ACTA's Must-Reads

« April 2009 | Main | June 2009 »

The right kind of trustees

ACTA president Anne D. Neal has published an op-ed in the DC Examiner in which she looks at the recent decision by the Dartmouth Board of Trustees not to reappoint the outspoken Todd Zywicki for a second term. She concludes that in spite of the potential negative repercussions, trustees must raise problems and ask the tough questions that need to be asked. As she writes:

The academy's runaway costs, diffuse curricula, and disconnect from the public's concerns have everything to do with the go-along-get-along mindset that prevails on governing boards. That mindset must change.

Posted by David Azerrad on May 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The imperative of economic literacy

In the new issue of inFocus, the quarterly journal of the Jewish Policy Center, ACTA program officer David Azerrad has an article entitled "It's Economics, Stupid!" about the dearth of economics requirements in our universities' general education programs. At a time when economic literacy is more important than ever, this piece is a must-read.

Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on May 27, 2009 at 03:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberty at Liberty

The biggest higher education story over Memorial Day weekend was the decision by Liberty University, the evangelical Christian institution founded by the late Jerry Falwell, to derecognize its College Democrats. While private universities do have the right to restrict student and faculty expression -- and Liberty is crystal clear in its materials about exercising that right -- the decision is nonetheless unfortunate, as it is likely to make for a less vibrant intellectual environment on campus.

Even more unfortunate, from ACTA's perspective, is the attention this story is receiving relative to other key debates on our nation's campuses. Liberty is no bellwether or trendsetter in American higher education; indeed, it deliberately casts itself as a contrast to the academy at large. And while it is important for a university, in order to deserve the name, to allow student political groups of all stripes to make themselves heard, there is much more to a vibrant intellectual environment than partisan politics. That is why it was an outrage when the University of Delaware sponsored mandatory indoctrination in its dormitories, and that is why we should all be concerned that -- according to Brooklyn College professor KC Johnson and others -- entire subjects like diplomatic and military history are becoming endangered species. But the Washington Post never covered Delaware, and most cable news viewers have never -- even in this era of national security challenges -- heard the debate about the marginalization of military history at our universities.

What's the takeaway here? It is that no matter what gets reporters' and producers' attention, it is up to trustees (among others) to ensure that their institutions do foster the free exchange of ideas -- not only when it involves partisan politics, but also when it comes to the realm of ideas and scholarship. ACTA will shortly release a new publication designed to help in that effort.

Posted by Charles Mitchell on May 26, 2009 at 06:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

"It is lost if it is not understood"

Fred Hiatt's latest column in The Washington Post takes us to the Georgetown University Law Center where Supreme Court Justice David Souter spoke last week, painting a rather bleak picture of the future of our democracy. In his address, Souter lamented the widespread ignorance among Americans about the basic principles of American government. The implications for the American experiment that began more than two centuries ago are dire: The republic which the Founding Fathers created "is being lost," deplored the Justice. "It is lost if it is not understood."

To remedy civic illiteracy, Souter, who will soon be retiring from the Court, wants to focus on reeducating the citizen body. He appears to be focusing on K- 12, which is necessary indeed. But an equally important appeal should go out to our institutions of higher learning. Of course, this is an appeal ACTA has been making to colleges and universities for some time. If they ensured students were exposed to American government and history in general education, we would not find ourselves in need of such far-reaching reeducation. In our last report on core curricula (which will soon be updated), we found that only 7 of the 50 top schools surveyed require American government or history. The same point can also be made when it comes to the teaching of history per se. KC Johnson and others have shown how the history field has, in recent years, nearly eliminated certain sub- fields such as constitutional and diplomatic history.

The situation is serious, the problem transcends partisan differences and the course of action is clear. Trustees must ensure that the next generation of leaders and citizens understand the basic principles of American government and the broad outlines of the country's history. Instituting an American history or government requirement is a simple and inexpensive way to start. The bottom line: What is not taught, cannot be understood.

Posted by Anne D. Neal on May 26, 2009 at 06:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The million-dollar question

It has become a widespread assumption that a college degree is worth a million dollars--that is, that the average lifetime earnings for bachelor's degree recipients exceeds those with only a high school diploma by one million dollars. That number is a popular talking point for college officials and politicians eager to promote higher enrollment at colleges and universities--or to justify raising the cost of the "investment." But is that true?

