Search News


Browse Archives

News

Warning From a Friend

January 31, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

As colleges and universities have come under heavy scrutiny from politicians in the nation's capital in the last year or so, Sen. Lamar Alexander at times has seemed like one of the few friends higher education has on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. He has opposed attempts by the U.S. Education Department to draft regulations on higher education accreditation, pushed hard for additional funds for science research, and consistently complained about federal overregulation of postsecondary institutions.

So it's probably not surprising, the Tennessee senator said, that he was asked to deliver the keynote speech Wednesday at the annual meeting of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, given his status as "apparently your chief defender," as he described himself to the 300 college administrators, professors and accrediting officials in the audience.

If the college officials thought Alexander would serenade them about how wonderful they are, they were mistaken.

It's not that he endorses some of the grief being directed their way by some of his Congressional colleagues and the Bush administration; he reiterated his opposition to what he characterized as the Education Department's attempt to "federalize" accreditation, and did not hide his disdain for proposals by Senate colleagues to require colleges to spend a mimimum proportion of their endowments each year, to help make college more affordable.

"If the [Senate] Finance Committee really wants tuition not to rise so fast, they should spend time reforming Medicaid," since states are having to spend money on health care that they should be spending on educating their residents, Alexander said.

But Alexander said colleges have themselves to blame, in large part, for what he called the "communications gap" that leads his colleagues to some mistaken assumptions -- and in turn some flawed policy conclusions -- about American higher education.

"Congress simply doesn't understand the importance of autonomy, excellence and choice" in higher education, "and the higher education community hasn't bothered to explain it in plain English to members who need to hear it and understand it," Alexander said.

It is also not well understood, he said, that "a primary reason that tuition has been rising is that state funding has been flat."

College leaders need to do a better job explaining to members of Congress some of the ways they are working to "be more efficient and spend money wisely," andhow they are rewarding innovation and educating students. "You should also talk about the importance of autonomy in higher education. Say, 'Mr. Congressman, we shouldn't have to fill out five boxes of regulations in order to qualify for federal loans.' "

It's not that lawmakers are wrong to impose scrutiny on colleges, the senator said. "When you've got Congress telling colleges how to spend their endowments, and trying to federalize the accreditation system, something's wrong," he said. "What is not wrong is that Congress is asking questions about how they spend tens of billions of dollars.... How would you like to come up here as a member of Congress, appropriate billions and billions [to colleges and universities in financial aid and research grants], and then have the higher education community say, 'Don't ask any questions about it'?"

He added: "I'm here today as a friend, convinced that higher education is our secret weapon" to "keep our jobs from going to China and India and other countries.... But I need you to help me persuade the entire Congress of that fact."

Alexander was followed to the podium by someone who many of them probably have not viewed as a friend: Richard K. Vedder, an Ohio University economist who was on the education secretary's Commission on the Future of Higher Education and has criticized higher education's financial structure, among other things.

But while some in the audience were probably expecting an attack dog, that's not what they got from Vedder's stand-up routine -- er, speech. Disarming the crowd with (sometimes off-color) humor and his clear passion for teaching, developed over 43 years in the academy, as he noted repeatedly, Vedder urged the crowd to take seriously the Spellings panel's call for giving the public more information about their operations to ward off potential harm from Alexander's colleagues in Congress.

"You've got to pay attention to transparency, or Senator Alexander's admonition will come true -- the government people will get on your backs, and you don't want that," he said. "If you adhere to the spirit of the Spellings Commission's report, you can avoid truly disastrous forms of intervention. I'm on your side -- I'm one of you."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Warning From a Friend

  • Lamar's mysterious conversion
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on January 31, 2008 at 11:45am EST
  • While it may not have had the magnitude of a religious conversion, Sen. Alexander's transformation into a higher ed guildsman remains something of a mystery.

    After spearheading the transformation of accreditation that became law in HEA 1992, and proposing state program review entities (SPREs) that would enable the states to check up on institutional quality, Lamar Alexander has since made a 180-degree reversal.

    In the process, as this article notes, he became the higher ed man in Congress, but at the expense of his former consumer focus.

    Perhaps the reasons for this are not so mysterious after all -- when Congress repealed the SPREs in 1998 and gave in, it was in the face of a massive outpouring of newly mobilized political pressure from the accrediting guilds and their member institutions.

    But from the taxpayers' point of view, he is mistaken; and however better attuned to the political environment he may think he is, Sen. Alexander is now clearly caught between the growing need for accountabilty, and his newer loyalties.

  • "Newer loyalties"?
  • Posted by Damon D. Hickey , Director of Libraries at The College of Wooster on January 31, 2008 at 1:45pm EST
  • This is, after all, the same Lamar Alexander who, before he became a U.S. Senator, was President of the University of Tennessee and, before that, the education-minded Governor of Tennessee.

  • "Loyalities" doesn't dilute the message
  • Posted by Norma Houston on January 31, 2008 at 2:20pm EST
  • Regardless of the origin and longevity of Senator Alexander's loyalties and positions, his message is both clear and accurate. There is indeed a wide communications gap between higher education and legislative bodies both at the federal and state level. The language of each culture is virtually foreign to the other. It is critical that higher education work to close this gap not only in Washington, but also at the state level.

  • University Costs
  • Posted by James conley on February 1, 2008 at 9:40am EST
  • Tuition costs have risen faster than cost of living for decades. Parents and the supporting agencies should want to know why. An important question is: Is education worth it, and how does the effectiveness of University A compare with University B?
    I've asked several University friends why they can't compare Universities. They say it's too complicated. Simple as that.

  • Alexander Grossly Understates the Issues
  • Posted by R. Vance , IT Manager at SBCC on February 1, 2008 at 9:40am EST
  • Sorry Governor, but the problem is not a communications gap that can be resolved by better marketing. Starting with a false premise really does hurt your arguments. Americans observe (correctly I might add) that higher education has adopted political and moral stands that are quite different from the majority culture. Parents worry about sending their children and their money (including taxes) to institutions which proselytize for ideas which they find repugnant, and I'm not talking about creationism folks.

    If universities really want "autonomy" they need to stay away from government money. No taxpayer is going to write them a blank check - nor should they. The leftwing trivia which is now standard fare in the social sciences is another reason why the public is not buying the notion that higher education should have a different standard of accountability than any other human institution.

    The American people would very much like their colleges and universities to be centers of "excellence." It turns out, unfortunately, that the cutting edge research which being touted, happens in a small fraction of the ivory tower. The vast bulk of academia's output is politically correct drek. This is no service to the public and another reason why standards are being imposed from outside the ivied halls.

    As to higher education's need for "choice," what does that really mean? Using a buzzword like choice which has largely been rendered meaningless by overuse, does not make Alexander's case. Choice for whom and for what? For employees of higher education? For taxpayers, parents or students? All of the above?

    Accountability, nonpartisanship and openness are my prescription for what ails higher ed. Perhaps even to the separation of university and state. If educators believe their contributions are so valuable, then public will certainly pay for market based education. Won't they? I truly doubt that the majority of public employee teachers and administrators have the courage of that conviction.

    What Governor Alexander has given you is nothing like the real state of nature. Can universities deal with the harsher reality that exists apart from your few advocates and your employees? Deal with it or be ready for much more intrusive regulation. Perhaps we need a Sarbanes-Oxley for higher ed? Hmmm?

  • Posted by Richard Roark on February 1, 2008 at 9:45am EST
  • His statements sound like a request for MORE lobbying money to be spent by those big endowments. Almost like the protection racket, isn't it?

  • Posted by Ted Hales on February 1, 2008 at 9:55am EST
  • Since Universitiesa use standardised testing to admit students, it is odd that they oppose same in evaluating their competence in their own profession. Claiming that their effectiveness cannot be measured by standardized tests is ludicrous. Bar exam anyone?

    If Colleges and Universities want to show that they are spending their money wisely, they can start by shutting down the various neo-Marxist enthno and gyno-centric "studies" departments that are little more than indoctrination programs for radical leftwing ideology and sinecures for academic Marxists and their fellow travelers. Put the money saved into scholarship programs for legitimate academic fields or reduce tuition across the board accordingly.

    While I admire higher education in principle, I won't set foot on any College Campus that engages in such consumer fraud. Because that's what it is: fraud. Colleges need to clean up their act on these issues or they will face more and more calls from the public and their Representatives for outside oversight.

  • Posted by Mike on February 1, 2008 at 10:20am EST
  • Given that Universities are havens for those tearing down the values that made this a great country, I am waiting for the politician to arise that wants to dismantle the universities, save the scientific/technical portion and defund all humanities professors. He will get my vote and campaign help and money. I hope this is only the beginning of pain for our institutions of higher decadence and perversion.

  • Posted by JohnMc on February 1, 2008 at 10:35am EST
  • R.Vance placed the issue squarely in his post. I will only add to his observations.

    - Disassemble activities not germain to the function of learning. Especially speech codes, show trials, and harassment. The university should if it feels compelled to act should take its case to a court adjudicated by the State. For which they will find that much of the activities they have been supporting will be stuck down.

