharply limits the number of majors and the number of courses taught. A proliferation of electives is one reason instructional costs are high. Vance hires (in his mind) relatively few teachers, gives them reasonable teaching loads, but has pretty large classes --low student-teacher ratios wreak havoc with costs. Vance has a lean and mean administrative structure. He uses technology intelligently. And so on.
As Vance himself admits, others might not like the type of school he has concocted from his imagination, and might prefer different course emphases, etc. But a school built from the ground up that focuses just on fundamentals can educate a student in a reasonably quality fashion for $10,000 or less per student a year --less than half of what a typical public university spends. Over half the cost of higher education goes for various things that do not directly impact on learning --low teaching loads for research, underutilized facilities related to the peculiarities of the academic calendar, huge expenses related to "student services" and extracurricular activities and public relations specialists and diversity coordinators --most of which could be eliminated. Vance, by the way, believes some extracurricular activities are part of college life, and even budgets for relatively low cost teams in some sports. If the University of Phoenix can educate kids for $10,000 or less a year, so can a traditional university that lacks all the costly trappings of the modern day academy.
I commend Vance's article in today's INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION, and recommend as well the forthcoming CCAP study.
One of the positive fringe benefits of running a small think tank is that you get to make new friends and meet interesting new people with intriguing ideas. One such person is Vance Fried. Vance is a lawyer by training who has become a senior management professor at Oklahoma State University, and has done some excellent thinking about the production of higher education services.
Today, Vance has a nice piece in INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION where he claims you can offer a high quality education for $7,376 a year --total cost. The article is a teaser for the longer (about 40 page) study that CCAP is producing and will release in the next week or so.
How does Vance do it? Universities that are inexpensive cannot be all things to all people, and Vance sharply limits the number of majors and the number of courses taught. A proliferation of electives is one reason instructional costs are high. Vance hires (in his mind) relatively few teachers, gives them reasonable teaching loads, but has pretty large classes --low student-teacher ratios wreak havoc with costs. Vance has a lean and mean administrative structure. He uses technology intelligently. And so on.
As Vance himself admits, others might not like the type of school he has concocted from his imagination, and might prefer different course emphases, etc. But a school built from the ground up that focuses just on fundamentals can educate a student in a reasonably quality fashion for $10,000 or less per student a year --less than half of what a typical public university spends. Over half the cost of higher education goes for various things that do not directly impact on learning --low teaching loads for research, underutilized facilities related to the peculiarities of the academic calendar, huge expenses related to "student services" and extracurricular activities and public relations specialists and diversity coordinators --most of which could be eliminated. Vance, by the way, believes some extracurricular activities are part of college life, and even budgets for relatively low cost teams in some sports. If the University of Phoenix can educate kids for $10,000 or less a year, so can a traditional university that lacks all the costly trappings of the modern day academy.
I commend Vance's article in today's INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION, and recommend as well the forthcoming CCAP study.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Returns on College
by Andrew Gillen
Clive Crook has a new column out titled America’s human capital is tested in which he offers insight into the fact that
He offers a number of possible explanations for this:
1) Saturation - a natural ceiling has been reached
2) Education becomes obsolete - a 30 or 40 year old college education is probably out of date
3) On the job training has replaced formal education
4) College "is not in fact a good investment [for students] and that it is an even worse investment for the taxpayers who subsidise it."
Seeing number 4 is very interesting because almost everyone takes the view that college is a great investment with phenomenal returns (see the College Board publication Education Pays).
Unfortunately, the wages of college educated workers have been increasing more slowly than the cost of college, which means that the returns to college (monetary ones at least) have been falling. As students take out more and more loans (over 21,000 on average according to the Project on Student Debt), we may see more and more 18 year olds make the decision that college is simply not worth it. The return on college may still (probably is?) positive on average, but as long as tuition continues its explosive growth, the return on college will fall, and point 4 will be seen as the leading cause in the decline of enrollments.
Clive Crook has a new column out titled America’s human capital is tested in which he offers insight into the fact that
baby-boomers departing from the labour force will have better educational qualifications than the younger workers replacing them. If the ultimate source of an economy’s ability to grow and prosper is its human capital, the US is in trouble.
