Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

An Agenda Begins to Emerge

As the Education Department’s closely watched higher education commission continued its public deliberations Thursday, at its third open meeting, members of the panel shed light on some of the directions in which it might be heading, as its various subcommittees reported on the work they’ve been doing behind the scenes thus far.

The subcommittees of the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education all dealt with differing terrain — on such subjects as accessibility, affordability, quality, work force development, and accountability — and the conversation was, like many of the commission’s discussions, highly diffuse and disjointed. Still, some common patterns and areas of possible consensus emerged.

Foremost among them, with the recognition that they are preliminary:

  • Colleges and state and federal governments must do a far better job of making higher education available and affordable to all Americans, especially the most financially needy students and the increasing number who are adults. Possible recommendations for achieving this goal included strongly emphasizing need-based financial aid (and perhaps actively discouraging colleges and states from awarding aid based on merit); instituting incentives for colleges to control their costs and the prices they charge students; and encouraging lifelong learning, perhaps by making existing tax credits for such learning deductible or by creating new federal tax incentives for employers and employees to establish such accounts. (The commission’s “quality” task force, headed by James Duderstadt, the former University of Michigan president, called for the creation of transportable education savings accounts that would make lifelong learning available, “almost as a civil right,” to all Americans.)
  • Higher education institutions (collectively, with or without the government’s help) must be more “transparent” in collecting and giving the public useful information about their activities and their performance. Topics about which colleges should provide more and better information, the various panels suggested, are on their costs and prices, how their graduates fare in the employment market, and — here’s the biggie — their success in imparting knowledge and, more importantly, skills like critical thinking, to their students.

“We must do a better job of measuring institutional performance of colleges and universities,” said Charles Miller, the commission’s chairman. “Without a transparent information system, accountability today is only guessing.”

Miller said the commission was kicking around the possibility of creating a national “consumer friendly” index or “regime” containing a range of information about institutions’ performance. He emphasized that “none of these [ideas] are mandatory,” or would be imposed by the federal government.

But David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, many of whose member colleges are on edge about the prospect of federal directives to report complicated information in oversimplified ways, pressed the question. “Do you see a way of changing higher education by means of exhorting institutional reform? Or is there a sense of a regulatory agenda, whether we like it or not, because that is conceivably one way of getting there faster?”

Miller reiterated: “I don’t see any way to regulate it or mandate it. We can give it a lot of encouragement and notice. But I think [a lot of these changes] are going to happen even if we didn’t have a recommendation today,” because students and families, policy makers, and employers are increasingly demanding such information, he said.

The rest of Thursday’s meeting, which took place in San Diego, was focused on “innovation” in higher education. The conversation, which included discussion of how well higher education was serving industry and new ways of delivering instruction, such as online learning (which focused on Western Governors, Kaplan, and Capella Universities), largely turned into a debate about the pros and cons of the for-profit higher education sector and how its behavior might inform the commission’s work.

A panel of Wall Street analysts and investors offered a largely upbeat assessment of for-profit institutions, particularly for investors but also for students. Much of the praise focused on such traits of for-profit institutions as the ability to nimbly change curriculums and to measure whether every dollar they spend is producing a favorable return, financially and otherwise. Trace Urdan, the senior research analyst at R.W. Baird, compared those approaches favorably to what he called the “Soviet style factories” of some public institutions (which didn’t go over well with Charlene Nunley, president of Montgomery College, who in defending the performance of community colleges, icily identified herself as “president of a Soviet style factory.”

Howard Block, managing director and senior research analyst at Banc of America, agreed that for-profit institutions have proven to be a phenomenal success for investors, and acknowledged that as an analyst, he has bullishly promoted them as an investment, because of their scale, the access to higher education that they provide, particularly to adult students, and their innovation. But “as a citizen,” Block said, “I harbor great concerns about these companies,” because for-profit companies often “are not enhancing the quality of education” available to American students, “nor are they sufficiently accountable.”

Block said he worried about students who enrolled at for-profit institutions, often accumulating significant debt in the process, in the sometimes mistaken expectation that they could parlay that institution into a better job and a higher wage. While he urged more accurate reporting on students’ job outcomes, Block said the institutions are not entirely to blame for the problem. “Society shares much of the blame,” he said, because “we constantly tout the wage premium for higher education,” but not every degree or other academic credential necessarily helps graduates get a leg up.

He added: “For-profits are overselling the promise of education because society is overselling it for them.”

The commission continues its meeting today.

Doug Lederman

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

It would be interesting to know just how many members of the Commission actually have classroom teaching experience and really do understand the dynamics and responsibility of that environment. Higher education and all of its constituents will be much better served by the Commission and its eventual report be informed by those who actually do the work of providing fine teaching and learning to college students.

Daniel Larson, at 8:45 am EST on February 3, 2006

An Agenda Begins to Emerge

A response to the first comment. Does it matter whether those recommending more accountability have experience in higher education? I’m suprised by critics who are in higher education who resist or even mock any calls for more transaperancy. Their responses usually range in “No. It cannot be done,” followed by “but just give us more money.” Parents and their childeren should have even more information in many areas, not be satisfied with what colleges provide now.