    - Provide transparency. Show where the funds are coming from and going. Don't know how? Go look at a corporate 10K/10Q and annual report. Emulate it.

    - Take a first step. Eliminate speakers fees. A University is a place of renown and an invitation from any should be considered an honor not an income stream. Reduce the student activity fees accordingly. It is insane that someone like a John Edwards would be paid $40k to show up to speak.

  • Free markets work
  • Posted by PD Quig on February 1, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • Costs are rising in higher education directly in response to subsidies. Grants, loans, free money all increase demand artificially and raise costs. Not many institutions manage their budgets with anything approaching the care needed in the private sector. They do not have to.

  • Posted by Lysis Strata on February 1, 2008 at 11:45am EST
  • The comments above reflect either a shocking or a willfull ignorance of American higher education. Someone claims "the vast output of higher ed is politically correct drek." No, actually, the vast *output* of higher ed is teaching.

    Often, that vast output is to teach lazy and underprepared American students who've been given gold stars for barely literate high-school work. If those students finish college able to find their places in the increasingly complex American economy, it's fair to say that higher ed has indeed done the community a service.

    Moreover, few colleges rely wholly upon standardized tests for admissions. Why not? Because SAT/ACT do not measure what students have learned in high school, nor do they accurately predict success over four years of college. So the resistance to a standardized exit exam from college is not inconsistent.

    And what exactly are you going to test? Some institutions privilege international awareness; others, fine arts. Some institutions emphasize the liberal arts and humanities; others, technological excellence. Very easy to make a one-size-fits-all test, eh? A bit like No Child Left Behind. Like our president says -- as if it's a good thing -- being in school is about learning to pass tests. Let's dumb down college the same way!!!

  • Question
  • Posted by Richard Cook , n/a at n/a on February 1, 2008 at 12:05pm EST
  • Question: as long as colleges and universities accept federal monies the feds view it as their right to set certain goals the colleges need to meet and to investigate when they want to for whatever reason they want to. Basically to use the colleges as a political platform anytime they want to. The colleges may explain things but the Feds aren't interested. If its necessary to drum up som cheap political points the colleges are there to provide a platform for them. Maybe without the consent of the colleges but there none the less. That is what I get in a broad brush way from all of this.

  • Personal Observations of the Academy
  • Posted by R. Vance at SBCC on February 1, 2008 at 2:10pm EST
  • Ms. Strata,

    Willful ignorance? No, personal observation. My comments represent my experiences after returning to work in higher education after a 25 year professional career in the private sector. My work at internationally reputed engineering R&D centers does tend to calibrate one with regard to the quality of faculty research. I stand by my statement.

    The quality of teaching is shockingly bad at many public universities even judged without reference to the political correctness of the subject matter. Cattle call freshman calculus class with 350 other students taught by a non-native English speaker? God help the poor kids. Thank goodness the internet is going to destroy that paradigm. Take a look here for a peek at the future.
    http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm
    Lazy and under prepared students come from lazy and under prepared teachers who are statistically proven to be derived from the least capable college students. Stop blaming parents and start inspiring students. That is what teachers are paid to do.

    Colleges don't rely on wholly on standardized tests for admissions because the result would be colleges full of asians and whites. Blacks and hispanics wouldn't make the cut. This is of course, quite inflammatory to say, but it is true nonetheless. There are many reasons why, not the least of which is our dysfunctional government K-12 education system. Why do you think the UC system opted out of the NMQT for academic merit based financial aid two years ago, except it didn't yield a politically correct ratio of awards?

    As to exit exams, the GRE provides one good model along with other professional exams such as the LSAT, and so on. Easy to implement, statistically valid and impartial. College has been dumbed down, and they way back is through objective standards and accountability.

  • An utter waste
  • Posted by John on February 1, 2008 at 2:40pm EST
  • Speaking as a straight A student, a Boys Stater and everybody's All American Everything from kindergarten through college, allow me to burst your bubble.

    For the vast majority of people, college is a complete and utter waste of time and money. Yes, even for academically inclined students. Do you know how many people I graduated with that have jobs that have *nothing* to do with what they spent a hundred grand to learn in college?

    A biomechanical engineering graduate that now teaches piano. A chemical engineer that is now the curator of the red panda exhibit at a zoo. An applied mathematics major that sells mortgages.

    And the fact that the government inflates the cost of education by throwing gobs of money at schools with $50 billion dollar endowments is mind numbing.

    I know this post won't make the board because of one other peculiarity of higher education: the censoring of speech that it finds disagreeable.