He offers a number of possible explanations for this:
1) Saturation - a natural ceiling has been reached
2) Education becomes obsolete - a 30 or 40 year old college education is probably out of date
3) On the job training has replaced formal education
4) College "is not in fact a good investment [for students] and that it is an even worse investment for the taxpayers who subsidise it."
Seeing number 4 is very interesting because almost everyone takes the view that college is a great investment with phenomenal returns (see the College Board publication Education Pays).
Unfortunately, the wages of college educated workers have been increasing more slowly than the cost of college, which means that the returns to college (monetary ones at least) have been falling. As students take out more and more loans (over 21,000 on average according to the Project on Student Debt), we may see more and more 18 year olds make the decision that college is simply not worth it. The return on college may still (probably is?) positive on average, but as long as tuition continues its explosive growth, the return on college will fall, and point 4 will be seen as the leading cause in the decline of enrollments.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Changes in the Professoriate
By Richard Vedder
My former student and buddy Jim Wycoff, a successful investment guru in Cincinnati,brought an interesting story in yesterday's New York Times to my attention: "The 60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire."
The story notes that many of the radicals of the late 1960s who stormed university administration buildings and burned American flags became professors a decade later, in the late 1970s, and now, three decades later, are starting to retire. Among the broader population, older people tend to be more conservative than younger ones, but amongst the professoriate, the opposite is the case --younger faculty are more moderate, more middle of the road, and, above all, less political in general than their older counterparts. Some of the older lefty ex-hippie professors complain about excessive "careerism" amongst their younger brethren, meaning, I suppose, they are more interested in their academic discipline and personal achievement than in protesting the latest perceived injustice in the world.
Why are the younger faculty on average somewhat less left-wing activists? Three explanations come readily to mind:
1) The proportion of faculty in the social sciences and humanities has declined relative to those in business, health care studies, the sciences, etc. These latter disciplines are less politically oriented and the politics there is tends to be more conservative.
2) Left-wing critiques of the world have been found wanting. The triumph of the West in the Cold War is a triumph of capitalism over flaky dreamy socialism/communism, and the younger crowd is bright enough to see that.
3) Related to the second point, life is pretty good in America today (the alleged recession notwithstanding). It is hard to be angry about the world when most material wants are being satisfied, life is longer and less painful and tiring that at any other time in human history, and you live in a country that is universally considered the most powerful and significant on the planet. And college professors, despite the customary grumbling, live pretty well, with a large portion of them having household incomes over $100,000 a year.
Whatever the reason, I think, if true, this is a healthy trend. College professors should stick to facts and evidence in both their teaching and research, and spend no time trying to convert the student body to their views. However, I am skeptical as to the extent to which this is actually happening, and the rise in speech codes and a sort of politically correct mindset is troubling. I want to see sparks fly on campuses, offering alternative interpretations of trends based on real evidence. But I also want professors to teach their subject, not speak up in class on matters on which they have no particular expertise. But the vast majority of faculty who speak up on issues are liberals and a sense of balance is usually missing. However, perhaps the trends are in the right direction, no pun intended.
My former student and buddy Jim Wycoff, a successful investment guru in Cincinnati,brought an interesting story in yesterday's New York Times to my attention: "The 60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire."
The story notes that many of the radicals of the late 1960s who stormed university administration buildings and burned American flags became professors a decade later, in the late 1970s, and now, three decades later, are starting to retire. Among the broader population, older people tend to be more conservative than younger ones, but amongst the professoriate, the opposite is the case --younger faculty are more moderate, more middle of the road, and, above all, less political in general than their older counterparts. Some of the older lefty ex-hippie professors complain about excessive "careerism" amongst their younger brethren, meaning, I suppose, they are more interested in their academic discipline and personal achievement than in protesting the latest perceived injustice in the world.
Why are the younger faculty on average somewhat less left-wing activists? Three explanations come readily to mind:
1) The proportion of faculty in the social sciences and humanities has declined relative to those in business, health care studies, the sciences, etc. These latter disciplines are less politically oriented and the politics there is tends to be more conservative.
2) Left-wing critiques of the world have been found wanting. The triumph of the West in the Cold War is a triumph of capitalism over flaky dreamy socialism/communism, and the younger crowd is bright enough to see that.
3) Related to the second point, life is pretty good in America today (the alleged recession notwithstanding). It is hard to be angry about the world when most material wants are being satisfied, life is longer and less painful and tiring that at any other time in human history, and you live in a country that is universally considered the most powerful and significant on the planet. And college professors, despite the customary grumbling, live pretty well, with a large portion of them having household incomes over $100,000 a year.
Whatever the reason, I think, if true, this is a healthy trend. College professors should stick to facts and evidence in both their teaching and research, and spend no time trying to convert the student body to their views. However, I am skeptical as to the extent to which this is actually happening, and the rise in speech codes and a sort of politically correct mindset is troubling. I want to see sparks fly on campuses, offering alternative interpretations of trends based on real evidence. But I also want professors to teach their subject, not speak up in class on matters on which they have no particular expertise. But the vast majority of faculty who speak up on issues are liberals and a sense of balance is usually missing. However, perhaps the trends are in the right direction, no pun intended.
Green and Red Teachers: A Promising Idea
By Richard Vedder
Dick Bishirjian is a conservative scholar who runs Yorktown University, a school that has battled, now successfully, to get accreditation. Dick is blunt, often untactful, the skunk at the higher education picnic/love fest. Therefore, I like him.
Dick sent me a copy of a story that appeared in the Washington Post, which then led to my discovering a second story. The biggest hellhole in education in the solar system, arguably, is the Washington, D.C., public schools, but they have a chancellor (superintendents want a grander name) Michelle Rhee who is interesting and a bit different --which of course is what the system needs. Most recently, Rhee fired hundreds of teachers and teachers aides because they were not certified, an action that I have mixed feelings about since teacher certification has to be one of the biggest scams that ever was devised, and she did it to comply with federal law. But she has guts.
But really what intrigues me is that reportedly Rhee is preparing to offer the teachers a deal --you can continue on your current pay scale, making, say, $62,000 a year with all your cushy tenure and seniority rights. Alternatively, you can leave that highly secure world and go on a non-tenure track option --but have the opportunity to earn huge bonuses, perhaps making up to $100,000 a year. Presumably the average salary for this second track would be greater by far than the average on the first. Your performance would determine your salary --and even your continued employment.
I proposed this idea in GOING BROKE BY DEGREE for college teachers. You can sign up for the "green" track or the "red" track (you pick your colors).You can either go for job security or for higher income. The reasoning is that tenure imposes costs, most of them implicit and hidden, that are very real. Universities have a terrible time shifting resources to meet changing needs. It is hard to fire teachers of medieval history and hire experts in nanotechnology --even if it makes great sense to do so. Tenure breads arrogance and an unwillingness to obey university policies or even laws. It allows mediocre teachers to continue to do little, seemingly forever. So why not consider tenure a fringe benefit, but put a limit on the amount of fringe benefits available to each faculty member --forcing a choice between, say, a Lexus style insurance policy and no tenure or a low cost insurance policy and the possibility of gaining tenure (and, ultimately, the awarding of it).
Of course, I predict it will not happen in DC. The teachers will say no because giving management some discretion over its labor force reduces the power of the union, and union leaders are often more interested in their own income and power than in the welfare of their workers in many cases. But it could happen in higher education. Indeed, it IS happening --in a different way. We have a two class faculty now at most universities --tenure track people who are well paid and pampered, and a group of adjuncts, graduate assistants, etc., who are paid little and have few benefits. The Vedder-Rhee two color tracking system could actually reduce the disparities between the haves and have nots in higher education and end a crazy situation where those making the most money (senior professors) do less teaching today than the untenured, marginalized itinerant faculty who make often less than 20 percent as much per course taught.
Dick Bishirjian is a conservative scholar who runs Yorktown University, a school that has battled, now successfully, to get accreditation. Dick is blunt, often untactful, the skunk at the higher education picnic/love fest. Therefore, I like him.
Dick sent me a copy of a story that appeared in the Washington Post, which then led to my discovering a second story. The biggest hellhole in education in the solar system, arguably, is the Washington, D.C., public schools, but they have a chancellor (superintendents want a grander name) Michelle Rhee who is interesting and a bit different --which of course is what the system needs. Most recently, Rhee fired hundreds of teachers and teachers aides because they were not certified, an action that I have mixed feelings about since teacher certification has to be one of the biggest scams that ever was devised, and she did it to comply with federal law. But she has guts.
But really what intrigues me is that reportedly Rhee is preparing to offer the teachers a deal --you can continue on your current pay scale, making, say, $62,000 a year with all your cushy tenure and seniority rights. Alternatively, you can leave that highly secure world and go on a non-tenure track option --but have the opportunity to earn huge bonuses, perhaps making up to $100,000 a year. Presumably the average salary for this second track would be greater by far than the average on the first. Your performance would determine your salary --and even your continued employment.
I proposed this idea in GOING BROKE BY DEGREE for college teachers. You can sign up for the "green" track or the "red" track (you pick your colors).You can either go for job security or for higher income. The reasoning is that tenure imposes costs, most of them implicit and hidden, that are very real. Universities have a terrible time shifting resources to meet changing needs. It is hard to fire teachers of medieval history and hire experts in nanotechnology --even if it makes great sense to do so. Tenure breads arrogance and an unwillingness to obey university policies or even laws. It allows mediocre teachers to continue to do little, seemingly forever. So why not consider tenure a fringe benefit, but put a limit on the amount of fringe benefits available to each faculty member --forcing a choice between, say, a Lexus style insurance policy and no tenure or a low cost insurance policy and the possibility of gaining tenure (and, ultimately, the awarding of it).
Of course, I predict it will not happen in DC. The teachers will say no because giving management some discretion over its labor force reduces the power of the union, and union leaders are often more interested in their own income and power than in the welfare of their workers in many cases. But it could happen in higher education. Indeed, it IS happening --in a different way. We have a two class faculty now at most universities --tenure track people who are well paid and pampered, and a group of adjuncts, graduate assistants, etc., who are paid little and have few benefits. The Vedder-Rhee two color tracking system could actually reduce the disparities between the haves and have nots in higher education and end a crazy situation where those making the most money (senior professors) do less teaching today than the untenured, marginalized itinerant faculty who make often less than 20 percent as much per course taught.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Diploma Mill's Squared
by Andrew Gillen
The NY Times had an interesting article over the weekend on diploma mills being run by a couple in Washington. They started over 120 fake schools, and awarded fake degrees to at least 350 federal employees. This is just the tip of the iceberg, with CHEA's Dr. Gollin estimating "that such companies sold 100,000 to 200,000 phony degrees a year."
The fact that states like Oregon have to take matters into their own hands, and publish a website listing diploma mills indicates that others are really dropping the ball here. (I don't necessarily agree with Oregon outlawing employers from hiring people with degrees from diploma mills - people should be free to make mistakes such as not checking the resumes of applicants without violating the law.)
Question for the real accreditors: Why aren't you doing more to point these diploma mills out? In your defense, CHEA does have a few things on it's site about the issue, but seriously. You might get a hard time from some people saying you're just trying to stomp out the competition - which you should avoid doing (i.e. don't go after real schools that don't have accreditation like the Acton MBA school)- but as long as you only target true diploma mills, your actions will be defensible.
Question for the government: Why aren't you doing more? The jurisdictional nonsense between the FBI and Department of Education is unacceptable. The most shocking part was the revelation that the couple "created accreditation mills." This falls squarely on the government to combat, as it is the government which approves real accreditors.
The NY Times had an interesting article over the weekend on diploma mills being run by a couple in Washington. They started over 120 fake schools, and awarded fake degrees to at least 350 federal employees. This is just the tip of the iceberg, with CHEA's Dr. Gollin estimating "that such companies sold 100,000 to 200,000 phony degrees a year."
The fact that states like Oregon have to take matters into their own hands, and publish a website listing diploma mills indicates that others are really dropping the ball here. (I don't necessarily agree with Oregon outlawing employers from hiring people with degrees from diploma mills - people should be free to make mistakes such as not checking the resumes of applicants without violating the law.)
Question for the real accreditors: Why aren't you doing more to point these diploma mills out? In your defense, CHEA does have a few things on it's site about the issue, but seriously. You might get a hard time from some people saying you're just trying to stomp out the competition - which you should avoid doing (i.e. don't go after real schools that don't have accreditation like the Acton MBA school)- but as long as you only target true diploma mills, your actions will be defensible.
Question for the government: Why aren't you doing more? The jurisdictional nonsense between the FBI and Department of Education is unacceptable. The most shocking part was the revelation that the couple "created accreditation mills." This falls squarely on the government to combat, as it is the government which approves real accreditors.
Governance Issues in America's Heartland.......
By Richard Vedder
The University of Toledo is having internal warfare over an unpopular dean, and the top administration's contempt for the faculty comes on the heels of similar problems in the opposite side of the state, at Ohio University.
At Toledo, the faculty voted no confidence in the dean of the arts and science college. Student investigative reporting revealed that the president and provost seemed to agree that the dean needed to go --but that they were in a dilemma because they did not want to appear to be agreeing with the faculty. In other words, "the faculty members are right, but if we agree, they may get uppity and think they run the place."
At Ohio University, last year both the students and faculty overwhelmingly supported no confidence votes in the president. The Trustees ignored the vote, and this year issued a contract that gives the president virtual tenure (employment to his 65th birthday) and a raise of nearly 30 percent in a time of budget stringency. The faculty response is to start the ball rolling towards unionization, a usually disastrous outcome for universities, raising the cost of doing business and reducing the role of merit and accomplishment in university affairs. NO distinguished American university has a collective bargaining agreement with the faculty.
Both incidents raise an important issue --who "owns" and controls the university. The answer is frankly ambiguous. Presidents regard themselves increasingly as "CEOs" in the corporate model, and faculty as merely paid staff. Trustees sometimes view themselves as cheerleaders for the administration, although occasionally they fire a president, so they cannot be ignored. Historically, faculty made major decisions, and at the better colleges (e.g., top private schools) they still do. Generally speaking, the more prestigious the school, the greater the faculty influence.
I am somewhat conflicted on this issue. Just as I feel that physicians in medical care organizations should not be treated as mere employees, and accountants in accounting firms treated similarly, so I think faculty in universities should be accorded a greater role in institutional governance than mid-level employees in a typical corporation. The faculty does the teaching and the research that is the raison d'etre of universities. At the same time, institutions need direction, faculty members are notoriously self-serving and opposed to change, and unaware of the broader public that finances their comfortable existence but who want accountability and results. In general, I favor a strong president model with real, meaningful trustee oversight based on multiple channels of communication with the faculty as well as the administration. But there is no single model that works in all university cultures. And the emails between the president and provost at Toledo show contempt for faculty that is very troubling.
At the same time, we need more faculty accountability as well. Tenure serves to reduce the effectiveness of efforts to reallocate resources and change missions, things that have to be done to remain effective. Faculty often look at university presidents as persons whose job it is to find money to allow them to continue in their old inefficient ways, doing little teaching and writing obscure papers that few read and fewer believe are important. True reform will require modifying the role of faculty in university governance, but ignoring strong signals of problems from the core of the university community --students and faculty --is usually counterproductive. More accountability is needed at ALL levels, and the lack of clear ownership rights on campuses blurs lines of authority and reduces efforts at meaningful accountability --a problem that does not exist in the same magnitude at, say, the University of Phoenix.
The University of Toledo is having internal warfare over an unpopular dean, and the top administration's contempt for the faculty comes on the heels of similar problems in the opposite side of the state, at Ohio University.
At Toledo, the faculty voted no confidence in the dean of the arts and science college. Student investigative reporting revealed that the president and provost seemed to agree that the dean needed to go --but that they were in a dilemma because they did not want to appear to be agreeing with the faculty. In other words, "the faculty members are right, but if we agree, they may get uppity and think they run the place."
At Ohio University, last year both the students and faculty overwhelmingly supported no confidence votes in the president. The Trustees ignored the vote, and this year issued a contract that gives the president virtual tenure (employment to his 65th birthday) and a raise of nearly 30 percent in a time of budget stringency. The faculty response is to start the ball rolling towards unionization, a usually disastrous outcome for universities, raising the cost of doing business and reducing the role of merit and accomplishment in university affairs. NO distinguished American university has a collective bargaining agreement with the faculty.
Both incidents raise an important issue --who "owns" and controls the university. The answer is frankly ambiguous. Presidents regard themselves increasingly as "CEOs" in the corporate model, and faculty as merely paid staff. Trustees sometimes view themselves as cheerleaders for the administration, although occasionally they fire a president, so they cannot be ignored. Historically, faculty made major decisions, and at the better colleges (e.g., top private schools) they still do. Generally speaking, the more prestigious the school, the greater the faculty influence.
I am somewhat conflicted on this issue. Just as I feel that physicians in medical care organizations should not be treated as mere employees, and accountants in accounting firms treated similarly, so I think faculty in universities should be accorded a greater role in institutional governance than mid-level employees in a typical corporation. The faculty does the teaching and the research that is the raison d'etre of universities. At the same time, institutions need direction, faculty members are notoriously self-serving and opposed to change, and unaware of the broader public that finances their comfortable existence but who want accountability and results. In general, I favor a strong president model with real, meaningful trustee oversight based on multiple channels of communication with the faculty as well as the administration. But there is no single model that works in all university cultures. And the emails between the president and provost at Toledo show contempt for faculty that is very troubling.
At the same time, we need more faculty accountability as well. Tenure serves to reduce the effectiveness of efforts to reallocate resources and change missions, things that have to be done to remain effective. Faculty often look at university presidents as persons whose job it is to find money to allow them to continue in their old inefficient ways, doing little teaching and writing obscure papers that few read and fewer believe are important. True reform will require modifying the role of faculty in university governance, but ignoring strong signals of problems from the core of the university community --students and faculty --is usually counterproductive. More accountability is needed at ALL levels, and the lack of clear ownership rights on campuses blurs lines of authority and reduces efforts at meaningful accountability --a problem that does not exist in the same magnitude at, say, the University of Phoenix.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Educational Sorting
by Andrew Gillen
There is a good piece out that does a good job explaining the sorting hypothesis for education, which
The title is Does Education Really Make You Smarter? and it can be read here.
There is a good piece out that does a good job explaining the sorting hypothesis for education, which
explain[s] why some abilities can be correlated with education, even though education might not improve them in any way... it is not that education improves one's ability but rather that education serves as a way for one to demonstrate himself/herself
The title is Does Education Really Make You Smarter? and it can be read here.
East is West, North is South
By Richard Vedder
I took a vacation from blogging for a few days, for two reasons. First, I want to let some of my newer, younger staff take the limelight (such as it is) a bit more, and, second, I have been intensely busy working on the sequel to GOING BROKE BY DEGREE, a manuscript currently entitled UNIVERSITIES AND HUMAN WELFARE (with Andy Gillen). I am trying to get a prestigious university press to publish it, which may be naive on my part given the topic, so it may take a long time to reach the market (university presses are not know for their blazing speed).
Reading stories by Doug Lederman and Andy Guess in today's INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION make me wonder if some revolution happened in higher ed the last few days that I missed. First, I find myself disagreeing with some friends at the Department of Education on an accreditation issue. While I am not a fan of federal bureaucracies, for the most part the Margaret Spellings Education Department has been very good on accreditation, thanks partly to the indefatigable Vickie Schray, aided and abetted by the likes of Sara Martinez Tucker, Cheryl Oldham, David Dunn, etc. Then I read Andy's interview with Stanley Fish, a guy for whom I have had mainly great disdain --and I agree with nearly everything he has to say!! What is going on here?
********************
Regarding accreditation, I believe in the "let a thousand flowers bloom" theory --if we are going to have accreditation (which we would not need if we had good information on what colleges do), let's have lots of competition and different viewpoints. The American Academy of Liberal Education (AALE) is designed to promote accreditation of schools having something of a traditional, solid core of liberal arts courses as an integral part of the learning process. I like the idea of having such an accreditor. Top Department officials have resigned in part because of the resistance over giving AALE accrediting powers. Why? What is up? Is the White House calling the shots (my guess)? What do they have against this group? Is there a political "fix" at work? Or, is this another case of an incredibly slow moving bureaucracy? I hope Spellings acts on this before her "Higher Education Summit" in a couple of weeks in Chicago, or I am going to very publicly ask her about this--that assertion, of course, may itself elicit a phone call from the GMA (Gurus of Maryland Avenue). I might get excluded from the cocktail party during the summit. Who knows? Stay tuned.
********************
Stanley Fish created a lot of mischief in his youth, and his preachy leftish ways --almost prototypically English professor style--have turned me off. But he has a new book out where he, by and large, says that professors should teach their subject matter, talk about what they know, and cool it on politics in the classroom. Amen. I agree with Fish that the conservatives complaining about classroom brainwashing exaggerate a bit the problem, that it is only 5-10 percent of the faculty who abandon professional standards. That is a problem, but it is not the overwhelmingly large problem on many campuses, not as big as my right-wing friends make it out to be. Fish also says composition teachers should teach composition, not social justice or other irrelevancies to the subject. Right on Stanley. Like fine wine, you age well.
********************
Business Week has an interesting story out on the GMAT scandal. It turns out 6,000 students used information from a GMAT test preparation web site --that had ACTUAL questions (and answers) from the exam. The administrators of the test have won a huge cash settlement from the operator of the site, and are seizing his hard drive. He fled back to his native China. The test administrations vow to deny the 6,000 students the right to retake the exam, and will inform schools of their behavior. What, however, if kids in good faith went to the web site just to bone up for the exam? How do we know that all engaged in deliberate cheating? There is a bit of a blanket assumption that all are guilty here. I think that is a bit harsh. Fascinating also are comments to the Business Week article, with a Japanese writer claiming that non-Japanese Asians are inveterate cheaters, unlike the Japanese. This is probably creating a minor Asian civil war on the Internet. Such is life on Earth in the early years of the third millennium.
I took a vacation from blogging for a few days, for two reasons. First, I want to let some of my newer, younger staff take the limelight (such as it is) a bit more, and, second, I have been intensely busy working on the sequel to GOING BROKE BY DEGREE, a manuscript currently entitled UNIVERSITIES AND HUMAN WELFARE (with Andy Gillen). I am trying to get a prestigious university press to publish it, which may be naive on my part given the topic, so it may take a long time to reach the market (university presses are not know for their blazing speed).
Reading stories by Doug Lederman and Andy Guess in today's INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION make me wonder if some revolution happened in higher ed the last few days that I missed. First, I find myself disagreeing with some friends at the Department of Education on an accreditation issue. While I am not a fan of federal bureaucracies, for the most part the Margaret Spellings Education Department has been very good on accreditation, thanks partly to the indefatigable Vickie Schray, aided and abetted by the likes of Sara Martinez Tucker, Cheryl Oldham, David Dunn, etc. Then I read Andy's interview with Stanley Fish, a guy for whom I have had mainly great disdain --and I agree with nearly everything he has to say!! What is going on here?
********************
Regarding accreditation, I believe in the "let a thousand flowers bloom" theory --if we are going to have accreditation (which we would not need if we had good information on what colleges do), let's have lots of competition and different viewpoints. The American Academy of Liberal Education (AALE) is designed to promote accreditation of schools having something of a traditional, solid core of liberal arts courses as an integral part of the learning process. I like the idea of having such an accreditor. Top Department officials have resigned in part because of the resistance over giving AALE accrediting powers. Why? What is up? Is the White House calling the shots (my guess)? What do they have against this group? Is there a political "fix" at work? Or, is this another case of an incredibly slow moving bureaucracy? I hope Spellings acts on this before her "Higher Education Summit" in a couple of weeks in Chicago, or I am going to very publicly ask her about this--that assertion, of course, may itself elicit a phone call from the GMA (Gurus of Maryland Avenue). I might get excluded from the cocktail party during the summit. Who knows? Stay tuned.
********************
Stanley Fish created a lot of mischief in his youth, and his preachy leftish ways --almost prototypically English professor style--have turned me off. But he has a new book out where he, by and large, says that professors should teach their subject matter, talk about what they know, and cool it on politics in the classroom. Amen. I agree with Fish that the conservatives complaining about classroom brainwashing exaggerate a bit the problem, that it is only 5-10 percent of the faculty who abandon professional standards. That is a problem, but it is not the overwhelmingly large problem on many campuses, not as big as my right-wing friends make it out to be. Fish also says composition teachers should teach composition, not social justice or other irrelevancies to the subject. Right on Stanley. Like fine wine, you age well.
********************
Business Week has an interesting story out on the GMAT scandal. It turns out 6,000 students used information from a GMAT test preparation web site --that had ACTUAL questions (and answers) from the exam. The administrators of the test have won a huge cash settlement from the operator of the site, and are seizing his hard drive. He fled back to his native China. The test administrations vow to deny the 6,000 students the right to retake the exam, and will inform schools of their behavior. What, however, if kids in good faith went to the web site just to bone up for the exam? How do we know that all engaged in deliberate cheating? There is a bit of a blanket assumption that all are guilty here. I think that is a bit harsh. Fascinating also are comments to the Business Week article, with a Japanese writer claiming that non-Japanese Asians are inveterate cheaters, unlike the Japanese. This is probably creating a minor Asian civil war on the Internet. Such is life on Earth in the early years of the third millennium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