Manuel Arredondo, Coordinator at UT-Pan American, at 9:55 am EST on February 3, 2006

A bit of a disconnect

1. The notion that only graduates of for-profit institutions are burdened with massive debt is ridiculous. Ironically, many for-profits are less expensive than the heavily subsidized non-profits.

2. Equally goofy is the idea that graduates of for-profit institutions are less likely to gain employment than graduates of non-profits. One of the chief distinctions between the two sectors is that for-profits tend to be more career oriented. Would that we all had the means and the leisure to pursue a life of the mind exclusively, a pursuit seldom found in for-profits.

I see no negative side to requiring both sectors to make public their rates of completion and placement. My career is in for-profit education, but as it happens, both of my children attend non-profit institutions and it is shocking to me that universities don’t even know where their graduates end up. (They are certainly aware of their dismal rates of completion, however, because of the financial impact on the institution, largely at the expense of the beleaguered taxpayers.)

Can we please put down the pitchforks and torches and admit that both sectors have some work to do?

Tad Handley, at 10:02 am EST on February 3, 2006

An Agenda Begins to Emerge

How ironic is it, that the Department of Education wants Institutions to make college more affordable while just this week Congress passed a bill to increase interest rates on both Student Loans and Parent Loans making college less affordable?

Just something to ponder!!!

Ms. Camacho, at 11:21 am EST on February 3, 2006

Responsibility

Ms. Camacho, the irony is all on the side of the universities. Rather than learn how to balance their budgets and cut costs, they have tried to push the ever rising cost on to the shoulders of the taxpayers. Its not ironic at all that they should ask their representatives to rethink their support for the neverending rise in costs and the feeling of entitlement to the funds that the taxpayers have worked for.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 2:55 pm EST on February 3, 2006

Tad,

The problem with for-profits at the moment is that they are widely regarded as inferior, because people are under the impression that they award degrees to students because based on the student’s ability to write a check. (This may be true about some conventional schools, but most people don’t think this.) As a result, many employers look at for-profit credentials with disdain, and many families (including my own) consider it unworthy for a member to attend such an institution. Indeed, while many people at liberal arts schools (and research universities) care greatly about their careers, “career oriented” is usually considered a buzzword for courses that won’t give someone the tools to become an elite in our country.

Otherwise, I agree, Transparency is always great. But, perhaps more specifics are required as to what kind of transparacy might exist. I would like to see more personal data made available about admissions decisions. I think that schools that receive federal funding should have to disclose the 25th and 75th percentile of GPAs and test scores, and the names of everyone in the bottom, so people can tell if they just got in because of who their parents are. There is no reason that people that regulate must have teaching experience.

Larry, at 3:05 pm EST on February 3, 2006

Try Google — I hear it works

“It would be interesting to know just how many members of the Commission actually have classroom teaching experience ..”

Darn .. this Google thing does seem to work ..

http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/09/20/spellings

Sweet Mary and Joseph .. going over the basics can take forever .. A. Jolie, please take me now ..

Bart J., at 4:00 pm EST on February 3, 2006

Accountability in PhD production

At a time, when the percentage of students of working-class origin in medical schools has dropped 50% —

http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/birth_origins_articles.htm

Is the PhD glut some form of institutional/ cultural idiocy? Self-torture? Both?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05...=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north427.html

Greater access to higher ed for the working-class? More accountability by higher ed? Heck, yes — it’s way overdue.

This starts all the way back. It is about FAMILY support for a student/child — not how many union benefits are generated.

Waiting for a student to arrive at Big Sports U to fix academic problems related to a dysfunctional family background is at least ten times more expensive.

Art D., Working-class guy at Working-class college, at 8:10 am EST on February 5, 2006

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to An Agenda Begins to Emerge

or search for jobs directly.

Director of Facilites Operations
SUNY College of Technology at Alfred

Nestled in a beautiful valley in the western Southern Tier of New York State, Alfred State College has a long tradition of ... see job

Visual Resources Curator
Princeton University

Position Summary: Responsible for all daily operations of audio-visual use at the School of Architecture: ... see job

Adjunct Faculty — Business
Harrisburg Area Community College

HACC, a leader in education in Central PA, is a comprehensive, multi-campus community college, providing quality instruction ... see job

Open Rank Faculty
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora

Posting Description: The School of Public Affairs (SPA) at the University of Colorado Denver seeks ... see job

Assistant Professor of Sociology
James Madison University

Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job

Dissertation Fellowships
Five Colleges, Incorporated

Five College Dissertation Fellowships see job

Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor-Organic Chemistry
NC State University

Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job

Statistics Adjunct Faculty Pool
Howard Community College

This posting is on ongoing pool. The department is currently seeking to fill vacancies in mathematics for the Fall 2006 ... see job

Staff Software Developer
University of Colorado

Posting Description: I. Position Identification Professional Research Assistant, PRA, at the University of ... see job

Research Associate
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The Research Associate for the Measurement, Learning, and Evaluation (MLE) Project, a six-year project to evaluate urban ... see job