Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday announced the creation of a panel of college presidents and other higher education leaders to advise the agency on issues related to international student recruitment, research, and other matters. Agency officials said the establishment of the committee reflected its officials' desire to work with college and university leaders. The panel's members are:
Joseph E. Aoun, president of Northeastern University
Carrie L. Billy, president of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
Walter G. Bumphus, president and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges
David M. Dooley, president of the University of Rhode Island
Royce C. Engstrom, president of the University of Montana
Antonio R. Flores, president and CEO of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
Rufus Glasper, chancellor of the Maricopa Community Colleges
Jay Gogue, president of Auburn University
Marlene M. Johnson, executive director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Eric W. Kaler, president of the University of Minnesota
R. Bowen Loftin, president of Texas A&M University
Wallace Loh, president of the University of Maryland at College Park
Gail O. Mellow, president of LaGuardia Community College
Ruby G. Moy, president and CEO of the Asian Pacific Islander American Association of Colleges and Universities
Hunter R. Rawlings III, president of the Association of American Universities
John Sexton, president of New York University
Rear Admiral Sandra Stosz, superintendent of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy
Dianne Boardley Suber, president of Saint Augustine’s College
Holden Thorp, chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Is there a college president out there who truly believes current ranking schemes are properly serving the educational needs of students and the espoused values of institutions? Are there presidents who think their institutions have benefited from using deep discounting to achieve status and rank? Is the mission of colleges to maximize net revenue, rank, status and prestige, or to provide quality educational opportunities to those who can benefit from the experience? Do our admission practices reflect and encourage the kinds of values and traits that educators are entrusted to foster in students?
Questions such as these have emerged from the research of dedicated educators and scholars and in reaction to recent reports of colleges falsifying data in order to improve rank. But while the consideration of such questions may encourage moral reasoning among college presidents, it does not necessarily lead them to act accordingly.
My own limited experiment in trying to foster movement beyond the pernicious influence of commercial rankings suggests that college presidents may act more responsibly if there is perceived opportunity in doing so, and that such courageous actions can make a difference.
Where one stands on this issue, however, is often influenced by where one sits – particularly with respect to the rankings. When news spread that a group of colleges had signed a letter pledging to boycott U.S. News & World Report college rankings, I received calls from two presidents at highly selective colleges saying they wanted to sign the letter but feared their trustees would not go along. Two Ivy League college officials also reported that while their presidents were reluctant to sign ultimatums, they agreed with the letter’s sentiments and would abide by its prescriptions by not cooperating with U.S. News.
Recent circumstances indicate that the U.S. News rankings enterprise is struggling, and it is increasingly relying on colleges to prop it up. The precipitous drop in reputational survey response among colleges has contributed to increasing skepticism about the rankings; the proliferation of other ranking schemes seems to be diluting the importance of any one; decreasing interest in rankings among parents and students affect magazine sales and website traffic. But there is money to be made from colleges using the U.S. News brand to advertise their rank! Troublingly, more than 70 percent of college admission representatives recently surveyed reported that their colleges use their U.S. News rank for marketing purposes despite an 80 percent agreement that rankings are misleading! Colleges that have instead decided to say no to U.S. News report that taking the educational high road is improving their educational stature: their stance on the rankings matters more than their standing in the rankings.
So, there is a different and encouraging narrative -- one supported by foundations, colleges and organizations. This path provides alternatives to the alarming reports of questionable behavior and poor educational returns associated with driving under the influence of the rankings. Here is a significant opportunity for college presidents to demonstrate the kind of leadership many colleges purport to instill in their students.
Below is a list of things college presidents can do to help steer our country to a better understanding and demonstration of educational quality than that represented by rankings.
Join other college leaders by pledging to sign the letter that first circulated a few years ago.
Agree to follow the actions prescribed in the letter: Do not complete reputation surveys, and do not use rank to promote your institution.
Help your trustees consider the educational impact of commercial rankings and the leadership opportunities for your institution to move beyond the influence of rankings.
Participate in evolving collaborative efforts to identify and deliver meaningful college information and helpful college selection guidance.
Someone once said, 'If we can’t trust our college and university leaders to do the right thing, then who can we trust?" A good friend once said, “Education is the crucible of hope.” The high level of public cynicism about higher education can and should be addressed by college presidents acting together to move beyond the influence of commercial rankings. Here is an opportunity for college presidents to demonstrate the kind of leadership many colleges purport to instill in their students.
These meetings, conferences, seminars and other events will be held in the coming weeks in and around higher education. They are among the many such that appear in our calendar, to which campus and other officials can submit their own events. Our site also includes a comprehensive catalog of job changes in higher education; please submit your news to both listings.
