by: Jonathan Robe
The other day I struck up a conversation with a total stranger while traveling in the DC area, and we eventually chatted briefly about higher education. Although my new-found traveling companion admitted that he was by no means an expert in higher education (his collegiate training was in engineering), he explained to me three of his own misgivings with higher education today, partly drawing from his own educational experience. The general gist of what he said, which I would characterize as a kind of “common sense” critique of colleges and universities, lined up very closely with several of the themes CCAP has been espousing for some time. Since my conversation, I've been thinking a bit more about my companion’s points, adding some more context to our discussion.
The first thing we talked about was the apparently excessive level of compensation for high level college administrators, particularly college presidents. After all, even as recently as 2002, there were no college presidents with million dollar salaries, yet now there are two dozen or so. Is the marginal product that these college and university presidents add to their institutions really this high? No one knows, precisely because there is no bottom line in higher education. At least we can make some sort of judgment about whether the pay for the CEO of, say, Microsoft or Apple is appropriate, given the bottom line of the respective company. But we simply can't do that with the president of either Harvard or Yale. Furthermore, the current economic downturn has further illustrated how out of touch college administrators' compensation is with actual production; as the Chronicle reported in early 2009, the growth in pay for senior college administrators still outpaced inflation (some even saw large double-digit pay raises) at the same time most Americans were trying to figure out ways to slim their own personal budgets and companies were downsizing.
A question I suspect many others besides my fellow traveler are asking is why college presidents should be paid more than, say, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or even the President of the United States? So far, no satisfactory answer is forthcoming from institutions of higher education.
Second, my friend bemoaned what he perceived as higher education's falling away from its primary mission- educating students. While he clarified that he was not against the ancillary research missions of universities, he did think that, over time, universities' focus on education is in decline. Certainly, falling teaching loads, possible grade inflation, the rise of the college country-club atmosphere, the systemic decline in study time, etc., all attest to a decrease in focus on teaching as the first and foremost mission for higher education. (I remember my own engineering dynamics professor lamenting the decline he had seen in his students' efforts in his classes over the years).
Declining focus on real education is, I think, closely related to the rise of excessive administrative compensation. After all, there is no meaningful incentive structure in higher education to prevent college administrators from seeking only to advance their own "success" at the expense of educating students. For administrators, the focus too easily can be on building the institution's prestige or reputation; that to them is far more important than what is going on in the lecture hall on the other side of campus.
Third, and finally, my companion brought up remedial classes: what on earth, he said, are colleges doing teaching basic mathematics, for instance? He is right. Students should be taking, and mastering, courses on basic algebra or paragraph writing before they start college, not struggle with it during or after (a former law school dean once told me how frustrated he was with the prevalence of poor writing among law students). Diverting scarce resources to remedial education means that there are fewer available to devote to the core courses, the foundation of what the students should be studying. Rather than spoon-feeding under-prepared students through remedial classes, colleges and universities should ensure that their admissions standards are appropriately strict, both in principle and in practice. Students should not be allowed to enroll in college unless and until they have demonstrated satisfactory academic achievement. Once the students are in, schools need to push students harder so that they are adequately prepared for the real world after graduation.
To be sure, these three points aren't the be-all/end-all solution to the problems facing higher education; nevertheless, a "common sense" approach is badly needed today in determining how best to refocus colleges on what really matters in providing quality education to students. If we're going to start reforming higher education, though, we've got to start somewhere.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Links for 8/31/10
Ben Wildavsky
The "us versus them" prism through which American universities and policy makers sometimes view stepped-up global competition is becoming less and less relevant. Cross-border research collaborations have more than doubled in 20 years and will surely grow. Partnerships between leading Western universities and rapidly improving institutions in Asia, Europe, and beyond are expanding quickly. Universities may take on entirely new forms...Iza Wojciechowska
In this evolving world, academic improvement in one country need not mean that others should fear falling behind. More than ever, the key to innovation and economic growth will lie in the freest possible movement of people and ideas—on campus, and beyond.
many public universities are increasing their tuitions by upwards of 15 percent…Sarah Cassidy
Nonetheless, the skyrocketing rates have bypassed some states even this year. While many universities’ increases average between 5 and 10 percent, some states – even those with large universities and large budget cuts -- are maintaining more modest increases. The percentage of state money that supports the University of Texas system budget is relatively small compared to other states, and as a result UT is raising its tuition by an average of only 4.1 percent. In-state students in Missouri, West Virginia, and at New York state and city universities will not see an increase in tuition this year, and it will increase less than 5 percent for out-of-state students…
The first academic research project into lap dancing has found that, rather than being uneducated young women who have been coerced into the industry, one in four dancers has a degree and has been attracted by the money…Edububble asks
What’s the difference between the dancers with degrees and the dancers without? One group is filled with sex-positive feminists subverting the typical male gaze to invert the traditional gender-based power-dynamic, a wry and ironic application of Hegelian master/slave theory. The others are just…Alex Richards and Ron Coddington with a really cool look at how colleges are ranked.
Monday, August 30, 2010
On the Usefulness of Rankings
By: Christopher Matgouranis
As it is college rankings season, this morning USA Today prominently ran a piece today addressing rankings. Within the last month, almost all of the major college rankings (CCAP/Forbes, US News, Washington Monthly) have been released, along with loads of after the fact analysis and occasional griping.
In his op-ed for USA Today, Washington and Lee University President Kenneth P. Ruscio speaks out against college rankings in general, essentially stating that they have gone too far (ie. Ranking the strictest campuses & Easiest to Get Around) and that many universities place too much stock in their value. Mr. Ruscio immediately denies the social benefits of college rankings (informing and holding universities accountable), claiming that rankings organizations purport this belief in order to help themselves financially.
Ruscio later goes on to say that:
In this, Ruscio expressly believes that consumers (students/families) need more information but flatly denies rankings ability deliver this. I ask of Ruscio; realistically, do students currently have any other adequate means of gaining information? If his idea about an alternate way to evaluate schools was undertaken, who would conduct a qualitative analysis of universities? Accreditors, some other outside organization, the university itself? While I fully acknowledge there are limitations to data (and any set of college rankings), right now objective data provides the best way to compare between universities. Universities themselves place enormous weight on objective data in the admissions process. There are limitations to the ACT/SAT but at least they allow an apple vs. apple comparison. Hard data such as graduation rates, default rates and debt loads, (measures which the CCAP/Forbes rankings use) perform a similar function.
A blatant lack of transparency typifies the average American university. Most do not release readily available outcomes reports on their graduates, or internal student evaluations of professors, or a host of other information that prospective students may find useful (see a recent opinion piece in Forbes on this topic). Mr. Ruscio and his peers are in a position to change this. In general, requests to increase transparency and release more data have been ignored or denied by establishment types.
In response to this information void, alternate measures such as college rankings, ratemyprofessor.com, payscale.com etc, have arisen. People want information. Ruscio agrees with this. But to take his line that numbers and data used by these ranking systems cannot provide a useful look at schools would be a terrible mistake. The vast and diverse sets of rankings flooding magazine and websites of late allow consumers to easily compare universities overall and in areas that are important to them. Our CCAP/Forbes Do-It-Yourself Ranking goes one step further, allowing individuals to select the factors that they themselves believe are important.
Rankings (and independent outside sources such as ratemyprofessor.com) will always provide an important function by informing the public. Until universities begin to lift the shroud of secrecy and collect/release more information, they may be the only and best thing for consumers.
As it is college rankings season, this morning USA Today prominently ran a piece today addressing rankings. Within the last month, almost all of the major college rankings (CCAP/Forbes, US News, Washington Monthly) have been released, along with loads of after the fact analysis and occasional griping.
In his op-ed for USA Today, Washington and Lee University President Kenneth P. Ruscio speaks out against college rankings in general, essentially stating that they have gone too far (ie. Ranking the strictest campuses & Easiest to Get Around) and that many universities place too much stock in their value. Mr. Ruscio immediately denies the social benefits of college rankings (informing and holding universities accountable), claiming that rankings organizations purport this belief in order to help themselves financially.
Ruscio later goes on to say that:
"Rankings are not evil. Students and families need information. Four years of undergraduate education is not a trivial commitment. But the rankings game is on the verge of parodying itself. Worse, it threatens to drive strategic decisions on campuses in ways that have little to do with what should be important.
The most worrisome feature is that the frenzy feeds the bumper-sticker, attention-deficit syndrome in our society, a trend that higher education should forcefully resist. Not everything that matters can be measured; the most important things in life are the least susceptible to quantification.
Bits of data do not define the best college, no matter how much they are manipulated into the appearance, but only the appearance, of order and symmetry. Complex judgments about quality should be, well, qualitative. And they should be personal, informed by data but backed by intuition and self-awareness."
In this, Ruscio expressly believes that consumers (students/families) need more information but flatly denies rankings ability deliver this. I ask of Ruscio; realistically, do students currently have any other adequate means of gaining information? If his idea about an alternate way to evaluate schools was undertaken, who would conduct a qualitative analysis of universities? Accreditors, some other outside organization, the university itself? While I fully acknowledge there are limitations to data (and any set of college rankings), right now objective data provides the best way to compare between universities. Universities themselves place enormous weight on objective data in the admissions process. There are limitations to the ACT/SAT but at least they allow an apple vs. apple comparison. Hard data such as graduation rates, default rates and debt loads, (measures which the CCAP/Forbes rankings use) perform a similar function.
A blatant lack of transparency typifies the average American university. Most do not release readily available outcomes reports on their graduates, or internal student evaluations of professors, or a host of other information that prospective students may find useful (see a recent opinion piece in Forbes on this topic). Mr. Ruscio and his peers are in a position to change this. In general, requests to increase transparency and release more data have been ignored or denied by establishment types.
In response to this information void, alternate measures such as college rankings, ratemyprofessor.com, payscale.com etc, have arisen. People want information. Ruscio agrees with this. But to take his line that numbers and data used by these ranking systems cannot provide a useful look at schools would be a terrible mistake. The vast and diverse sets of rankings flooding magazine and websites of late allow consumers to easily compare universities overall and in areas that are important to them. Our CCAP/Forbes Do-It-Yourself Ranking goes one step further, allowing individuals to select the factors that they themselves believe are important.
Rankings (and independent outside sources such as ratemyprofessor.com) will always provide an important function by informing the public. Until universities begin to lift the shroud of secrecy and collect/release more information, they may be the only and best thing for consumers.
The Tides Are Starting to Turn
by Daniel L. Bennett
Earlier this year, I wrote a piece for Forbes arguing that Americans have tunnel vision when it comes to postsecondary education. I argued a traditional CCAP message that too many people are being herded onto college campuses under the illusion that a bachelor's degree is the only pathway to a successful life, and that society has stigmatized vocational and technical career paths. This message is beginning to have broader appeal, as Jessica DuLong writes in an article for the Huffington Post:
Earlier this year, I wrote a piece for Forbes arguing that Americans have tunnel vision when it comes to postsecondary education. I argued a traditional CCAP message that too many people are being herded onto college campuses under the illusion that a bachelor's degree is the only pathway to a successful life, and that society has stigmatized vocational and technical career paths. This message is beginning to have broader appeal, as Jessica DuLong writes in an article for the Huffington Post:
Today, as the country struggles to fix our broken education system -- not to mention the economy -- maybe it's time we analyzed what benefits a college education actually provides. Without question, intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and the confidence that classroom learning can bestow have inherent value...But do those automatically come with a BA?
If kids banking on post-college job offers have begun to feel hoodwinked, it probably has a lot to do with the lie society has been telling for generations: that obtaining a four-year degree is the only path to success, and success means doing white-collar work. Progress requires truth-telling. So, it's time to debunk the myth that making or fixing things is a dead-end career choice made by people who simply aren't smart enough for office jobs, and dispense with the judgment that work done in cubicles automatically has more value than work done in shops and at job sites that requires both brain and brawn.
The skills gap -- the mismatch between employers hunting for qualified applicants and jobless Americans -- stems in part from our society's debasement of hands-on work, which began, some say, during the Industrial Revolution with the birth of a managerial class that oversaw, rather than participating in, physical labor.
[E]ducation should be designed to encourage all children to reach their full potential. The best way to accomplish this is to spend less time teaching to standardized tests and more time offering kids choices that maximize their natural curiosities. Educational opportunities that foster a diversity of learning styles and settings will allow some young people to discover their inclination toward making things, fixing things, and other types of hands-on work. And removing the societal stigma placed on these types of careers will set the stage for the next generation of inventors, innovators, and craftspeople whose work serves as the very backbone of American society. While some of these positions will require higher education, others will demand skill-building in other ways.
It's time to invest in educational programs that will equip the nation with the next generation of skilled hands for building, repairing, maintaining and innovating the nation's infrastructure. The trouble begins when we, as a society, esteem only a small subset of the full spectrum of career options.
Links for 8/30/10 Signaling Edition (mostly)
Bryan Caplan
A high fraction of education teaches no useful jobs skills; instead, it's largely socially wasteful signaling. Government support for education is like government subsidies for air pollution; they encourage additional production of a good that the free market already overproduces relative to the efficient level. A first-best efficient education policy would actually tax education; but given public choice problems, the wisest course is to eliminate government support and rely on laissez-faire…Bill Dickens responds
nearly all of the value of schooling is signaling? I used to take that view too, but the accumulation of evidence that I've seen leads me to believe that isn't the case…Bryan Caplan responds to the response
There are plenty of entrepreneurs out there trying to make money by selling cheaper, in time and money, versions of education and they aren't very successful…
So how do I square curriculum content with my view that education is productive?...
1. Education isn't mainly about learning specific subject matter. Rather education is mainly about practicing the sort of self-discipline that is necessary to be productive in a modern work environment. High school allows you to practice showing up on time and doing what you are told. College allows you to practice and work out techniques that work for you that allow you to take on and complete on time complicated multi-part tasks in an environment where you have considerable freedom about how you spend your time…
3. Education is not just investment in work capital, its also an investment in consumption capital and social capital…
Relative to sitting around smoking pot, I agree that school inculcates some productive character traits… However, I deny that education inculcates productive character traits relative to having a job…Scott Sumner
Unfortunately, Americans often seem to want to either ban things or mandate them—with no in-between option of freedom...
Friday, August 27, 2010
Paging Senator Durbin
by Daniel L. Bennett
Kevin Carey has an interesting post on the Chronicle Brainstorm blog discussing gross mismanagement and fiscal impropriety occurring at the public Chicago State University. He cites a Washington Monthly article by his colleague Ben Miller and Phuong Ly:
Senator Durbin has been one of the leading forces behind the recent movement to reign in the for-profit higher education sector. He is even heading to his home state of Illinois next week to host another scolding of these institutions. Meanwhile, similar misuse of public funding and outright poor performance has been occurring at a state university right up the street.
Paging Senator Durbin...economic profits at the expense of public funds are not limited to those paid out to shareholders and executives at for-profits, they can also be extracted by college administrators through misuse of funds. Public higher education is just as guilty, if not more so, of taking advantage of taxpayer funds as the for-profit institutions that you are attacking.
Kevin Carey has an interesting post on the Chronicle Brainstorm blog discussing gross mismanagement and fiscal impropriety occurring at the public Chicago State University. He cites a Washington Monthly article by his colleague Ben Miller and Phuong Ly:
state audit found that even as the university suffered budget cuts, [Elnora] Daniel [former President] and other employees had spent lavishly on meals, alcohol, and first-class airfare. Daniel had brought five relatives and a university administrator with her on a nine-day Caribbean cruise for a “leadership conference.” Lax financial oversight allegedly resulted in the university paying more than a quarter of a million dollars for two photocopiers purchased from a company owned by a university employee.Carey concludes by raising an important issue:
Meanwhile, students contended with broken elevators, dirty classrooms, and ill-equipped labs. As enrollment declined, so did graduation rates. Of the first-time, full-time freshmen who started in 1996, about 18 percent graduated within six years.
Because colleges and universities are unusually well-regarded institutions that serve a noble societal purpose and are run by people with esteemed academic credentials, the public conversation about them tends to discount the possibility of gross incompetence. In reality, universities can be terribly mismanaged just like K-12 schools, fire departments, or huge multinational oil companies. Failure to acknowledge this prevents us from tackling the problems that most need to be solved.I have a great deal of respect and am a fan of Mr. Carey's work, but I'd like to amend his statement slightly. Colleges and universities are well regarded institutions so long as they are not operated for a profit. Public and non-profit institutions such as Chicago State are essentially given a free pass for the types of economic rent-seeking behavior that the for-profits are accused of regularly and brought to the public shackles for. Zac Bissonnette and I discussed this exact topic recently in an article for Forbes.
Senator Durbin has been one of the leading forces behind the recent movement to reign in the for-profit higher education sector. He is even heading to his home state of Illinois next week to host another scolding of these institutions. Meanwhile, similar misuse of public funding and outright poor performance has been occurring at a state university right up the street.
Paging Senator Durbin...economic profits at the expense of public funds are not limited to those paid out to shareholders and executives at for-profits, they can also be extracted by college administrators through misuse of funds. Public higher education is just as guilty, if not more so, of taking advantage of taxpayer funds as the for-profit institutions that you are attacking.
Links for 8/27/10
Lloyd Armstrong
The question of whether or not the traditional non-profit world of higher education ultimately can compete with the new world being defined by the for-profits is a serious one. All of the red flags raised by Christensen are present: 1)The faculty – who make up the academic management of traditional higher ed – are broadly and actively hostile to the for-profits and their approach. They generally are convinced that the education being offered is second class and the approach is simply wrong... 2) Where such innovations as online learning are implemented, they are simply grafted onto existing structures and approaches. This leads to the oft heard- and completely incorrect- statement that creating and teaching an online class is more expensive than a traditional classroom one. It only seems more expensive because we accept as our baseline the very expensive infrastructure underlying the traditional classroom course…. 3) There is an oft-articulated fear that “online education will draw students away from our traditional courses”…Anthony P. Carnevale , Michelle Melton and Laura Meyer
as traditional higher education institutions move into the for-profit space in search of increased revenues, they will have to seriously consider how they will change some of the traditional components of their brand and mission. Such considerations are likely to be quite contentious…
[for-profits] growth prospects and brands will obviously be harmed by the current mess, but their intention clearly is to fill the space that UC and other traditional universities are thinking of moving into in order to stabilize their revenue models. Many of the traditional universities clearly have much stronger brands at this point, but are they willing to make the changes necessary to achieve the kinds of market penetration necessary to balance their budgets? Only time will tell…
Like it or not, postsecondary education is already almost entirely occupational. All certificates and occupational associate degrees are intended to have labor market value… Only 3 percent of bachelor’s degrees are liberal arts, general studies, and humanities degrees -- the remaining 97 percent have an occupational focus…
The current scandal has arisen because of bad information… There is a real alternative to late-night infomercials that promise undeliverable outcomes. In fact, the detailed elements of such a system already exist -- including unemployment insurance wage records, transcript and program data, job openings data, and detailed information on occupational competencies.
It’s just a matter of putting them together effectively -- some states have already built the rudiments of such systems -- and making the information publicly available and in online, user-friendly formats...
While it is important that we not lose sight of the non-economic benefits of education…
The inescapable reality is that ours is a society based on work…
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Be Careful What You Wish For
by Daniel L. Bennett
The impending gainful employment rule has caused the for-profit sector and its investors a great deal of nervousness. Receiving little notice has been the community colleges that offer certificate programs designed to lead to a specific occupation that will also be subject to the new rule. It appears as though these folks are beginning to fret about the consequences of the proposed rule change as well, as Inside Higher Ed highlights:
I also find it rather amusing that the community colleges, which have been somewhat critical and supportive of increased regulation of their competition, are begging for mercy and seeking an exemption from the new rule, especially given the tremendous 'low-price' competitive advantage that they already have as a result of massive public subsidization. The community college sector had a good thing going for it - massive subsidization (and hence protection) with very little accountability. Now that competition has heightened from the private sector in spite of its price advantage, it decided to try to enhance its competitive position further through the political process. Now, that same political process may wind up biting it in the rear. Perhaps this should be a lesson in being careful what you wish for, especially in seeking public favor through the political process.
The impending gainful employment rule has caused the for-profit sector and its investors a great deal of nervousness. Receiving little notice has been the community colleges that offer certificate programs designed to lead to a specific occupation that will also be subject to the new rule. It appears as though these folks are beginning to fret about the consequences of the proposed rule change as well, as Inside Higher Ed highlights:
Most of the controversy over the "gainful employment" regulations proposed by the U.S. Education Department has focused on for-profit higher education, but some community college programs would be covered as well, and the American Association of Community Colleges on Tuesday sent a letter to college presidents urging them to seek changes in the rules. The community college programs that would be covered are certificate programs of a year or longer that do not lead to a degree. The community college association is arguing that those programs should not be covered if, in combination with general education requirements, the certificate requirements would lead to an associate degree. The community colleges also want to see an exemption for programs in which fewer than 35 percent of students use federal loan programs.It is somewhat ironic that a sector which often pats itself on the back because its students don't have to borrow much (due to huge subsidies) is worried about the new rules affecting its business. This should raise some questions about the community college sector and related public policy. For one, perhaps its vocationally-oriented programs are not doing a good job of training students for the workplace (despite popular rhetoric) and we should reconsider publicly funding them. Fairer competition would likely lead to improved offerings. We could still publicly support vocational education and retraining programs through a voucher-style program, rather than awarding money non-competitively to one set of service providers who may or may not be best suited for the job.
I also find it rather amusing that the community colleges, which have been somewhat critical and supportive of increased regulation of their competition, are begging for mercy and seeking an exemption from the new rule, especially given the tremendous 'low-price' competitive advantage that they already have as a result of massive public subsidization. The community college sector had a good thing going for it - massive subsidization (and hence protection) with very little accountability. Now that competition has heightened from the private sector in spite of its price advantage, it decided to try to enhance its competitive position further through the political process. Now, that same political process may wind up biting it in the rear. Perhaps this should be a lesson in being careful what you wish for, especially in seeking public favor through the political process.
Links for 8/26/10
Todd Zywicki
Many observers believe that the problem with higher education is that universities are basically run by its employees–the faculty–and that the faculty’s interests are not aligned with those of the students who they serve. But what Greene’s report hints at is a larger trend at work–more and more universities are run by their bureaucrats, not the faculty, and the incentives of bureaucrats are even more poorly aligned with student interests than the faculty…Jack Stripling
during most of that period university endowments grew at record rates. This essentially gave university presidents and their minions a huge slush fund to play with without actually having to raise new funds from alumni. This created a growth in agency costs for senior university administrators. Finally, this allowed universities to continue giving raises to faculty while expanding the bureaucracy even more. Thus, the growth in bureaucratic spending was not coming out of a zero-sum pot, so that faculty were not monitoring the growth in the bureaucracy as much…
Higher education almost perfectly converts subsidies (whether direct or aid to students) into higher prices…
“Quite often what you see is my rhetoric says X, but my spending priorities say Y,” says Aceves…Brian Caulfield
“For way too long, academics have had a kind of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach to looking at resources, as if it’s something sordid that is best left unmentioned among civilized people,” Wellman wrote…
In a few years, it’s going to be tough to convince the youngsters that music stores, real-world places that once distributed pricey content such as music and movies on physical media, actually existed before the Internet, digital media players, and, finally, Apple came along.How much Fidelity estimates parents need to save each week from the birth of their child in order to afford college:
Music stores are gone, but universities — which distribute even pricier content via even more expensive stores, or ‘campuses’ — are still around. In fact, they’re more expensive than ever. Is Apple going to help do them in, too?...
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
CCAP on Youtube: Intercollegiate Athletics
In this Youtube video, CCAP is joined by a special guest, Joshua Hall, in discussing intercollegiate athletics.
Links for 8/25/10
J. M. Anderson
teaching is not that important. It won't get you a job, and it certainly won't get you tenure or promoted, even at most so-called "teaching colleges."…Kevin Carey
Most of your colleagues will see undergraduate teaching as a burden to escape from whenever possible… they exploit the system and resent their students for not taking their courses seriously and interfering with their work…
If you care about teaching, you will be forced to choose between it and scholarship because you won't have adequate time for both class preparation and research. Something has to give, and invariably it will be your teaching because publications are the currency of the academic world. The more peer-reviewed books and articles you have, the more valuable you will appear to colleagues and administrators. You'll be told that there isn't a conflict between research and teaching, and that research informs teaching, but that's simply not true. Few undergraduate courses are based primarily on a teacher's original research, and very rarely does the kind of scholarship that gets published make its way into the classroom. You are trained as a specialist, you publish as a specialist, but you will be expected to teach more than your narrow specialty…
the question isn’t whether we’ll evaluate university performance with numbers. We already do that. The question is which numbers…Henry F. Fradella
As long as we stick with the current accountability system, college will keep getting more expensive. Presidents will continue devoting their considerable talents to the pursuit of bigger-as-better. Quality, students and learning will continue to stagnate…
it is pretty clear that far too many college degrees aren’t worth the paper on which they are printed…PATRICIA COHEN
more than 60 percent of college graduates were not proficient in prose, document, and quantitative literacy…
college and university faculty members often lack the ability to teach basic reading, writing, and math skills. Why? Because most professors are not trained to do so….
instructors give up; rather than teaching the skills that should have been learned before students arrive in college, they focus on content because it’s easier to do so…
faculty members, especially those who are untenured, often fear setting course expectations too high, challenging students’ comfort levels too much, or being rigorous in their assessments of student performance. If students perceive a professor as being too hard, they will avoid that person's classes… part-time faculty members whose classes are canceled often find themselves without any courses to teach…
Just this month, mathematicians used blogs and wikis to evaluate a supposed mathematical proof in the space of a week — the scholarly equivalent of warp speed...
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Links for 8/24/10
Anya Kamenetz
TED… combining the principles of "radical openness" and of "leveraging the power of ideas to change the world," TED is in the process of creating something brand new. I would go so far as to argue that it's creating a new Harvard -- the first new top-prestige education brand in more than 100 years…Mike Mandel
if you were starting a top university today, what would it look like? You would start by gathering the very best minds from around the world, from every discipline. Since we're living in an age of abundant, not scarce, information, you'd curate the lectures carefully, with a focus on the new and original, rather than offer a course on every possible topic. You'd create a sustainable economic model by focusing on technological rather than physical infrastructure, and by getting people of means to pay for a specialized experience. You'd also construct a robust network so people could access resources whenever and from wherever they like, and you'd give them the tools to collaborate beyond the lecture hall. Why not fulfill the university's millennium-old mission by sharing ideas as freely and as widely as possible?
If you did all that, well, you'd have TED…
If you are a new college graduate, what kind of job can you expect to get?...Matthew Schnittman via Keith Hampson
almost 40% of young female college grads work in healthcare or educational occupations, compared to 17% for young male college grads. On the flip side, computer and engineering occupations show up near the top for young male college grads, but not for females…
what do taxpayers invest in students at for-profit schools?...STEVE FAINARU
the adjusted taxpayer investment per student at a for-profit school is roughly $4,100, compared to $13,200 at a non-profit school…
Mr. Yudof arrived here in 2008, vowing to bring fiscal responsibility to the 10-campus U.C. system. He chose not to live at university-owned Blake House, the traditional presidential mansion, which the university estimates requires $10 million of renovations and repairs.
Instead, Mr. Yudof, 65, moved with his wife into a 10,000-square-foot, four-story house with 16 rooms, 8 bathrooms and panoramic views. He said he needed the house, which rented for $13,365 a month by the end of the lease and was paid for by U.C., to fulfill his obligation to host functions for staff members, donors and visiting dignitaries...
Monday, August 23, 2010
ICA and College Rankings
By: A.J. Cadamagnani
The recent releases of the Forbes and U.S. News and World Report college rankings have consumers buzzing. A rising senior, proud alumnus or university board member can crunch and spin the numbers in a myriad of ways. However, one potential variable has gone unexplored. What effect, if any, does athletic division have on academic reputation? Are major college athletics a distraction to university academics? Or, can having sports help attract better students?
In the Forbes rankings, Division III schools have by far the best showing. Of the 231 Division III schools ranked, nearly 7% appear in the Top 25, and just above 25 % appear in the Top 100. It is no secret that among other differences, a Division III school spends significantly less money on athletics than say, an FBS (formerly Division 1-A) school. By proportion, the standard expectancy of a school appearing in the top or bottom 100 is 16.4% (given that the entire list constitutes 610 institutions).
FBS schools are underrepresented in the Forbes Top 100 and substantially overrepresented in the Bottom 100. As a whole, member FCS schools (formerly Division 1-AA) out-perform their FBS counterparts in both the Forbes Top 25 and Top 100. But does this daunting title of FBS unfairly umbrella proven academic powerhouses such as Duke and Michigan?
Sixty-two universities have made it to a Men’s Basketball Elite Eight or a BCS Bowl game in the past ten years. They have reached the pinnacle of athletic success and their programs are models for the rest of the country. They are the decade’s titans of major college athletics. How do they perform in the college rankings, one may ask?
We converted the U.S. News National University rankings into three easy categories: Tier 1, schools ranked in the Top 100 (103 schools), Tier 2, those ranking 104-191 (94 schools), and Tier 3, the lowest ranking 65 schools. Of the 62 “best” athletic schools an astonishing 35 fall into Tier 1, 20 to Tier 2, and only 1 in Tier 3 (6 were unranked). For the 62 universities, the average Forbes rank is 274 and 11 cracked the Top 100.
So is it fair to say your school will do better academically with the absence or presence of major college athletics? Probably not. Division III schools perform the strongest across the board, but not the same can be said for Division II colleges. In the Forbes rankings no Division II school makes the top 100. Even worse, 21 of the 55 schools ranked are in the Bottom 100! The major difference in Division II and Division III athletics is funding. Division II schools have a larger budget, longer traveling distances, and can offer prospective student-athletes athletic scholarships. The sixty-two upper-echelon athletic schools however, have demonstrated the ability to maintain and balance athletic superiority and academic excellence.
The recent releases of the Forbes and U.S. News and World Report college rankings have consumers buzzing. A rising senior, proud alumnus or university board member can crunch and spin the numbers in a myriad of ways. However, one potential variable has gone unexplored. What effect, if any, does athletic division have on academic reputation? Are major college athletics a distraction to university academics? Or, can having sports help attract better students?
In the Forbes rankings, Division III schools have by far the best showing. Of the 231 Division III schools ranked, nearly 7% appear in the Top 25, and just above 25 % appear in the Top 100. It is no secret that among other differences, a Division III school spends significantly less money on athletics than say, an FBS (formerly Division 1-A) school. By proportion, the standard expectancy of a school appearing in the top or bottom 100 is 16.4% (given that the entire list constitutes 610 institutions).
FBS schools are underrepresented in the Forbes Top 100 and substantially overrepresented in the Bottom 100. As a whole, member FCS schools (formerly Division 1-AA) out-perform their FBS counterparts in both the Forbes Top 25 and Top 100. But does this daunting title of FBS unfairly umbrella proven academic powerhouses such as Duke and Michigan?
Sixty-two universities have made it to a Men’s Basketball Elite Eight or a BCS Bowl game in the past ten years. They have reached the pinnacle of athletic success and their programs are models for the rest of the country. They are the decade’s titans of major college athletics. How do they perform in the college rankings, one may ask?
We converted the U.S. News National University rankings into three easy categories: Tier 1, schools ranked in the Top 100 (103 schools), Tier 2, those ranking 104-191 (94 schools), and Tier 3, the lowest ranking 65 schools. Of the 62 “best” athletic schools an astonishing 35 fall into Tier 1, 20 to Tier 2, and only 1 in Tier 3 (6 were unranked). For the 62 universities, the average Forbes rank is 274 and 11 cracked the Top 100.
So is it fair to say your school will do better academically with the absence or presence of major college athletics? Probably not. Division III schools perform the strongest across the board, but not the same can be said for Division II colleges. In the Forbes rankings no Division II school makes the top 100. Even worse, 21 of the 55 schools ranked are in the Bottom 100! The major difference in Division II and Division III athletics is funding. Division II schools have a larger budget, longer traveling distances, and can offer prospective student-athletes athletic scholarships. The sixty-two upper-echelon athletic schools however, have demonstrated the ability to maintain and balance athletic superiority and academic excellence.
In Defense of College Rankings
By Richard Vedder
In a couple of weeks, I predict, the media will be filled with articles on rankings of colleges. Already, Princeton Review has come out with its effort, with attention focused on their "party schools of America" ranking. As a professor at a school that ranked #2 in those rankings (to the chagrin of the university administration), I must say I think they in a rough way convey good information to students as to schools that do not take learning overly seriously, emphasizing the socialization/consumption dimension of higher education. It is good for kids considering the University of Georgia and the University of Chicago to know that Georgia is a school that emphasizes academics far less than Chicago. Decades ago, Sigmund Romberg wrote a song for the musical "The Student Prince" with three words in its title: "Drink, Drink, Drink." That describes the agenda for many students these days, so the Princeton Review serves its purposes.
But the more serious rankings will soon be released. Full disclosure: I am involved heavily in the construction of one of them, by Forbes, in conjunction with my Center for College Affordability and Productivity. However, I maintain friendly relations with Bob Morse and others at the leading US News & World Report ranking.
I predict that many in the Education Establishment will trash the rankings as soon as they are released. They will be labeled as non-scientific, elitist, poorly constructed, etc. etc. etc. Yet they will sell magazines, and Web-site hits for the sponsoring organizations will soar—because they are meeting a human need. People paying perhaps $100,000 or more over several years for college want to know what they are getting for their value, and they want that assessment to come from neutral third parties, not the promotional materials of the schools themselves. When you buy a house, usually you have a third party inspect it. When you buy a car, you read the rankings by J.D. Power or Consumer Reports. The same principle applies with colleges. The rankings give a sense of the relative quality of schools, imperfect as it may be.
I agree the rankings are imperfect. Moreover, I believe that the best rankings conceptually are "do-it-yourself" rankings that evaluate colleges on the criteria important to the would-be student, not the variables adjudged important by some organization. Yet the publishers of rankings hit on factors most individuals think are important, so, in a rough way, they convey very valuable information. If you are paying $50,000 a year to send your kid to either Harvard or George Washington U., other things equal, the quality of education is likely to be superior at Harvard, assuming the student can gain admittance. So the complaints of colleges are completely bogus. The main problem with the rankings is that colleges resist providing the kind of information that is important in assessing institutional quality:
1. Do students learn a good deal while in school? Do seniors know more than freshmen?
2. What is the probability that a freshman will graduate in four years?
3. Do graduates of the school get good jobs upon graduation, or get into good graduate schools?
4. Do students LIKE their institution—the classes and professors, the social dimensions, etc.
5. Is the campus a safe environment—is there a lot of crime?
These are merely a few critical questions, but ones that colleges provide relatively little information about (there has been modest progress in answering these and other questions in recent years, but the key word is "modest.") The Forbes/CCAP rankings have, in my humble and highly biased opinion, gone the furthest in getting at least partial answers to questions like those above, but even Forbes is stymied by the failure of schools to release information from instruments like the Collegiate Learning Assessment or the National Survey or Student Engagement. Great new web sites are finding ways to fill in some gaps, but more needs to be done.
In a perfect world, "accreditators" would become "information providers", sort of like Consumer Reports or Underwriters Laboratories, giving potential users of college services good information that is consistent across institutions that would allow consumers to make informed choices. In the mean time, I, for one, applaud the rankers for doing their best to fill a real human need.
In a couple of weeks, I predict, the media will be filled with articles on rankings of colleges. Already, Princeton Review has come out with its effort, with attention focused on their "party schools of America" ranking. As a professor at a school that ranked #2 in those rankings (to the chagrin of the university administration), I must say I think they in a rough way convey good information to students as to schools that do not take learning overly seriously, emphasizing the socialization/consumption dimension of higher education. It is good for kids considering the University of Georgia and the University of Chicago to know that Georgia is a school that emphasizes academics far less than Chicago. Decades ago, Sigmund Romberg wrote a song for the musical "The Student Prince" with three words in its title: "Drink, Drink, Drink." That describes the agenda for many students these days, so the Princeton Review serves its purposes.
But the more serious rankings will soon be released. Full disclosure: I am involved heavily in the construction of one of them, by Forbes, in conjunction with my Center for College Affordability and Productivity. However, I maintain friendly relations with Bob Morse and others at the leading US News & World Report ranking.
I predict that many in the Education Establishment will trash the rankings as soon as they are released. They will be labeled as non-scientific, elitist, poorly constructed, etc. etc. etc. Yet they will sell magazines, and Web-site hits for the sponsoring organizations will soar—because they are meeting a human need. People paying perhaps $100,000 or more over several years for college want to know what they are getting for their value, and they want that assessment to come from neutral third parties, not the promotional materials of the schools themselves. When you buy a house, usually you have a third party inspect it. When you buy a car, you read the rankings by J.D. Power or Consumer Reports. The same principle applies with colleges. The rankings give a sense of the relative quality of schools, imperfect as it may be.
I agree the rankings are imperfect. Moreover, I believe that the best rankings conceptually are "do-it-yourself" rankings that evaluate colleges on the criteria important to the would-be student, not the variables adjudged important by some organization. Yet the publishers of rankings hit on factors most individuals think are important, so, in a rough way, they convey very valuable information. If you are paying $50,000 a year to send your kid to either Harvard or George Washington U., other things equal, the quality of education is likely to be superior at Harvard, assuming the student can gain admittance. So the complaints of colleges are completely bogus. The main problem with the rankings is that colleges resist providing the kind of information that is important in assessing institutional quality:
1. Do students learn a good deal while in school? Do seniors know more than freshmen?
2. What is the probability that a freshman will graduate in four years?
3. Do graduates of the school get good jobs upon graduation, or get into good graduate schools?
4. Do students LIKE their institution—the classes and professors, the social dimensions, etc.
5. Is the campus a safe environment—is there a lot of crime?
These are merely a few critical questions, but ones that colleges provide relatively little information about (there has been modest progress in answering these and other questions in recent years, but the key word is "modest.") The Forbes/CCAP rankings have, in my humble and highly biased opinion, gone the furthest in getting at least partial answers to questions like those above, but even Forbes is stymied by the failure of schools to release information from instruments like the Collegiate Learning Assessment or the National Survey or Student Engagement. Great new web sites are finding ways to fill in some gaps, but more needs to be done.
In a perfect world, "accreditators" would become "information providers", sort of like Consumer Reports or Underwriters Laboratories, giving potential users of college services good information that is consistent across institutions that would allow consumers to make informed choices. In the mean time, I, for one, applaud the rankers for doing their best to fill a real human need.
Colleges as Country Clubs
By Richard Vedder
Easily (by a factor of two) the most commented piece in the "Innovation" blog series of the Chronicle, for which I contribute, is my "Student Evaluations, Grade Inflation, and Declining Student Effort" entry. Now, new and better evidence has emerged that, if anything, strengthens my initial convictions.
Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks are both University of California professors (different campuses) who have delved deeply into various surveys of student time use, and have related that data to other research that plausibly could explain the very real and substantial decline in the work effort of students. While some of their research is coming out in prestigious academic journals (the Review of Economics and Statistics and Economic Inquiry), the findings are nicely encapsulated in a short study done for the American Enterprise Institute. See "Leisure College, USA: The Decline in Student Study Time" available on the AEI web site.
Babcock and Marks show how the decline in hours worked by students is real, not explained by changing survey techniques or even the changing nature of college students. The decline is universal, seen fairly uniformly in different disciplines. Moreover, it cannot be explained by improved technology (e.g., computer search engines reducing manual library search time), increases in student employment work hours, etc. However, the reduction in incentives for students to study, as evidenced by grade inflation, is a likely explanation for much, I would surmise most, of the observed decline.
Moreover, Babcock and Marks present some evidence by others that suggests this decline has potentially real and meaningful (or as academics love to say these days, "non-trivial") effects on labor productivity, human capital formation and economic growth. Some evidence suggests that the nominal, or reported, rise in student grades actually significantly understates the amount of grade inflation. For example, Ralph and Todd Stinebrinker suggest a 40 minute reduction in daily study time is associated with a 0.24 point decline in student grade point average (GPA) --using the conventional four point scale. Since the decline in student studying is more than twice that great since 1961 on a daily basis, the implied fall in GPA associated with reduced work effort is at least 0.50 (half a grade). Since nominally, GPAs have risen about .50 since 1960 or so, it appears that correcting for falling standards, the standard-adjusted GPA increase has been more like a full grade level (from a C+/B- average to something like a B+/A- average). Academic success per hour, as measured by grades, has soared, despite no evidence that today's students are on average better prepared for college (and some evidence to the contrary).
Partly because of rising wealth and incomes, and partly because the Feds have vastly increased the practice of dropping money out of airplanes over student homes (or the equivalent, through student loan and grant programs), universities are becoming more like country clubs. But a third and maybe more important reason is that the students have so much free time, and they need to do something else beside drink and have sex. Hence the phenomenon of the climbing wall, the indoor track, the countless health-club like weight facilities, luxurious student union buildings, etc.
Universities are overpriced and overfunded by naive but well-meaning third parties. This has contributed to college staffs becoming spoiled and often somewhat juvenile acting rent-seekers (they go on tantrums if they don't get what they want). Meanwhile, their equally spoiled students too often are over-sexed booze hounds who are largely clueless about how our civilization evolved, what makes us rich, and what distinguishes right from wrong.
The most rational argument against the above goes like this: "we are interested in outcomes, not inputs. The financial premium for college completion is greater than ever, suggesting the productivity gains associated with college have increased over time." While a respectable argument, I think it too weakens upon close inspection, particularly given the increased use of colleges as screening devices (picking up on early research by Spence, Taubman and Wales and others). This, in turn, was no doubt partially motivated by the changing legal environment, most importantly exemplified in Griggs v. Duke Power, a Supreme Court decision that probably had an enormous influence on the college cost explosion, credential inflation, and a host of other problems gracing the American academic scene. More about that, however, in another blog.
Easily (by a factor of two) the most commented piece in the "Innovation" blog series of the Chronicle, for which I contribute, is my "Student Evaluations, Grade Inflation, and Declining Student Effort" entry. Now, new and better evidence has emerged that, if anything, strengthens my initial convictions.
Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks are both University of California professors (different campuses) who have delved deeply into various surveys of student time use, and have related that data to other research that plausibly could explain the very real and substantial decline in the work effort of students. While some of their research is coming out in prestigious academic journals (the Review of Economics and Statistics and Economic Inquiry), the findings are nicely encapsulated in a short study done for the American Enterprise Institute. See "Leisure College, USA: The Decline in Student Study Time" available on the AEI web site.
Babcock and Marks show how the decline in hours worked by students is real, not explained by changing survey techniques or even the changing nature of college students. The decline is universal, seen fairly uniformly in different disciplines. Moreover, it cannot be explained by improved technology (e.g., computer search engines reducing manual library search time), increases in student employment work hours, etc. However, the reduction in incentives for students to study, as evidenced by grade inflation, is a likely explanation for much, I would surmise most, of the observed decline.
Moreover, Babcock and Marks present some evidence by others that suggests this decline has potentially real and meaningful (or as academics love to say these days, "non-trivial") effects on labor productivity, human capital formation and economic growth. Some evidence suggests that the nominal, or reported, rise in student grades actually significantly understates the amount of grade inflation. For example, Ralph and Todd Stinebrinker suggest a 40 minute reduction in daily study time is associated with a 0.24 point decline in student grade point average (GPA) --using the conventional four point scale. Since the decline in student studying is more than twice that great since 1961 on a daily basis, the implied fall in GPA associated with reduced work effort is at least 0.50 (half a grade). Since nominally, GPAs have risen about .50 since 1960 or so, it appears that correcting for falling standards, the standard-adjusted GPA increase has been more like a full grade level (from a C+/B- average to something like a B+/A- average). Academic success per hour, as measured by grades, has soared, despite no evidence that today's students are on average better prepared for college (and some evidence to the contrary).
Partly because of rising wealth and incomes, and partly because the Feds have vastly increased the practice of dropping money out of airplanes over student homes (or the equivalent, through student loan and grant programs), universities are becoming more like country clubs. But a third and maybe more important reason is that the students have so much free time, and they need to do something else beside drink and have sex. Hence the phenomenon of the climbing wall, the indoor track, the countless health-club like weight facilities, luxurious student union buildings, etc.
Universities are overpriced and overfunded by naive but well-meaning third parties. This has contributed to college staffs becoming spoiled and often somewhat juvenile acting rent-seekers (they go on tantrums if they don't get what they want). Meanwhile, their equally spoiled students too often are over-sexed booze hounds who are largely clueless about how our civilization evolved, what makes us rich, and what distinguishes right from wrong.
The most rational argument against the above goes like this: "we are interested in outcomes, not inputs. The financial premium for college completion is greater than ever, suggesting the productivity gains associated with college have increased over time." While a respectable argument, I think it too weakens upon close inspection, particularly given the increased use of colleges as screening devices (picking up on early research by Spence, Taubman and Wales and others). This, in turn, was no doubt partially motivated by the changing legal environment, most importantly exemplified in Griggs v. Duke Power, a Supreme Court decision that probably had an enormous influence on the college cost explosion, credential inflation, and a host of other problems gracing the American academic scene. More about that, however, in another blog.
We Need More Juniata Colleges!
by Jonathan Robe
Last week Forbes published a piece by my colleagues here at CCAP, Matthew Denhart and Christopher Matgouranis. This article calls on colleges and universities to "collect and publish survey data detailing what their students do after leaving campus," including data on employment rates, earnings, and the level of alumni satisfaction with their collegiate education. There are already some schools which, albeit to a very limited extent, make this information public and accessible.
After this article was written, we became aware of another school, Juniata College in Pennsylvania, which is on the right track-- and even trying out effective ways to increase institutional accountability. On Juniata College's website, there's a prominent link to an "accountability" page which offers data on campus life, student costs, educational outcomes, the school's endowment, etc. Some of this data is compiled as part of the NSSE surveys, and some of it is apparently compiled by the school itself.
However, this accountability page still has much room for improvement. For instance, although Juniata provides graduation placement rates (employment or graduate school) for the entire student body, it would be enormously helpful to students if data on graduation placement rates by major was provided. Other important pieces of information which need to be added include graduate's average salaries (such as what Cornell University reports for their graduates), faculty teaching loads (or, even better, faculty salary per credit hour taught), administrative staff levels, administrative salaries over time, tuition over time, etc. They also should provide all of the NSSE data, not just a small selection (though, in fairness to Juniata College, far too many private schools don't even publish any of their NSSE data). There is probably much more which could be added, but these are the ones which immediately come to mind.
Despite these shortcomings, there is much to admire about Juniata's effort. After all, the college promotes its accountability page with a rather obvious link on its homepage (how many other schools promote accountability on this level?). The fact that Juniata published even a smattering of the NSSE data is commendable, even though more data remains to be added. Also, it appears that Juniata is working on developing the correct attitude towards accountability; they even ask visitors to their website for suggestions on how to improve the information provided on their website in order to improve accountability. It's precisely this attitude of serious dedication to accountability which is so refreshing in higher education today. My hope is that Juniata College continues to take the necessary steps in leading the way to increased institutional accountability and that other schools will follow suit.
Last week Forbes published a piece by my colleagues here at CCAP, Matthew Denhart and Christopher Matgouranis. This article calls on colleges and universities to "collect and publish survey data detailing what their students do after leaving campus," including data on employment rates, earnings, and the level of alumni satisfaction with their collegiate education. There are already some schools which, albeit to a very limited extent, make this information public and accessible.
After this article was written, we became aware of another school, Juniata College in Pennsylvania, which is on the right track-- and even trying out effective ways to increase institutional accountability. On Juniata College's website, there's a prominent link to an "accountability" page which offers data on campus life, student costs, educational outcomes, the school's endowment, etc. Some of this data is compiled as part of the NSSE surveys, and some of it is apparently compiled by the school itself.
However, this accountability page still has much room for improvement. For instance, although Juniata provides graduation placement rates (employment or graduate school) for the entire student body, it would be enormously helpful to students if data on graduation placement rates by major was provided. Other important pieces of information which need to be added include graduate's average salaries (such as what Cornell University reports for their graduates), faculty teaching loads (or, even better, faculty salary per credit hour taught), administrative staff levels, administrative salaries over time, tuition over time, etc. They also should provide all of the NSSE data, not just a small selection (though, in fairness to Juniata College, far too many private schools don't even publish any of their NSSE data). There is probably much more which could be added, but these are the ones which immediately come to mind.
Despite these shortcomings, there is much to admire about Juniata's effort. After all, the college promotes its accountability page with a rather obvious link on its homepage (how many other schools promote accountability on this level?). The fact that Juniata published even a smattering of the NSSE data is commendable, even though more data remains to be added. Also, it appears that Juniata is working on developing the correct attitude towards accountability; they even ask visitors to their website for suggestions on how to improve the information provided on their website in order to improve accountability. It's precisely this attitude of serious dedication to accountability which is so refreshing in higher education today. My hope is that Juniata College continues to take the necessary steps in leading the way to increased institutional accountability and that other schools will follow suit.
Links for 8/23/10
Jay P. Greene, Brian Kisida, and Jonathan Mills (need to click through)
Wake Forest, Yale, MIT, Harvard, and Dartmouth spend more solely on administration per student than the average university spends on everything per student. The nearly $75,000 at Wake Forest and the nearly $60,000 at Yale per student spent on administration must buy some truly excellent administration.STEVEN KNAPP
Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus have written a lucid, passionate and wide-ranging book on the state of American higher education…Daniel Willingham on Paul Peterson
There was a time, in their telling, when universities saw their mission as education; now even small colleges compel their faculties to publish (at the expense of teaching) for the sake of an institutional stature that teaching alone cannot confer.
Peterson’s core argument--that reformers seek greater centralization of control, then lose control of the intended reform…Dean Dad
if you're adjuncting and you feel like you're being exploited, stop adjuncting. Just stop. Walk away…
The culture valued education at x forty years ago, and still does now. The problem is that the cost has gone from .5x to 2x. The culture didn't turn its back on us; we just mistook respect for open-ended entitlement…
The era of “all things to all people” passed decades ago in most other industries. At a really fundamental level, it's time to rethink the “diffuse mission, few funding streams” model in favor of a “diffuse funding streams, focused mission” model. Instead of counting on an ever-stingier state to support ever more programs, let's diversify the funding streams and channel them into fewer, stronger programs. At the community college level, I see that boiling down to the liberal arts, criminal justice, and nursing, with some regional variation. Let the proprietaries handle the vocational stuff; it's what they do, and we can't keep adding boutique programs on ever-declining revenue. Let's get the benefits of specialization, and do a few things well rather than a lot of things just a little bit worse every year…
I care too much about higher education to let it die of neglect without at least trying to save it. But it has to want to live. It has to stop pretending that it isn't badly sick. It has to stop pretending that eating its young is a viable long-term strategy…
Friday, August 20, 2010
Links for 8/20/10
Neal McCluskey
there is copious, taxpayer-funded rot under America’s abundant ivyBill Gates via Quentin Hardy
The effect of R&D is near zero (in education). That is a market failure.Rich Karlgaard
Self-learning rules. We are at the beginning of the Death of Credentials. The ROI for 95% of college educations will be negative.Ilana Kowarski
a record-high percentage of high-school graduates who took the ACT met all four of the exam's college-readiness benchmarks—although the average composite score dipped slightly.
Twenty-four percent of the class of 2010 met all ACT College Readiness Benchmarks...
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Colleges Should Report Outcomes
By: Matthew Denhart and Christopher Matgouranis
The only way to judge the how worthwhile an investment, is to know the marginal benefits that result from it compared to its initial cost.
Based on these criteria, it is clear that the public is largely in the dark as to the value of a college degree. As we discuss in an article for Forbes.com today, colleges and universities rarely collect and publish information about the outcomes of their graduates. Perhaps this is an area where the U.S. Department of Education should step in and require alumni information be gathered and presented to the public in a clear and coherent manner. This would go lengths at providing the transparency and accountability in higher education that would benefit students and taxpayers at large.
See our full article here.
The only way to judge the how worthwhile an investment, is to know the marginal benefits that result from it compared to its initial cost.
Based on these criteria, it is clear that the public is largely in the dark as to the value of a college degree. As we discuss in an article for Forbes.com today, colleges and universities rarely collect and publish information about the outcomes of their graduates. Perhaps this is an area where the U.S. Department of Education should step in and require alumni information be gathered and presented to the public in a clear and coherent manner. This would go lengths at providing the transparency and accountability in higher education that would benefit students and taxpayers at large.
See our full article here.
A Reading Assignment
by Andrew Gillen
Read some of the quotes in this story about how technology is failing to improve education.
Then read this, by Michael Hammer and James Champy.
Or, if you are too busy or lazy, the money quote is
Extra Credit: How are barbers and professors similar?
Hint, read this, then read this.
Read some of the quotes in this story about how technology is failing to improve education.
Then read this, by Michael Hammer and James Champy.
Or, if you are too busy or lazy, the money quote is
"the fundamental error that most companies commit when they look at technology is to view it through the lens of existing processes.... The real power of technology is not that it can make the old processes work better, but that it enables organizations to break old rules and create new ways of working."HT (for bringing the quote to my attention): Alan E. Guskin.
Extra Credit: How are barbers and professors similar?
Hint, read this, then read this.
"[My education] was a serious mistake:" An Indentured Educated Citizen Laments Her Decision To Go To School
Guest post by: C. Cryn Johannsen
Education is not about the return on an investment. Education cannot be assessed in terms of market rates. Education is more than the monetary value which we ascribe to it. Education should be outside of the realm of the marketplace. These are the things I often think about and believe when I am considering the larger socio-cultural significance of earning a degree and being shouldered with the burden of so much debt. However, one of my readers at my own site (Education Matters), who calls himself Spekkio, recently discussed the "Cult of College" in a post that received a wide variety of reactions. In this post, I simply asked: "Did you pursue an education only for a future return, i.e., was it merely an investment and nothing beyond that?"
This may sound contradictory vis-a-vis the statements I just made above, but I do, to a certain extent, agree with Spekkio. Nevertheless, I also think there is a critical value to being trained by universities (whether it be in the humanities or the sciences) because these critical thinking skills that we obtain in these institutions allow us to go on and do good things for society, or at least that is the hope. But not everyone agrees with my take on education, even those who support my advocacy work and are part of the indentured educated class. One person recently shared her story with me, and made it clear that she regretted ever going to school. Her testimonial is important because it demonstrates how cynical people have become about the degrees they possess. I don't blame them. Instead, I blame the entire system. I blame the U.S. Government. I blame the student lenders. I blame the universities and the colleges. As this lending industry grew and flourished, the entire system was ultimately created by bad decisions and bad policies. However, systems can be changed. If we continue to point out the inadequacies and injustices of institutional power, we can eventually change it. Furthermore, we're equipped to change it. Our own recent history in the U.S. provides us with models for this type of change, too. That's why I intend to continue this battle.
In the meantime, let's read what Ms. Q has to say about the pointlessness of obtaining a degree:
I grew up in a working class family where there was very little money and that made saving money for college impossible for my parents. I was taught as a child and bought into the idea that college is the way to a better life. I accepted the whole American Dream lie, work hard, go to college, [and] you can get a good job and have a good life. Since my family was unable to help me with my education and made too much money to qualify for grants, the only way to fund my education was through student loans.
I took out both unsubsidized and subsidized loans, along with private loans. My loans went to fund pretty much my entire cost of education including room and board. I chose a major without much thought, I picked what really interested me instead of picking a degree in something that there were jobs in. I received both a Bachelor's and Master of Arts in Sociology. My only justification is that I was young and stupid and made a very serious mistake.
After graduation it took me almost a year to find a job and that job didn't last more than two weeks, it was a job that a person with my degree could get, apparently I wasn't very good at being a job developer. It took me a little over a month and I got hired as case manager at a community mental health agency where I helped people with severe and persistent mental illness. Unfortunately, my boss was very verbally abusive and a bully[;] she would sometimes corner me in rooms and threatened me with me with my job, it was a very bad situation and I felt like a battered wife. I was eventually let go because I had finally had enough and stood up for myself and was fired the next day. The last two months of that job I was put on medical leave by my doctor for two weeks because I had a nervous breakdown due to the bullying from my boss. I started seeing a counselor because of the stress and was suicidal for a few weeks and was nearly hospitalized.
After that I found a job that is way below my qualifications, a caregiver to people with developmental disabilities. This job you can get with only a high school diploma and pays slightly above poverty level wages. I love this job[;] it just doesn't pay enough. Unfortunately, shortly after I took this job, the big recession hit. I have been unable to secure a better paying job.
Currently, I am around 90k in both federal and private student loan debt. I have defaulted on a loan to [my bank] and made payment arrangements to pay $75 per month and that is the max I can pay. My federal student loan debt is 73k and I have never once been able to make the $370 monthly payment; the forbearance keeps raising my debt, and I can't get on the IBR plan because I can't afford a monthly payment. I just got out of forbearance, am 3 months behind and am scared to call. I get calls daily. My credit rating is shattered. My two private loans were co-signed by my grandmother who is also low income, When I can’t pay they call and harass her. I feel horrible, I've ruined my relationship with her, ruined her credit, and cause her daily stress which aggravate her health problems.
My student loans have ruined my life, my relationship with my family, my credit, self-esteem you name it. I will turn 30 in September and thought that by this point in my life I would have a career, but all I have is debt and disappointment. I don't find it fair that I cannot get bankruptcy protection. We are told (lies) the education is good debt, investment in yourself, etc. and if it is the responsible thing to do then why are we being treated so horribly. You can rack up a bunch of credit card debt, buy a house you can't afford, gamble your money away and you can get it wiped away, those are clearly very irresponsible things so I say are we not punishing the wrong people, I think so! I think everybody deserves a second chance in life. We even give that to convicted felons, they can get out of prison on parole and there are even programs to help them find jobs!
All this debt makes me feel like a total loser and failure. I am a recovering alcoholic with two years sobriety and some days I get so depressed because of my debt I nearly relapse. All I can do is get my voice out there like a lot of us and pray one day change happens!
What if Ms. Q.'s notion that going to college is pointless and the mistake catches on? I've already been told by parents of young children that they don't want their children going to school. What if the secret gets out, and everyone realizes that, at this juncture, higher education is nothing but a sham? Would that change the injustices of this system?
C. Cryn Johannsen is the founder of Education Matters and this article is part of an occasional series featuring the views of guest writers.
Education is not about the return on an investment. Education cannot be assessed in terms of market rates. Education is more than the monetary value which we ascribe to it. Education should be outside of the realm of the marketplace. These are the things I often think about and believe when I am considering the larger socio-cultural significance of earning a degree and being shouldered with the burden of so much debt. However, one of my readers at my own site (Education Matters), who calls himself Spekkio, recently discussed the "Cult of College" in a post that received a wide variety of reactions. In this post, I simply asked: "Did you pursue an education only for a future return, i.e., was it merely an investment and nothing beyond that?"
This may sound contradictory vis-a-vis the statements I just made above, but I do, to a certain extent, agree with Spekkio. Nevertheless, I also think there is a critical value to being trained by universities (whether it be in the humanities or the sciences) because these critical thinking skills that we obtain in these institutions allow us to go on and do good things for society, or at least that is the hope. But not everyone agrees with my take on education, even those who support my advocacy work and are part of the indentured educated class. One person recently shared her story with me, and made it clear that she regretted ever going to school. Her testimonial is important because it demonstrates how cynical people have become about the degrees they possess. I don't blame them. Instead, I blame the entire system. I blame the U.S. Government. I blame the student lenders. I blame the universities and the colleges. As this lending industry grew and flourished, the entire system was ultimately created by bad decisions and bad policies. However, systems can be changed. If we continue to point out the inadequacies and injustices of institutional power, we can eventually change it. Furthermore, we're equipped to change it. Our own recent history in the U.S. provides us with models for this type of change, too. That's why I intend to continue this battle.
In the meantime, let's read what Ms. Q has to say about the pointlessness of obtaining a degree:
I grew up in a working class family where there was very little money and that made saving money for college impossible for my parents. I was taught as a child and bought into the idea that college is the way to a better life. I accepted the whole American Dream lie, work hard, go to college, [and] you can get a good job and have a good life. Since my family was unable to help me with my education and made too much money to qualify for grants, the only way to fund my education was through student loans.
I took out both unsubsidized and subsidized loans, along with private loans. My loans went to fund pretty much my entire cost of education including room and board. I chose a major without much thought, I picked what really interested me instead of picking a degree in something that there were jobs in. I received both a Bachelor's and Master of Arts in Sociology. My only justification is that I was young and stupid and made a very serious mistake.
After graduation it took me almost a year to find a job and that job didn't last more than two weeks, it was a job that a person with my degree could get, apparently I wasn't very good at being a job developer. It took me a little over a month and I got hired as case manager at a community mental health agency where I helped people with severe and persistent mental illness. Unfortunately, my boss was very verbally abusive and a bully[;] she would sometimes corner me in rooms and threatened me with me with my job, it was a very bad situation and I felt like a battered wife. I was eventually let go because I had finally had enough and stood up for myself and was fired the next day. The last two months of that job I was put on medical leave by my doctor for two weeks because I had a nervous breakdown due to the bullying from my boss. I started seeing a counselor because of the stress and was suicidal for a few weeks and was nearly hospitalized.
After that I found a job that is way below my qualifications, a caregiver to people with developmental disabilities. This job you can get with only a high school diploma and pays slightly above poverty level wages. I love this job[;] it just doesn't pay enough. Unfortunately, shortly after I took this job, the big recession hit. I have been unable to secure a better paying job.
Currently, I am around 90k in both federal and private student loan debt. I have defaulted on a loan to [my bank] and made payment arrangements to pay $75 per month and that is the max I can pay. My federal student loan debt is 73k and I have never once been able to make the $370 monthly payment; the forbearance keeps raising my debt, and I can't get on the IBR plan because I can't afford a monthly payment. I just got out of forbearance, am 3 months behind and am scared to call. I get calls daily. My credit rating is shattered. My two private loans were co-signed by my grandmother who is also low income, When I can’t pay they call and harass her. I feel horrible, I've ruined my relationship with her, ruined her credit, and cause her daily stress which aggravate her health problems.
My student loans have ruined my life, my relationship with my family, my credit, self-esteem you name it. I will turn 30 in September and thought that by this point in my life I would have a career, but all I have is debt and disappointment. I don't find it fair that I cannot get bankruptcy protection. We are told (lies) the education is good debt, investment in yourself, etc. and if it is the responsible thing to do then why are we being treated so horribly. You can rack up a bunch of credit card debt, buy a house you can't afford, gamble your money away and you can get it wiped away, those are clearly very irresponsible things so I say are we not punishing the wrong people, I think so! I think everybody deserves a second chance in life. We even give that to convicted felons, they can get out of prison on parole and there are even programs to help them find jobs!
All this debt makes me feel like a total loser and failure. I am a recovering alcoholic with two years sobriety and some days I get so depressed because of my debt I nearly relapse. All I can do is get my voice out there like a lot of us and pray one day change happens!
What if Ms. Q.'s notion that going to college is pointless and the mistake catches on? I've already been told by parents of young children that they don't want their children going to school. What if the secret gets out, and everyone realizes that, at this juncture, higher education is nothing but a sham? Would that change the injustices of this system?
C. Cryn Johannsen is the founder of Education Matters and this article is part of an occasional series featuring the views of guest writers.
CCAP on Youtube: Grade Inflation
In this Youtube video, CCAP discusses grade inflation and declining student work effort at American colleges and universities.
Links for 8/19/10
MARK C. TAYLOR
most faculty and administrators refuse to acknowledge this crisis. Consider what is taking place here in New York City. Rather than learning to live within their means, Columbia University, where I teach, and New York University are engaged in a fierce competition to expand as widely and quickly as possible…Arnold Kling
The competition between Columbia and N.Y.U. is an example of what educational institutions should not be doing. Universities should be looking for new ways to provide high-quality education to more students at a lower price…
why does the market do such a poor job of policing these predatory education companies? Some possibilities…Eric Markley
3. Education is inherently a market that consumers cannot judge quality, so that it's all about the marketing. This should be a warning to voucher supporters.
America's colleges and universities have by and large abandoned a coherent, broad-based curriculum.Michael S. Teitelbaum and Carol B. Lynch
So far, graduates of professional science master's programs are in high demand. Many report receiving multiple job offers, with excellent remuneration, even in these difficult times. Their success demonstrates that there are attractive career paths for undergraduates who choose to major in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields but do not wish to become academic researchers or obtain a Ph.D.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
A Hunger for Transparency
Guest post by Ethan Haines
Ethan Haines is on day 14 of a hunger strike to draw attention to, among other things, the lack of transparency of law school employment statistics and rankings. You can find out more at http://unemployedjd.com/
To live an enriched existence, which for many is making a positive impact on society while enjoying a high quality of life, you must equip yourself with the best professional tool, a solid education. Accordingly, for individuals willing to sacrifice time, money, and energy in exchange for academic and professional enlightenment, that experience should be both affordable and accessible to individuals from all walks of life. This has never been truer than in today's post-recession economy. I would know; I am a recent law graduate.
In today's language, being a law graduate means you have survived standardized tests and a highly competitive law program with six figures of student loan debt, only to become highly educated, yet unemployed. While everyone has individual responsibility for their own experiences, the careers of law students and graduates are highly dictated by an unknown force known as law school rankings.
In the legal community, law school rankings, namely the U.S. News & World Report's annual rankings determine whether you will enjoy a smooth or bumpy ride when transitioning into your career as a legal professional. There is nothing wrong with the process of "ranking" schools, unless the rankings maintain too much power over the industry that it serves. In the legal industry, commercial rankings have become more influential than the regulating organizations governing the field. Moreover, the methodology behind those rankings are highly controversial and have been found to be somewhat flawed, yet the industry (and public) continues to rely on them.
As noted by the American Bar Association (ABA), the organization charged with regulating legal education, the public's reliance on flawed rankings has had adverse effects on legal education such as increasing the cost of a law degree, discouraging need-based financial awards, and reducing the incentive to enhance diversity in the profession. It also discourages individuals from pursuing certain careers, such as law, when they fear that their background will prevent them from being competitive, thereby making them another J.D. statistic –an unemployed/underemployed law graduate with a six-figure student loan debt. This increases the pressure to choose the "right" law school.
At the current time, I am engaged in a hunger strike (fourteen days and counting) to thwart law schools from participating in U.S. News' annual rankings unless the data they submit is accurate. I am also seeking to reform the profession's reliance on those rankings when making employment decisions. The pursuit of higher education is the primary method for advancing in society. To further reform our educational system and increase student participation in said system, three things are required: affordable education, transparency in statistical reporting, and professional career development.
In essence, whether undertaking an undergraduate or graduate degree, rankings should assist students with making decisions regarding costs and career development. We, as a country, are building a workforce that must now complete in a global market. To make our workforce both competitive and productive, we must teach students how to exploit their educational experiences instead of developing new ways to hinder their progress.