Mark Schneider, a distinguished professor of political science at SUNY Stony Brook and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has done some number-crunching for this month's Education Outlook. What he found was that there is a payoff for earning a bachelor's degree--but it falls short of a million dollars. And when you factor in the ever-rising tuition rates, the opportunity costs of forgone work while pursuing education, and variants between graduates of different institutions and academic subjects, the payoff can be even lower.

The moral of the story? For one, colleges and universities should stop making unrealistic claims about future graduates' earning potential, and should certainly stop using it to justify tuition hikes or as an excuse not to cut costs and improve operations. Furthermore, parents and students should not look upon higher education simply as a means of increasing one's future salaries, but also as an opportunity to gain valuable knowledge and expand one's horizons, regardless of subsequent earnings.

Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on May 20, 2009 at 04:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A must-watch on ROTC

CNN featured the debate over Harvard's ROTC program -- brought to the fore by, among other things, ACTA's letter and the two reform-minded Overseer candidates -- today:

The first student to appear on camera, Joe Kristol, also wrote in the Wall Street Journal recently.

Posted by Charles Mitchell on May 19, 2009 at 02:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Calls for reform in the Pine Tree State

Today's editorial from the Portland (Maine) Press Herald shows that the general public is growing weary of constant tuition hikes--especially when the institutions in question can and should cut administrative expenses. According to the Press Herald, the Maine legislature had the opportunity in 2004 to consolidate several of the campuses in the University of Maine system, but did not. The result: a six percent tuition hike this year, following last year's 10 percent increase--par for the course in American higher education, but nonetheless an unsustainable trend.

Cutting costs is certainly not an easy task. But with non-instructional "support staff" at universities having nearly doubled in the past twenty years, such budget trimming could occur without being seriously detrimental to academic quality. But it will take courageous trustees, administrators, and legislators to accomplish such a feat.

Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on May 19, 2009 at 01:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What the AAC&U survey really says

On Friday, the Association of American Colleges and Universities issued a survey conducted in late 2008 and early 2009 of chief academic officers at AAC&U member institutions. Inside Higher Ed described the survey as showing only a "distinct minority" of colleges clinging to the distribution-requirement model, while The Chronicle of Higher Education's headline proclaimed, "Colleges Seek New Ways to Give Students a General Education." In its own press release, AAC&U offered more spin, claiming that colleges and universities have now moved beyond "cafeteria-style" requirements to "a model that combines course choice with other integrative features."

These claims sound quite good -- until one takes a closer look. For starters, the AAC&U survey doesn't actually collect or analyze different requirements in place at each college or university. Instead, it simply asks college administrators to assess their own institutions.

Second, far from showing the demise of distribution requirements -- a goal on which both ACTA and AAC&U can agree -- the survey shows quite the contrary. The report says bluntly that "four in five institutions include a distribution model as part of their general education program." No doubt in an effort to find some "news," the survey writers elaborate that "administrators indicate that many of their institutions also incorporate common intellectual experiences (41%), thematic required courses (36%), upper-level requirements (33%), core curricula (30%), and/or learning communities (24%)." Yet these features aren't defined in any informative detail, and are coupled with such depressing additional information that one is left totally unpersuaded that cafeteria style curricula are actually on the decline.

Indeed, the survey appears to show only that institutions have exchanged one diffuse list of specialized courses for another, or simply grafted on a few of the "integrative" features cited in the report. Less than half of those surveyed believe that students in general education programs actually understand learning outcomes set out for them and -- the most damning statistic -- 65 percent of administrators describe their gen ed programs as lacking a coherent sequence of courses. Notably, institutions using a core curriculum rank themselves higher in coherence than any other subgroup.

Apparently, AAC&U would like us to believe that if you don't like the cafeteria, all you need to do is add more food. But a more expansive menu doesn't make a fine restaurant. By performing a close review of the course catalogs and actual general education requirements at schools across the country, ACTA found in 2004 that it when it came to the key subjects that prepare students to become productive workers, informed citizens, and lifelong learners, most of the country's leading universities were not doing their jobs.

We will soon release a new and expanded assessment of curricula asking the question: What are students learning for the big bucks they pay? Stay tuned.

Posted by Anne D. Neal on May 18, 2009 at 01:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Whither teaching?