The University of Pennsylvania announced this week that its employee health plans would include an option that would cover sexual reassignment surgery for transgender employees. Covering such surgery is rare for higher education employers (and for many employers outside academe). The change was sought by student and employee groups at Penn.
WASHINGTON -- President Obama continues to make college affordability a key theme of his domestic policy agenda, but to tailor his message to his audience of the moment. On Monday, addressing the members of the National Governors Association, the president reiterated his views -- highlighted in last month's State of the Union address -- that higher education is increasingly important for individual Americans and for the country's economic future, and that rising prices threaten to put a postsecondary education out of reach for many. But while his speeches to campus leaders have focused on colleges' responsibility to contain their own costs and the prices they charge students (and federal carrots and sticks he might use to elicit that behavior), he used his appearance before the governors to reiterate his belief that states share significant culpability for driving up tuition prices.
"Nothing more clearly signals what you value as a state than the decisions you make about where to invest," President Obama said in urging the governors to "invest more in education." Describing the college affordability problem as a "shared responsibility," he said the administration has sought to do its part by significantly upping federal spending on Pell Grants and other student financial aid. But "[w]e can't just keep on, at the federal level, subsidizing skyrocketing tuition. If tuition is going up faster than inflation -- faster, actually, than health care costs -- then no matter how much we subsidize it, sooner or later we are going to run out of money. So everybody else is going to have to do their part as well."
The president repeated that he had put colleges and universities "on notice" that "if they are not taking some concrete steps to prevent tuition from going up, then federal funding from taxpayers is going to go down." But the states have to do their part by "making higher education a higher priority in your budgets," the president said. "Over two-thirds of students attend public colleges and universities where, traditionally, tuition has been affordable because of state investments.... But more than 40 states have cut funding for higher education over the past year. And this is just the peak of what has been a long-term trend in reduced state support for higher education. And state budget cuts have been among the largest factor in tuition hikes at public colleges over the past decade. So my administration can do more, Congress can do more, colleges have to do more. But unless all of you also do more, this problem will not get solved."
Robert L. Moran, director of federal relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said his members were heartened by the president's remarks. They signal, he said, that "just as he's keeping our feet to the fire" on controlling public colleges' costs and prices, "he's not backing off the message that he needs to keep the fire on the feet of the state legislators and governors, too, because if state support goes down, tuition goes up." The president has comparatively little sway over state policies or priorities, Moran said, so his rhetoric and use of the bully pulpit matters.
(Side note: While he did so subtly, the president appeared to directly rebut criticism that a potential opponent in November, Rick Santorum, aimed at Obama over the weekend. Santorum called the president a "snob" for, he said, suggesting that all Americans should go to college, saying that there are "good, decent men and women" proud that their skills were "not taught by some liberal college professor." Without identifying the former Republican senator, Obama told the governors that "[w]hen I speak about higher education, we’re not just talking about a four-year degree. We’re talking about somebody going to a community college and getting trained for that manufacturing job that now is requiring somebody walking through the door, handling a million-dollar piece of equipment. And they can’t go in there unless they’ve got some basic training beyond what they received in high school.")
Study finds larger gains than in previous year, with private institutions giving more than publics. Athletics administrators fared better than most others. For all sectors, inflation is outpacing raises.
The bill had bipartisan support when the Committee on Education and the Workforce voted on it in July, and has been supported by several higher education associations, including the American Council on Education and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. A related Senate measure, S. 1297, was introduced in June but has not yet been considered by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Support from Senate Democrats would be crucial for the measure to gain Congressional passage; it is not clear how aggressively the Obama administration would push to defeat the measure, or whether President Obama would veto it.
The Chicago Tribune published new details this weekend on the admissions scandal in which politicians pressured the University of Illinois to admit politically connected applicants to various programs. The Tribune exposed the "clout" system in 2009, but has been fighting for information on who actually benefited. The new article details the politicians involved (a bipartisan group) and details the number of requests made and how successful their beneficiaries were (generally more successful than most applicants). In many cases, the applicants had family or other ties to individuals or groups who were major donors to the politicians' campaigns.
Faculty leaders at the University of Illinois are circulating a petition calling for the removal of Michael Hogan as president of the university system, The News-Gazette reported. Faculty critics cite Hogan's push to centralize enrollment management decisions, and his "extraordinary bullying" of Phyllis Wise, chancellor of the Urbana-Champaign campus, whose e-mail messages reveal that Hogan did not think she was pushing her faculty members hard enough to back his views on enrollment management. The letter in circulation says of Hogan: "In our view he lacks the values, commitments, management style, ethics, and even manners, needed to lead this university, and his presidency should be ended at the earliest opportunity." A spokesman for the university system said that Hogan was not resigning and had "unwavering support" from the board.