Back to the future

Throughout the semester, I have been looking at articles about the current state of higher education, and the financing of it. As instructed by our professor, I have focused primarily on articles that have been written in the past few years; most within the past year.

But now, I’m interested in taking a look backwards. I have heard the famous quote; often attributed to Georges Santayana, but sometimes cited as coming from Edmund Burke, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

So, I wondered – how long have some of the prognostications about crises in higher education financing been around? Well, I found an article by Henry Wriston, President of Brown University (at the time) titled “ How to Finance Higher Education in the Future” written in 1955 in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

What strikes me about Dr. Wriston’s work is the extent to which so much of it could just as easily be written today. He complains about student’s lack of writing skills, the need to use more technology, the need to do away with the classic lecture/textbook method of instruction and the need for students to engage in more group work.

He also discusses the costly nature of accreditation and the need to assess what students actually learn, rather than what the institution offers. Amazingly, only 56 years later, it appears that WASC (and presumably other accrediting bodies as well) are finally coming around to that notion.

It makes me scratch my head in wonderment, that universities are supposed to be the place of innovation and forward thinking and new knowledge, but in many ways we are stuck in a sort of bureaucratic purgatory, having a sense of what may lead us to the great beyond, but still not sure if the beyond is heaven or hell.

Along with his proposals mentioned above, Wriston also hopes for greater corporate donations to institutions of higher learning. Together with new technologies, better pedagogy and more efficiency on campus, this should all solve the financing of higher ed, right?

 
But no, here we are 56 years later with all these things and more, and higher ed is more expensive than ever.

What next, Dr. Wriston?

Open Source Education: Free for all, or freeforall?

Open Source Education

I was thinking about this in Statistics class recently, when our instructor was discussing the institution’s attempt to cut costs by moving away from expensive software and seeking out open source (in other words; FREE) materials. In a time of constrained budgets and expensive licensing agreements, this makes sense. In the case of that classroom, the specific effort is to move away from programs such as SPSS (and presumably SAS) which charge large amounts for licensing their software on a college campus and finding open source material that is free for the institution and the students.

In looking up this a little more, I found this organizations website: http://www.saylor.org/about/

The mission of Saylor.org as noted on their website:

"Our Vision, Our Mission, Our Strategy

We believe that everyone, everywhere should have access to a college education. This website will serve as a zero-cost alternative to those that lack the resources to attend traditional brick-and-mortar institutions and, if they are willing, a complement to mainstream education providers."

This is a radical notion that could change the idea of access to college education worldwide. At the moment, I can already think of ways that I can use it to help our low income students finish out their degrees. Routinely, I will tell students about completing some of their general ed requirements via the CLEP exam (http://clep.collegeboard.org/). It’s the fastest, cheapest way to get college credits. Go in, take an exam in the subject of your choice, and voila, college credits (fi your school accepts them, which we do). CLEP sells study guides fairly cheaply, but I can see students taking advantage of saylor.org and not even having to pay for the study guide. It may not get them all the way to a degree, but it can significantly reduce the time and expense if someone is willing to put in the time to learn what they can through this avenue.

The potential problem, as always, is “who will take advantage of this first, and to what degree?” One can only surmise that those who already have some wealth, and access to high speed internet will be the first to notice, and most likely to utilize this source. How do we get this information to the people who need it the most? Ahh, the great conundrum of higher education providers since the beginning of higher ed….

Majors and unemployment

This week’s blog is on two articles that are hardly articles. Well, one is an article in the traditional sense, the other is just a slide show with statistics, but in our visual world, I guess that passes in some quarters for an article.

Anyway, the first article is “The 10 college majors with the lowest unemployment rates” found on Yahoo news. The really good news for this class? Educational Administration is on the list with a 0 percent unemployment rate. The other interesting thing? Most of the top 10 are in the scientific or medical fields, so it’s obviously a wise move for little Chaminade to go into the nursing education business. Another interesting thing is that school counseling is listed among those with the lowest unemployment rate, but in the slideshow on the majors with the highest unemployment rates (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/the-11-majors-with-the-hi_n_1081625.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003), different types of psychology show up as majors with high unemployment, most notably Educational Psychology. How is is that educational psychology has a high unemployment rate but school counseling does not?

