Search News


Browse Archives

News

Call to Arms for Private Colleges

February 5, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Act now or expect Congress to intervene in ways you might not like. That was the message from Susan Hockfield, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to a group of her colleagues assembled Monday for the annual meeting of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, in Washington.

Specifically, Hockfield called on private college leaders to better articulate to lawmakers exactly how their institutions are providing a public good, and why college officials -- not the federal government -- should continue to set their own policies on spending and pricing.

“Our story isn’t well understood by Congress or the public,” Hockfield said. “We need to make our case as individual leaders."

Hockfield's talk, titled "The Issues Facing American Higher Education," comes at a time when Washington lawmakers are looking at proposals to help control the cost of college and debating whether it's time to start telling colleges how much of their endowments they should spend. Many college leaders have expressed concern with the ways in which Congress is getting involved, and some already have begun to sound the horn that colleges' missions are misunderstood, in no small part because presidents don't explain them well enough.

"There's a new struggle for the future of higher education, and here at home our model is under assault," Hockfield told the audience.

She said American higher education is defined by competition, openness and flexibility. Competition for faculty, students and funding has strengthened institutions, Hockfield argued. Institutions thrive on intellectual openness. Private colleges stand on tuition, endowment and research funding, and "Congress has systematically threatened the strength of each of the three," she said.

The call to punish institutions with high percentage increases in tuition for their sectors is a "worrying trend," Hockfield said. "We operate in a free market in many respects. We should let market forces help us along."

Likewise, Hockfied argued that the idea of forcing wealthy colleges to spend a minimum proportion of their endowments (with the expectation that money would go toward driving down the cost of tuition for some) is "quite bizarre." As others in higher education have pointed out in recent days, the effort, Hockfied said, is targeting "outlier institutions" that serve a small percentage of students. "We can't solve access issues one high-profile media event at a time."

"Talk about a short-term focus," she continued. "The idea that universities have somehow fallen short of their fiscal responsibility by not spending 5 percent every year, when most of us spend in a way that keeps in mind stability over time" is misguided. "We're looking out not just for students of today but for students in 150 years. It’s the myopia – the narrowness of perspective.”

Hockfield also decried what she called the lack of federal investment in research support. Of particular concern to Hockfield, the first life scientist to lead MIT, is stagnant spending on the sciences.

"No wonder more and more promising young scholars are finding greener pastures abroad," she said. "If we can't reverse stagnation in science and engineering Ph.D.'s, we can't expect our dominance to last."
Hockfied added that explaining to Congress that colleges are seeking to expand access for students and continuing to get a bang for their research buck is more than a once-a-year job. Institutional leaders should be in regular contact with state lawmakers, she said, and try to visit Washington delegates several times a year.

“We will weather this current debate in Congress,” she said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Call to Arms for Private Colleges

  • Posted by Bill Johnson on February 5, 2008 at 8:15am EST
  • This illustrates that the benefits are not being clearly articulated to the beneficiary. As in private industry the question "so what?" must be asked frequently. Making certain that when pointing out features and functions of what colleges and universities are doing leaders need to clearly frame the benefits for the hearers. They won't always make the critical connection.

  • Flexibility should mean affordability
  • Posted by Barbara , educational consultant on February 5, 2008 at 8:35am EST
  • While Dr. Hockfield may decry that Congress is looking at the spending and funding practices of colleges, the reality is that college tuition is rising much faster than the income of the average middle class family.

    Endowment spending averages a paltry 4.6% (see Higher Ed, Jan. 26 article). MIT's endowment is almost $10 billion dollars. Dr. Hockfield states that colleges thrive on "competition, openness and flexibility." She should focus on "flexibility" part and give middle class students a break by making tuition more affordable, not whine about Congress' legitimate questioning about rising college tuition prices and endowment spending.

  • Posted by don mclean , education & financial consultant on February 5, 2008 at 10:35am EST
  • The great public universities have felt the public pinch for decades. Private institutions can learn a great deal by understanding the facts at work here. Both operate in a tax free environment. Public scrutiny goes along with this. The key is engagement and staying in front of the issues.

    Transparency and accountability build trust. Ultimately, it's all about excellence in governance and serving the public need.

  • "Punishing" Colleges with Large Endowments
  • Posted by Mike Hickerson on February 5, 2008 at 10:40am EST
  • If the federal government is legitimately concerned with college endowments (i.e. this isn't just political posturing against an easy target - wealthy elite universities), there is a more direct route than creating a new set of regulations. The government could simply cut back its grants to colleges with endowments it deems "too large."

  • Mike is right
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on February 5, 2008 at 11:15am EST
  • Part of the remedy for rising college costs is getting the federal government out of the business of subsidizing higher education. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, wrote a good piece about this called 'The Crisis and Politics of Higher Education.' Interested readers can find this article at: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2006&month=11

  • Other ways
  • Posted by Duncan on February 6, 2008 at 9:15am EST
  • I believe it is wrong for government to go to this depth of interference.

    There is no doubt that society had changed. There are jobs that need better education. However, the solution do not need to be higher education per se. A better trained high school graduates could be of help.

    Even with higher education, 4 year of traditional college may not be the must - just look at highly motivated Bill Gates, Micheal Dell or Jerry Young.

    For a society as a whole, we need to understand that not everyone need to attend traditional colleges. The important thing is leveling the playing field and allowing more ways for students to gain knowledge, certificates and jobs.

    The price will come down if we give institutions freedom in operation but set objective goals for the outcome. If an institution can produce good graduates that meet employers' need why do you care how they achieving it.

    The problem these days is that people insist that the only way to success is to go through institutions that operated in the traditional way and this is what drive up the price.

  • One Important Factor
  • Posted by Marybeth Mitts on February 6, 2008 at 10:45am EST
  • It would be novel if Congress spent one iota of the time they spend wagging their fingers at colleges and universities with well performing endowments instead on the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. The double digit rise in premium amounts for every state college and university as well as increases to private colleges and universities has not been questioned AT ALL. I'm nearly certain that private institutions probably figure the increased cost of health insurance for all faculty and staff into the "true cost" of educating students, so that when you hear the phrase, "students pay a fraction of the real cost of their education," this specific cost, which has at least doubled in the last five years, is one huge cost factor which is not parsed out. If Congress wants to do the United States of America and every student and family supporting those students a favor, they will turn their attention to the outrageous predatory pricing of health insurance premiums. No doubt they will turn to "health care providers" and point the finger at "them" for their charges. All one has to do in this instance is look to the HHS and Medicare and Medicaid schedules over the past 10 years to see that payments to providers have been decreasing in real terms and otherwise. Where are those premium increases going? Into the pockets of insurance companies and the retirement packages of the likes of Blue Cross Blue Shield CEOs as they retire. Let's try to chase the real scamps, here, shall we?