About one month ago, President Obama announced plans for sweeping changes in higher education. In short, he wants the system to be much more efficient, affordable, and timely. Numerous reports have indicated the cost of higher education has increased at rapid rates. Bloomberg indicated that since I started college in 1985, the cost has risen by 500 percent.
This is a complex problem. Our health care provider told us to expect a 19 percent increase this year. Technology upgrades mean additional costs. The reality is while we are a nonprofit, nothing is slowing the for-profits interested in greater profit margins. But I understand the president’s concerns.
Yet as I heard President Obama share ideas about measuring the effectiveness of institutions as a solution, I was concerned. I agree that assessment is essential. We need to make sure we are delivering on what we promise. But my concern is how will these metrics be developed, and will they really be able to consider all of the factors that impact student success and institutional performance?
As Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his team begin their work, I would like to propose a competitive diving approach to college assessment. In diving, you receive a raw score from 1 to 10 based on dive execution. That score is averaged by the judges, then multiplied by the degree of difficulty for the overall score.
Most of the rankings that exist, particularly those of U.S. News & World Report, measure inputs dependent upon wealth so that quality is determined by whom you serve rather than what you do with them. Essentially, the fewer Pell Grant, part-time, nontraditional and students of color you serve, the better your outcomes.
Elite colleges, which educate those who received the best high school educations and who frequently have plenty of money, serve students who have the right inputs ,which almost guarantee high retention and graduation rates, low debt, and high employment.
But, in order to be fair, any new rating system must calculate the degree of difficulty when examining the metrics. For example, reviewing data for the last three years available, the smaller a share of the student body made of Pell Grant eligible students a college has, the better the graduation rate.
In fact, decades of research prove this point. The difference is significant as well. For 2011, as an example, the graduation rate for baccalaureate nonprofit colleges was 52 percent. For colleges with fewer than 20 percent Pell grant recipients (generally households earning less than $40,000 a year), the graduation rate was 79 percent. It dropped to 56 percent for colleges with 21-40 percent Pell students, and then to 42 percent for institutions with 41-60 percent Pell students. For those where more than 60 percent were Pell grant recipients, the graduation rate was 31 percent.
Colleges with less than 20 percent Pell students had few part-time, nontraditional and underrepresented students of color. Colleges with more than 60 percent Pell students had twice as many part-timers, five times as many nontraditionals, and almost six times as many underrepresented students of color.
And yet most rankings have lauded the first group for providing a great education. They essentially have done simple dives -- forward in a tuck position off a 1-meter springboard which has a degree of difficulty of 1.2 (based on USA diving). Meanwhile, many colleges attempt a back 4 1/2 somersaults in a tuck position off a 3-meter springboard, degree of difficulty 4.6. The problem is, we don’t get the degree of difficulty factored in. Only the raw score is calculated and we’re determined to be lesser institutions.
If President Obama’s plan to overhaul higher education is to have any credibility, there must be a degree of difficulty factor. In fact, there should be some other factors as well if there is to be any equity in this process. If colleges will be evaluated on the earnings of graduates, will the methodology take into account that women earn 77 percent of what men do, and this would disproportionately penalize women’s colleges and those with high proportions of women? Will the rankings factor in students who had to leave college because the government changed Parent PLUS loan eligibility?
The skepticism is widespread because we’ve watched numbers being used without proper context. For example, the highly touted White House College Scorecard was launched in February as a great step in accountability. For my institution, the graduation rate was listed as 24 percent. That looks atrocious. And yet, nothing on that webpage indicated that rate was based on freshmen who started in August of 2005, a few weeks before Hurricane Katrina made the campus unusable for almost one year. Eight years later we are finally opening all previously closed buildings.
We lost half that freshman class after one year, and large numbers of sophomores and juniors. The simple analysis presented on the scorecard paints a damaging picture. If consequences are then attached without all factors being weighed, this becomes an attack on a college.
The point is there has to be serious analysis with the broadest range of institutions at the table as this rating is developed. If all the factors are not considered, we end up with a simplistic one-size-fits-all that harms many institutions and their students. I know President Obama does not want that to be part of his legacy.
We are diving into a new territory to rate colleges. I just hope we’ll use diving's scoring as well.
Walter M. Kimbrough is president of Dillard University.
As Bard restores idea of writing your way into college, we offer a look at its essay prompts, and others. Are colleges asking the right questions? Was Kant correct about dishonesty? And how cool is the mantis shrimp?
Applications to American M.B.A. programs are again on the rise, according to a report by the Graduate Management Admission Council. Of full-time programs, 52 percent are reporting an application increase in the last year -- the first time since 2009 that a majority of programs were reporting increases. The increases appear to depend on foreign applicants: 56 percent of programs reported an increase from abroad, while 59 percent reported declines in applicants from the U.S.
Kenneth P. Ruscio, president of Washington and Lee University, has ordered a review of the way the university reports admissions statistics, The Washington Post reported. The review follows an earlier report in the Post that the university has counted as applicants many who never finished their applications. The university's decision to count those partial applications decreased the university's admit rate, suggesting that it is more selective than it would be otherwise. “I believe that we are acting in accordance with the applicable guidelines and in a manner consistent with how other colleges and universities approach this process,” said a statement from Ruscio. “Nevertheless, if there are questions about our policy, we will address them forthrightly and transparently. Our credibility is fundamental to everything that we do.”
The review will focus on which applicants are counted in certain categories. The questions that have been raised are about that decision, not the accuracy of the data overall.
The State University of New York has toughened admissions requirements for the teacher preparation programs on 17 of its campuses. To enter an undergraduate major or a graduate program, a Graduate Record Examination or equivalent test will now be required, as only some campuses have done in the past. There will also for the first time be a uniform 3.0 grade-point-average requirement (such requirements also varied by campus). The 3.0 would apply to the first two years of college work for undergraduate programs that accept students as juniors, to high school grades for programs that accept freshmen, and to undergraduate work for graduate programs.
Many admissions officers at the annual meeting of the National Association for College Admission Counseling were complaining about technical glitches on the Common Application's new back-end system, which was launched in August. Some applicants have complained of difficulties in inputting their materials, while some colleges have had difficulties pulling applicant information from the system. Sessions featuring Common Application officials had lots of angry admissions officials in attendance. Many other enrollment officials, who didn't go to the sessions, saw the glitches as typical for major system overhauls -- and not that disruptive (assuming they are fixed soon).
Rob Killion, executive director of the Common Application, said that the system is already setting records in the number of applications being processed. He acknowledged that some bugs remain but said that he anticipated them being fixed "in a week or so." Here is the Common Application's status list of bugs.