I wondered how many universities will look at this information and decide to alter their offerings based on these scant reports. And how many faculties, especially those in the humanities and psychology, will argue that colleges are not just employment factories meant to feed the corporate machine. While I’m reading this, I’m also listening to the TV in the other room as my wife watches an Oprah episode that specifically addresses young Americans and skyrocketing debt.

I’m thinking about how often that in my advising capacities I’ll tell young people that they should follow their passions and study what they enjoy. Is that the right message?

Have we engaged in an unhealthy  indulgence of America’s young generation when we sell college as an experience and give them the idea that they can do anything they want, and major in whatever they want and it will all turn out okay? Are we serving some higher purpose to ensure that the next generation has critical thinkers and poets and protesters? Or are we engaged in some irresponsible advising when we are not honest about a student’s ability to pay debts and pay for necessities such as housing and food?

Just in case you’re interested, here are the majors from the article with the lowest unemployment rates. I have a friend who is an actuary. He is insanely wealthy.

Majors and their unemployment rates:

1. Actuarial Science—0 percent

2. Astronomy and Astrophysics—0 percent
3. Educational Administration and Supervision—0 percent
4. Geological and Geophysical Engineering—0 percent
5. Pharmacology – 0 percent
6. School Student Counseling—0 percent
7. Agricultural Economics—1.3 percent
8. Medical Technologies Technicians—1.4 percent
9.Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology—1.6 percent
10. Environmental Engineering, Nursing, and Nuclear Industrial Radiology and Biological Technologies—2.2 percent

Higher education finance in Chile

Chronicle of Higher Education

October 16, 2011”In Chile, Students' Anger at Tuition Debt Fuels Protests and a National Debate” By Andrew Downie

This article seems to sum up the entire first half of our class. It’s the tuition debate in real life, real time. While we are witnessing something historic in the occupy wall street protests here in the USA, it’s very interesting that students in Chile are willing to protest on a national level for decreases in tuition.

At first glance it appears that higher education is already relatively cheap in Chile, but the article does point out that a big part of the problem for the Chilean government and the students is the massive increase in demand, from 250,000 college students in 1990 to over a million now. It’s easy to see why the public institutions are looking for ways to handle the demand.

However, even with the country’s recent economic successes, the minimum wage in Chile is about $4300 per year. Of course, one question that easily comes to mind is whether or not college graduates are making only minimum wage. Just an aside, but it always bothers me when a journalist will cherry pick the numbers to exaggerate their case. In this case, they compare “top universities that charge $8000 per year” with “minimum wage”. That sounds ominously like comparing the high end of the distribution curve on one side with the low end on another (my apologies for the stats jargon, that’s what I get for taking stats this semester). It would make much more sense (but perhaps wouldn’t be as exciting) to compare the true means of both curves.

Anyway, back to the point – what is interesting about this is the level of public support that students are getting from Chilean society, even shop owners whose businesses are being affected by the protests.

It does appear that Chileans are not necessarily looking for a free ride for everyone, just a fair shot at education for the lower and middle classes, who are new to the world of higher education in that country, and are apparently being saddled with huge debt. I worry about our own American students who are in similar financial situation.

One more thing – anyone notice the reference to “banging pots in Santiago? Those interested in Chilean history will recognize that as a form of protest used in 1971 against the government of Salvador Allende. Back then it was a right wing effort to bring down a left wing government. Today it is viewed as a more left wing approach to demand change from, as the article notes “the first right wing government in a generation.” My, how table do turn sometimes

Flipping classrooms

Flipped Classrooms

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-10-06/flipped-classrooms-virtual-teaching/50681482/1

This weeks blog is about a website that my wife showed me, www.khanacademy.org. It’s one of the most amazing things I’ve ever seen. I’m already using it to help me with my statistics work, and I’m showing it to every student who comes to my office expressing difficulty with math. If you get a chance to watch Salman Khan discussing the website on www.ted.com, do so, because it’s amazing.

Perhaps the most innovative part is the concept of “taking negative feelings” out of the learning process. What Khan means by that is the hesitancy of students to ask questions in class, lest they feel stupid, or feel like they are incapable of understanding. One cannot, for example, pause or rewind an instructor in the middle of a lecture, but they can do so with a video recorded lecture as often as they want to.

What does this have to do with higher education finance? Well, currently, not much. But if we peer into the future a bit, could this potentially create a situation where institutions (both higher and lower education) cut costs by eliminating faculty and simply have students watch videos of material and come in for the occasional tutorial and test of their knowledge? Could it lead to a situation where campuses have much less need for the “brick and mortar” of an institution and go fully toward a future where technology is the teacher and the rest of us are merely administrative assistants?

If students are able to get virtually all the content they need from internet videos and teachers in the classroom merely moderate problem solving sessions, what will it mean in the future to be a teacher? It’s exciting and scary at the same time.

Pittsburgh, meet Rwanda.

“Carnegie Mellon Plans to Build Campus in Rwanda”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/world/americas/carnegie-mellon-plans-to-build-campus-in-rwanda.html?ref=internationaleducation

This was a small piece in the New York Times International Education section, but considering our class discussions about the problems of offering quality education in relatively poor countries and the seeming impossibility of engaging in the kind of cost sharing the places more burden on students in  a place like Rwanda, this seems like an interesting option.

The article discusses Carnegie Mellon’s plans to open a campus in Rwanda in 2012, which would offer “courses…open to anyone worldwide, not just Rwandan students.” It also mentions that it will offer degrees that are “indistinguishable” from those offered at Carnegie Mellon.

The questions I have: How will the degree in Rwanda be priced? Will it be done in such a way so that Rwandan students can truly afford it? Will Carnegie Mellon students in the USA be subsidizing these efforts with their tuition dollars? Or, in effect, have they already? If so, this takes the idea of cost sharing to new levels of thinking. American students may be asked to cover not only a higher share of their own tuition, but also that of the students of other nations.

One could easily argue that the people of Rwanda are owed something by the world that turned a blind eye to the tragedy there in 1994. For a detailed account of how monstrous the betrayal was, read “We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories From Rwanda” by Philip Gourevitch.

Nonetheless – I can’t help but be curious about where the money is coming from for this venture and who is ultimately paying the price.

Greek Tragedy

           This week’s blog is about the Chronicle article from August 24, 2011 “Amid Protests, Greece Enacts Bill Meant to Make Universities More Competitive” By Aisha Labion. The protests in Greece are a response to proposed reforms to the higher education system. In the face of European concerns about mismanagement of the Greek economy, the public higher education community is being called upon to make reforms in the way they operate.

The arguments that the reformers make are good ones; that Greek higher education is not viewed very well in other parts of Europe. It is highly inefficient and the best students routinely leave the country to study elsewhere and steps need to be taken to make Greek education more competitive. The arguments of those opposing reform are apparently from the same playbook that they have been using for decades: any reform is a step toward privatization, even if the government says it’s not, and all privatization in higher education is bad.

What struck me about this article is the depth of the notion in Greece that any privatization, no matter how small, is absolutely unacceptable. In the US and in many countries throughout Europe, privatization is viewed as a tool that can conceivably fill in the gaps where public institutions can’t reach, or at least can’t reach very well. I’m not saying that argument is always true, just that it is used fairly often by supporters. Private institutions in the US flourish, even in difficult times, although there is legitimate debate about whether students are getting what they are really paying for and/or getting what they need from the experience. What I find interesting is the sense that it appears some in Greece are not even willing to consider the possibility that a private institution might fare well. I wonder if someone will come along and build a private college in Greece, just to see how it does. What also strikes me is the seeming intransigence of it all. It’s like someone being surrounded by flood waters, reaching up to their neck but refusing to listen to those who say “move your arms and legs and start swimming” just because standing still has worked so well for them for so long.

It made me think about the parallels to some political battles in our own country. Whenever a group of people, experiencing a personal benefit through the “system”, have that benefit threatened, they will fight vigorously to maintain it, perhaps even at the cost of society overall. In the case of the US, any attempt to tax the wealthy at a higher rate, or hold Wall Street executives accountable for excessive greed and mismanagement are met with cries of “that’s socialism”, even if it’s not. In Greece, the evil bogeyman is “privatization”; even if it’s not. It appears that reformers of any stripe, in any place, will be challenged by those who benefit from the status quo.

Corporations Cashing in

This week's blog is about an article I read in the New York Times September 11th edition. The title is "On Campus, It's One Big Commercial". In a nutshell, the article discussed how companies such as American Eagle Outfitters and Target are using students to market their products or services, but to do so in a brilliant (if you support it) or devious (if you don't) way. On large campuses, representatives from these companies will in some ways take the role that campus orientation leaders usually take in assisting students with directions, checking in, making sure they have everything they need, etc.

I must admit that I had some conflicting emotions as I read this. The academic in me that sees a college campus as perhaps the last stand against the tide of commercialism was dismayed at this intrusion of capitalists in a place that should be a shield from the onslaught.

The administrator in me wondered "how can we get in on some of this action, and perhaps use it to our advantage".

The entrepreneur in me wondered "how can I get involved in this, and perhaps utilize it for a future idea of my own"? Terrible, I know. But I had to admit I had such thoughts.

The fascinating quotes from college officials admitted that the institutions involved were not handling this new situation very adeptly, but I can't help but wonder if, in the face of budget problems there may be an effort in the future to tap into this commercial effort for the benefit of the institution (and of course the inevitable arguments that will follow regarding how much of college is being taken over by the creep of corporate influence.

I'm not sure yet where I'll land in this argument. I'm sure the internal dialogue will continue.

Curtis 9-18-11

All politics are local

This week's article of interest for me was the one from the September 2nd Chronicle of Higher Education. Here's the link: http://chronicle.com/article/In-Nevada-Harsh-Economic/128806/

In brief, the article mentions the diminishing funding for higher education in the state of Nevada over the past three years, due in large part to the economic meltdown in the gaming industry in Las Vegas which has driven the state's tax revenues. Less gamblers equals less taxes equals less revenues equals less funding for higher ed. Completely makes sense right?

But my conspiratorial little mind focused in on an interesting statistical element to that article. It mentiond that Las Vegas was near the bottom of the country in terms of 25-64 year old job holders in the local economy who held bachelor's degrees. Translated another way, one traditionally has not needed higher education to get a paying job in Las Vegas, or presumably other parts of the state that rely on tourism and casinos.

Here's where my political speculation comes in....one can only imagine that in such a location, with the gaming industry holding such power in determining the state's financial priorities, that not only is higher education not a top priority, is it perhaps a source of agitation to many powerful interests in the state. I can only imagine that among the academics in Nevada are included those faculty who study such things as the addictive nature of gambling and the social cost of enabling that addiction in so many new gamblers. Is it possible that the faculty who conduct such research were among the first to face "unfortunate budget cuts that have cost you your job"? The article didn't really go there, but I can't help but wonder....

College dropouts and lost tax revenue

A few weeks ago, listening to NPR on the way into work, I heard a report on the amount of money lost to taxpayers and governments when students drop out of college. I've been searching for that story on NPR but just can't find it. Apparently though, it is based on this report.
http://www.air.org/news/index.cfm?fa=viewContent&content_id=1405

There are two issues that I have with this report. One is a pet peeve of mine and the other is what I think of as some basic economic assumption problems.

First, the pet peeve - it is often reported that only about 50% of students who enter college graduate within 6 years. That statistic always drives me a little crazy. The true reporting should say "about 50% of students graduate from the school in which they start". Most schools do not keep track of transfers, only their entering new student fall cohorts. I attended a retention symposium last year in which Dr. Donald Hossler of the National Student Clearinghouse noted that the true graduation rate is much higher, perhaps over 70%. In retention we should not be asking if a student comes back to our school for their 2nd (and 3rd and 4th) year. We should be asking if they come back to any school.

The other issue - the "lost money in taxes" makes one giant assumption - that there are high paying jobs just waiting for those students when they get out of school. A 9.1% unemployment rate in the country suggests otherwise.

One more thing to think about. I was talking to my brother recently who was thinking about his chosen profession (computer science) and how it has changed since he graduated college back in the early 80s. His lament is that when he was a student, companies cared very much that a prospective employee finished a college degree in computer science. But now, when he looks around the landscape of the profession, he finds that many companies simply don't care about the degree. They care about certification in a specific skill (either a programming language or software package).

I'm not suggesting that college dropouts are not costly to the country on a variety of levels. I am saying that the issue is a bit more complex than the article would have us believe.

Curtis 9-3-11