Ethan Haines is on day 14 of a hunger strike to draw attention to, among other things, the lack of transparency of law school employment statistics and rankings. You can find out more at http://unemployedjd.com/
To live an enriched existence, which for many is making a positive impact on society while enjoying a high quality of life, you must equip yourself with the best professional tool, a solid education. Accordingly, for individuals willing to sacrifice time, money, and energy in exchange for academic and professional enlightenment, that experience should be both affordable and accessible to individuals from all walks of life. This has never been truer than in today's post-recession economy. I would know; I am a recent law graduate.
In today's language, being a law graduate means you have survived standardized tests and a highly competitive law program with six figures of student loan debt, only to become highly educated, yet unemployed. While everyone has individual responsibility for their own experiences, the careers of law students and graduates are highly dictated by an unknown force known as law school rankings.
In the legal community, law school rankings, namely the U.S. News & World Report's annual rankings determine whether you will enjoy a smooth or bumpy ride when transitioning into your career as a legal professional. There is nothing wrong with the process of "ranking" schools, unless the rankings maintain too much power over the industry that it serves. In the legal industry, commercial rankings have become more influential than the regulating organizations governing the field. Moreover, the methodology behind those rankings are highly controversial and have been found to be somewhat flawed, yet the industry (and public) continues to rely on them.
As noted by the American Bar Association (ABA), the organization charged with regulating legal education, the public's reliance on flawed rankings has had adverse effects on legal education such as increasing the cost of a law degree, discouraging need-based financial awards, and reducing the incentive to enhance diversity in the profession. It also discourages individuals from pursuing certain careers, such as law, when they fear that their background will prevent them from being competitive, thereby making them another J.D. statistic –an unemployed/underemployed law graduate with a six-figure student loan debt. This increases the pressure to choose the "right" law school.
At the current time, I am engaged in a hunger strike (fourteen days and counting) to thwart law schools from participating in U.S. News' annual rankings unless the data they submit is accurate. I am also seeking to reform the profession's reliance on those rankings when making employment decisions. The pursuit of higher education is the primary method for advancing in society. To further reform our educational system and increase student participation in said system, three things are required: affordable education, transparency in statistical reporting, and professional career development.
In essence, whether undertaking an undergraduate or graduate degree, rankings should assist students with making decisions regarding costs and career development. We, as a country, are building a workforce that must now complete in a global market. To make our workforce both competitive and productive, we must teach students how to exploit their educational experiences instead of developing new ways to hinder their progress.
Links for 8/18/10
Jay P. Greene
It’s no longer possible to hide the fact that there are some awful teachers who continue receiving paychecks and depriving kids of an education. School officials have had these data for years and never used them, never tried to identify who were the best and worst teachers, and never tried to remove bad teachers from the profession. It took a newspaper and a big FOI request…Philip Babcock
It’s also worth emphasizing that this new reality is a huge accomplishment of No Child Left Behind. The accountability and choice provisions of NCLB could never work because school systems could never be asked to sanction themselves. But the one big thing that NCLB accomplished is getting every public school to measure student achievement in grades 3-8 and report results. NCLB made it so that these data exist so that the LA Times could FOI the results and push schools to act upon it. NCLB could never get schools to take real action, but the existence of the data could get others to force schools to act.
Declining study times mean that the return to college has risen more than previously thought. This could simply mean, for example, that the effect of skill-biased technical change is larger than previously thought, so that even more modest increases in human capital now generate significant wage gains.Bryan Caplan
In fact, it’s actually rather difficult to extract from a “wasteful signaling” argument any clear explanation for the rising return to college. Tough questions arise. If it is now much easier to acquire this signal, then why is it rewarded more?...
If studying sharply declines, and the labor market doesn't care, this raises the probability that something other than straightforward human capital acquisition is at work.Joanne Jacobs
Lewis was laid off by her own mother
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Links for 8/17/10
Dancing Crocodile
In The Netherlands general secondary education is dominated by the national exam with which students conclude their school career. I wouldn't have it otherwise.Melodye
The results for the exam are proof of the student's level per subject, regardless the school where he has studied. The results of all students per school give relevant information about the school's efficacy. And I have to accept that the results of my students at the national exam for my subject gauge the quality of my teaching…
our national exam definitely makes the teacher accountable for intellectual attainment measured with a yardstick that is not homespun.
I do not trust teachers, nor schools, for that matter, to devise their own goals and have them decide which level is sufficient. I would not entrust myself with such responsibility.
I have to deliver the goods and services that society needs. School is not a playground in which we are given leeway to implement our best intentions for the benefit of other people's children. Education at school is an essential part of the real world.
That it took them three years to finally oust him is telling.Steven Pearlstein
All I can say is : it must have been egregious.
I say this because I know of data-faking scandals that have been successfully hushed up in top departments, and of professors who have had journal articles retracted only to go on to successfully win tenure. (Some departments refuse to ‘sell out’ their professors, no matter how slipshod their research practices). Which makes Harvard’s decision to turn its back on Hauser all the more — shocking? insane? revelatory? smacking of ethics, even?
The problem with this argument is that it's made by people who have resisted the introduction of objective metrics to gauge educational outcomes. Because there is so little use of nationalized tests of knowledge or skills, it is not possible to know what, if anything, is actually learned. For most schools, there is no place to find clear and comprehensive data about completion rates, the pay and debt load of graduates, and the sources and uses of funds...Bryan Caplan with the best one sentence explanation of the signaling theory.
Which would do more for your career: A Princeton education, but no diploma, or a Princeton diploma, but no education?
Monday, August 16, 2010
Charting a New Course in Higher Ed Regulation
by Daniel L. Bennett
I have an article in the August 2010 Career College Central Magazine discussing the need for radical new higher ed policy in the U.S. I make the case that colleges need to be held more accountable for the outcomes of their students, and that more and better consumer information is needed to ensure that scarce student and taxpayer resources are utilized efficiently. You can download a PDF of the article (kudos to the design team at CCC) or access the complete magazine online.
I have an article in the August 2010 Career College Central Magazine discussing the need for radical new higher ed policy in the U.S. I make the case that colleges need to be held more accountable for the outcomes of their students, and that more and better consumer information is needed to ensure that scarce student and taxpayer resources are utilized efficiently. You can download a PDF of the article (kudos to the design team at CCC) or access the complete magazine online.
Links for 8/16/10
John Gibson and David McKenzie on the Brain Drain
policymakers (and economists, e.g. Bhagwati and Hamada 1974) have been worrying for decades about whether this represents a loss in valuable human capital and fiscal revenues. Yet in more recent times a counterargument has emerged that the prospect of migration may induce additional human capital formation among those who remain, and that migrants can spur trade and investment...Jennifer Epstein
the effects of remittances, trade, investment, and repatriated savings typically more than offset the fiscal cost, and on top of this, the migrants themselves have seen enormous benefits from migration. In order for this high-skilled migration to have a net negative effect on development, one would therefore require very large externalities from the presence of these individuals...
GAO’s discoveries have put the Education Department on the defensive, trying to explain why it hasn’t done more to prevent recruiters from making deceptive statements to potential students…Julie Garza-Withers
Could the department have conducted its own secret shopper investigations and cracked down on aggressive recruiting practices before Congress and GAO got involved? Has the department failed to use all the tools in its existing enforcement toolbox as frequently and as well as it could have?
To most observers, the answer to both questions is yes…
Recently, a friend asked me whether I’d encourage my own children (if I had them) to attend a community college, the system where I teach sociology. I said “yes” immediately, but I know what thoughts lay behind her question. She was alluding to my grumbling about research that I’d been reading that suggests working-class institutions such as community colleges may not be the best place for working-class students. Though I initially said “yes” to my friend’s question, the more honest answer is “maybe.” I feel guilty saying this, but I feel ambivalent. I am a proud community college graduate, and teaching at a community college is wonderful, but the community college does have problems that make me wonder whether we are doing right by working-class students and upholding our mission to create pathways to success...Ethan Haines
My name is Ethan Haines. I stand in place of countless law students and recent law graduates who have been disillusioned by law school employment statistics, commercial school rankings, and antiquated career counseling programs. I designated myself class representative since these students are not able to come forward themselves for fear that vocalizing their concerns will negatively affect their careers.
On August 5, 2010, I will begin a hunger strike to bring awareness to the concerns of my classmates. Their primary concerns are inaccurate employment statistics, ineffective career counseling, and rising tuition costs. My intention is to have these concerns addressed by law school administrators...
Friday, August 13, 2010
Links for 8/13/10
Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst
The relationship between years of schooling and economic output at the national level is complex, to say the least. A small but consistently positive relationship between long-term growth and years of schooling is found in econometric studies, but there are many caveats and exceptions that are relevant to designing higher education policy in the U.S. For one thing there is tremendous variability in the relationship. For example, Germany has a stronger economy than France but half the percentage of young adults with a college degree. Further, France has increased its percentage of young adults with college degrees by 13 percentage points in the last 10 years whereas Germany’s output of college graduates has hardly budged, yet the economic growth rate of Germany has exceeded that of France over this same period. Obviously increasing educational attainment is not a magic bullet for economic growth…Glenn Harlan Reynolds
A growing body of research suggests that policymakers should pay more attention to the link between job opportunities and what people know and can do, rather than focusing on the blunt instrument of years of schooling or degrees obtained…
Right now, people are still borrowing heavily to pay the steadily increasing tuitions levied by higher education. But that borrowing is based on the expectation that students will earn enough to pay off their loans with a portion of the extra income their educations generate. Once people doubt that, the bubble will burst.Center for Education Reform
So my advice to students faced with choosing colleges (and graduate schools, and law schools) this coming year is simple: Don’t go to colleges or schools that will require you to borrow a lot of money to attend. There’s a good chance you’ll find yourself deep in debt to no purpose. And maybe you should rethink college entirely…
Congressional Schools Bailout to Send $10 Billion to States to Solve Manufactured Education Jobs “Crisis”Kevin Carey
The American higher education system in 2010 is such that everyone in a position to raise tuition has a good reason to do so, and nobody has a good reason to lower it. Thus, it gets raised a lot, and hardly ever lowered. If that doesn’t change, tuition will keep rising...
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Is the For-Profit Bashing a Red Herring?
by Daniel L. Bennett
Washington, especially Congress, has been on a bashing spree of the for-profit sector lately. I won't go into the details, as there have been plenty of headlines in the media in the past few weeks. Together with Zac Bissonnette, I describe how the recent crusade against the for-profit colleges is a red herring for a broken higher education system in an article for Forbes that was released yesterday.
We're not the first to suggest that the attack is misguided and highly politicized. Other articles on the topic worth reading include ones by Neal McCluskey and Lindsey Burke. Also, be sure to check out CCAP's recent report on for-profit higher ed, if you haven't already done so.
Washington, especially Congress, has been on a bashing spree of the for-profit sector lately. I won't go into the details, as there have been plenty of headlines in the media in the past few weeks. Together with Zac Bissonnette, I describe how the recent crusade against the for-profit colleges is a red herring for a broken higher education system in an article for Forbes that was released yesterday.
We're not the first to suggest that the attack is misguided and highly politicized. Other articles on the topic worth reading include ones by Neal McCluskey and Lindsey Burke. Also, be sure to check out CCAP's recent report on for-profit higher ed, if you haven't already done so.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The CCAP/Forbes Rankings Released
For the third straight year, in collaboration with Forbes Magazine, the Center for College Affordability and Productivity is proud to release its list of America's 610 Best Colleges and Universities.
Williams College tops the list as the best school in America. Last year's number one, the US Military Academy, dropped to number four. The top ranked public school on this year's list was the University of Virginia, a change from last year's top public, The College of William and Mary.
This year CCAP created several alternate rankings of colleges and universities. Regional lists, ranking the best schools in the Northeast, Midwest, South and West are available on our website. A set of new lists this year breaks down our rankings by 75th percentile composite SAT scores. It ranks the best schools within four tiers of SAT scores. These lists are especially student friendly as they allow students to see the best schools that they can actually get into.
Several new variables were added this year. These included retention rates, student loan default rates, a Corporate Officers database and an exciting new website that measures student satisfaction, Myplan.com. For more on this see our methodology.
For more on the 2010 rankings, check out them out on the CCAP website, or go to Forbes to see the rankings and articles by Richard Vedder, Daniel Bennett and others.
Williams College tops the list as the best school in America. Last year's number one, the US Military Academy, dropped to number four. The top ranked public school on this year's list was the University of Virginia, a change from last year's top public, The College of William and Mary.
This year CCAP created several alternate rankings of colleges and universities. Regional lists, ranking the best schools in the Northeast, Midwest, South and West are available on our website. A set of new lists this year breaks down our rankings by 75th percentile composite SAT scores. It ranks the best schools within four tiers of SAT scores. These lists are especially student friendly as they allow students to see the best schools that they can actually get into.
Several new variables were added this year. These included retention rates, student loan default rates, a Corporate Officers database and an exciting new website that measures student satisfaction, Myplan.com. For more on this see our methodology.
For more on the 2010 rankings, check out them out on the CCAP website, or go to Forbes to see the rankings and articles by Richard Vedder, Daniel Bennett and others.
In Defense of RMP, Part Two
By: Ryan Brady
In past years, CCAP has taken much criticism for our use of the data provided by RatemyProfessor.com as a metric in our annual college rankings published with Forbes (see our previous defense of RMP here). For those unfamiliar, RatemyProfessor.com (RMP) is a website that allows students to evaluate their professors based on a number of criteria, most prominently his/her overall quality. Many critics of the website believe that if a professor easily hands out good grades, they will probably be rewarded with higher ratings from students and therefore the data provided by the website is useless. Realizing there is very likely some validity to this criticism, we have always inversely weighted the “ease” category reported by students on the website, and included that in a professor’s RMP score that goes into the final ranking for the school.
However, we wanted to test this criticism a bit more carefully, and a relatively new website, Campusbuddy.com provides excellent data that allows us to do an interesting analysis. Campusbuddy.com provides aggregate grades given by individual professors at hundreds of public institutions. Since the data is available at the individual professor level, it can be compared with the same professor’s student evaluations from RMP.
Using both data sources we took a sample of over 1,500 professors from 10 randomly selected public schools that appear in the CCAP/Forbes annual listing of America’s Best Colleges. For these 10 schools, we obtained the data for professors in the following disciplines: Economics, Education, English and Physics. Looking specifically at the RMP overall rating of every professor versus the average G.P.A. of their students, we found that there was 35.86% correlation between overall rating and average G.P.A. The same correlation was run separately for each department, the results are as shown:
Economics: 26.13% English: 33.40%
Education: 17.28% Physics: 34.33%
There is no doubt that a correlation does in fact exist between the two variables, however it is much lower than one might have expected. Most of the disciplines do not differ much from the total correlation, although we do see that Education has a much lower correlation than the other subjects. (This is likely due to the fact that Education professors are notoriously known for giving out inflated grades. The average G.P.A. for professors in Education from this sample was 3.6, compared to an Economics G.P.A. of 2.69.)
When looking at the correlation between the “ease” ratings of RMP compared to the average G.P.A.’s, we begin to see a much better relationship. For all professors the correlation was a much higher 44.15%. For each department, the results are as shown:
Economics: 43.55% English: 39.55%
Education: 33.53% Physics: 47.09%
These results indicate that the “ease” rating in RMP is a fairly accurate indicator of the grades that these professors are giving out. Thus, our methodology used in the CCAP/Forbes ranking does indeed account for the tendency for professors to “buy” good evaluations with high grades. Since the “ease” factor is inversely weighted, our ranking does not encourage grade inflation.
While our ranking attempts to minimize the influences of grade inflation, grade inflation itself remains a problem for higher education. Colleges and universities are supposed to exist to transmit knowledge to students and prepare them to be productive citizens. Yet, based on a 2010 National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study, students are spending far fewer hours studying today than they did fifty years ago. The average college student spent 40 hours per week on academics in 1961, but by 2004, this figure was down to 27 hours.
Why are students working less? The advent of professor evaluations probably has much to do with it. These evaluations create incentives for both students and professors, to have inflated grades. As professors lower standards and assign higher grades, students in turn reward their professors with better evaluations. George Leef refers to this as the “student-professor non-aggression pact.” This pact however is detrimental to student learning and the creation of human capital. Students need to be actually learning, and not just receiving subjectively high grades, for human capital to be developed. Learning in the end is what truly matters when students hit the work force, and our higher education system is in great need of some serious leadership to tackle the grade inflation problem.
In past years, CCAP has taken much criticism for our use of the data provided by RatemyProfessor.com as a metric in our annual college rankings published with Forbes (see our previous defense of RMP here). For those unfamiliar, RatemyProfessor.com (RMP) is a website that allows students to evaluate their professors based on a number of criteria, most prominently his/her overall quality. Many critics of the website believe that if a professor easily hands out good grades, they will probably be rewarded with higher ratings from students and therefore the data provided by the website is useless. Realizing there is very likely some validity to this criticism, we have always inversely weighted the “ease” category reported by students on the website, and included that in a professor’s RMP score that goes into the final ranking for the school.
However, we wanted to test this criticism a bit more carefully, and a relatively new website, Campusbuddy.com provides excellent data that allows us to do an interesting analysis. Campusbuddy.com provides aggregate grades given by individual professors at hundreds of public institutions. Since the data is available at the individual professor level, it can be compared with the same professor’s student evaluations from RMP.
Using both data sources we took a sample of over 1,500 professors from 10 randomly selected public schools that appear in the CCAP/Forbes annual listing of America’s Best Colleges. For these 10 schools, we obtained the data for professors in the following disciplines: Economics, Education, English and Physics. Looking specifically at the RMP overall rating of every professor versus the average G.P.A. of their students, we found that there was 35.86% correlation between overall rating and average G.P.A. The same correlation was run separately for each department, the results are as shown:
Economics: 26.13% English: 33.40%
Education: 17.28% Physics: 34.33%
There is no doubt that a correlation does in fact exist between the two variables, however it is much lower than one might have expected. Most of the disciplines do not differ much from the total correlation, although we do see that Education has a much lower correlation than the other subjects. (This is likely due to the fact that Education professors are notoriously known for giving out inflated grades. The average G.P.A. for professors in Education from this sample was 3.6, compared to an Economics G.P.A. of 2.69.)
When looking at the correlation between the “ease” ratings of RMP compared to the average G.P.A.’s, we begin to see a much better relationship. For all professors the correlation was a much higher 44.15%. For each department, the results are as shown:
Economics: 43.55% English: 39.55%
Education: 33.53% Physics: 47.09%
These results indicate that the “ease” rating in RMP is a fairly accurate indicator of the grades that these professors are giving out. Thus, our methodology used in the CCAP/Forbes ranking does indeed account for the tendency for professors to “buy” good evaluations with high grades. Since the “ease” factor is inversely weighted, our ranking does not encourage grade inflation.
While our ranking attempts to minimize the influences of grade inflation, grade inflation itself remains a problem for higher education. Colleges and universities are supposed to exist to transmit knowledge to students and prepare them to be productive citizens. Yet, based on a 2010 National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study, students are spending far fewer hours studying today than they did fifty years ago. The average college student spent 40 hours per week on academics in 1961, but by 2004, this figure was down to 27 hours.
Why are students working less? The advent of professor evaluations probably has much to do with it. These evaluations create incentives for both students and professors, to have inflated grades. As professors lower standards and assign higher grades, students in turn reward their professors with better evaluations. George Leef refers to this as the “student-professor non-aggression pact.” This pact however is detrimental to student learning and the creation of human capital. Students need to be actually learning, and not just receiving subjectively high grades, for human capital to be developed. Learning in the end is what truly matters when students hit the work force, and our higher education system is in great need of some serious leadership to tackle the grade inflation problem.
Links for 8/11/10
Bryan Caplan
How America Pays for College 2010: A national study by Sallie Mae and Gallup
there's one striking fact in the original research that's neglected in the popularization: The return to a college education is much higher in the lazy present than it was in the studious days of yore…Lawrence Rosen
[Babcock and Marks:] If full-time college attendance requires a smaller time investment than it once did, then the recent increases in the return to college may be larger than was previously thought.
[Caplan:]Babcock and Marks could reply, of course, that the return to college would have been even greater if schools had maintained standards. But the more natural inference is that studying is mostly wasteful signaling. If one student cuts his effort by 40%, he gets low grades and looks bad. But students in general can still cut their effort by 40% without noticeably impairing their future productivity in the real world...
whether colleges have violated what is commonly known as the "prudent-investor rule."Mary Hennock
Colleges, like other institutions that operate in a trust relationship, have long been required to invest in a reasonably conservative way…
No one wants to return to an era when delegation and diversification are impermissible. And rules should not be constructed simply as a function of any one moment in the markets. But one may fairly ask whether a given institution has, in fact, used the care, skill, and caution required by the prudent-investor rule in choosing its investment professionals, and whether trustees have ignored warnings about their agents' decisions…
a new student survey, created and organized by Tsinghua University, one of the country's elite universities.
The survey, which was designed in collaboration with the influential National Survey of Student Engagement, based at Indiana University at Bloomington, asks what students think of their education and how they spend their time.
Forty-nine institutions participated this year, and confidential results of their students' responses will be given to them soon.
The results will enable administrators to pinpoint problems and identify reforms that might improve teaching styles, course materials, and students' overall enjoyment of campus life.
The administrators of NSSE China, as it is known, are also working on a national report that will be released publicly, to identify broader trends in student engagement.
How America Pays for College 2010: A national study by Sallie Mae and Gallup
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Links for 8/10/10
Mary Pilon
Consumers now owe more on their student loans than their credit cards.George Leef
Most managers now have college degrees and in the future a great majority will “require” postsecondary education. And yet, the data show that currently 18 percent of the people in this field have only finished high school and 2 percent more dropped out.Ben Miller
How do we explain that? How can people with less formal education than the work supposedly requires actually do the work?
The best explanation is that those individuals were hired before the credential mania started to engulf American business. I know someone like that. He finished high school in the mid-70s and went to work for an insurance company. He has risen to a senior management position, but his company now requires college degrees for positions of less responsibility than his. My friend couldn’t even get an interview for most entry-level positions today.
it is time to end the link between accreditors and federal student aid eligibility. There’s too much money the system is too complex to leave this function just to a small third-party agency. All of these finances and fraud concerns need to be handled at the national level by a separate group. (Whether that’s the Department of Education or someone else is up for discussion.) Either way, the end result should be a two-stage process that allows one agency to focus solely on learning and academics and the other to deal with finances, fraud, and the like...Bill Gates on the coming of online colleges:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