The American Federation of Teachers has just released a report that offers some mighty interesting data for anyone wishing to understand the challenges in American higher education. American Academic: The State of the Higher Education Workforce 1997-2007 shows some noteworthy trends in just the last ten years. Between 1997 and 2007, the percentage of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty fell from about a third of the instructional staff in 1997 to just over a quarter in 2007. Non-instructional staff and administrative personnel grew considerably during that same time period--a major contributor to college costs, and a trend to be discouraged as we do in our state report cards.

What we increasingly have is a pyramid-shaped workforce where highly-compensated tenured professors have smaller and smaller teaching loads while outsourcing much of the undergraduate teaching to graduate students and part-time instructors (many of whom teach at several different institutions or hold jobs in other sectors). Ultimately, it's the students who are shortchanged, shouldering the cost of heavier administrative budgets and a tenured professoriate that too often makes itself scarce when it comes to teaching and mentoring undergraduates. As ACTA points out in Asking Questions, Getting Answers, trustees should ask whether "education remains a top priority" at their institutions--and if hiring, promotion, and budgeting reflect that priority.

Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on May 12, 2009 at 04:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Alumni as ATMs

ACTA president Anne D. Neal is quoted in today's edition of USA Today:

Grads may be giving time instead of money on service days, but they're still functioning as "boosters" as they do good deeds in a school's name, according to Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

"Traditionally, once alums have graduated, they've been viewed by their institutions as ATMs or boosters or engaged in positive activities of this sort," Neal says. She sees service days as "a more creative development effort" with dividends for local communities, but not as a reflection of improved dynamics in alumni relations.

For some past examples of productive alumni engagement, see ACTA's website.

Posted by Charles Mitchell on May 11, 2009 at 02:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Harvard students for ROTC

Good news out of Cambridge this week, as a recent survey of Harvard undergraduates showed a solid majority of students--over 60 percent!--support recognizing ROTC. Last fall, ACTA wrote to the Harvard Corporation and the boards of six other elite schools, urging them to reconsider their exclusion of ROTC; hopefully this vote will serve as further impetus for the debate Harvard desperately needs. And it comes as Harvard alumni are casting their votes for the Board of Overseers election, which features two candidates, Robert L. Freedman and Harvey A. Silverglate, who wholeheartedly support the return of ROTC to their alma mater.

Posted by Noah Mamis on May 08, 2009 at 05:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

All it takes is a recession?

For years, parents, students, and taxpayers have lamented the spiraling cost of higher education -- with too little effect. Between 1982 and 2007, college tuition and fees increased 439 percent, adjusted for inflation, while the median family income only rose 147 percent. Pleas by ACTA and others to cut costs fell on mostly deaf ears.

The recession is now compelling at least some universities to cut back on all the pricy extras that drive up cost and shift the focus back to the fundamental purpose of their institutions: education. In January, ACTA praised the Pennsylvania State Board of Education for approving a proposal to create a "low cost, no frills" bachelor degree. Now comes news of a similar degree at Southern New Hampshire University -- a "low-cost airline equivalent," according to its president -- and plans to create a new affordable state university in Arizona with no football team or research programs.

The exact action these institutions are taking -- creating new colleges -- may not be the right course for their peers elsewhere. But the larger lesson they have learned is applicable everywhere: Trustees and others must constantly keep in mind the real reason colleges exist -- to prepare students to become informed citizens and effective workers -- and budget accordingly.

Posted by David Azerrad on May 07, 2009 at 02:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Everything you wanted to know about academic freedom but were afraid to ask

"Academic freedom" is a term that holds much appeal and is defended vigorously by individuals of all opinions and ideological stripes. However, many people do not have a clear understanding of what academic freedom is, what it requires, and the obligations it entails for both faculty and institutions. But thankfully, our friends at the Pope Center have a new publication from Donald Downs entitled Academic Freedom: What It Is, What It Isn't, and How to Tell the Difference. Downs, a professor of political science, law, and journalism at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, traces the historical and legal origins of academic freedom, and outlines ways to navigate the tricky balance between individual freedom and academic responsibilities. Anyone wishing to gain a greater understanding of the meaning and implications of academic freedom should read Downs' highly informative piece.

Posted by Sandra E. Czelusniak on May 05, 2009 at 02:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack