ACTA's Must-Reads

« June 2010 | Main | August 2010 »

For students to aim high, colleges must set the standards

At the first-ever meeting of state education executives from both the K-12 and Higher Education sectors, the decay of the core curriculum was the elephant in the room. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that higher education leaders complained, as they often do, that the K-12 system does not produce enough graduates ready to do college-level work. The reality is, however, that most colleges themselves fail to define what "college-level" learning is. When asked what it means to be a college graduate, higher education offers fine rhetoric, but few facts and seldom a clear answer. The K-12 system can't be blamed for missing the target when higher education refuses to set one.

For example, our research for WhatWillTheyLearn.com has revealed that, many colleges do not require serious math classes, opting instead for easier courses that go under titles like "Mathematical Ideas" or "Math for Daily Living." Why should a high-school senior trouble himself with pre-calculus? After all, he may reason, if math were important, State U would require a serious class in it. Or consider foreign languages: at one time, students knew that colleges would be expecting them to do serious foreign-language work, and would prepare accordingly. Today, most colleges say that students who pass two years of high school Spanish don't need to do anything more.

When colleges lower their standards and dumb down the core, they take away one of the main motivations for students to excel in high school in the first place. In contrast, if colleges and universities were to make it clear that incoming students will be required to do serious work in the core subjects and articulate those standards, they would likely find a willing partner in the K-12 system.

Posted by Eric Markley on July 22, 2010 at 09:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Put up and shut up?

Speaking at a Council for Advancement and Support of Education's conference this week in New York, outgoing Tufts president Larry Bacow told donors that it's time "to change the conversation from 'what donors want to do' to 'how they can help institutions meet their goals'," as The Chronicle of Higher Education reports. In other words, enough with donor ideas, and let's listen to colleges instead.

"How can you help us encourage innovation and foster strong leadership?" he asked the donors. "We need to invite our donors to help us solve our problems."

Come again?

In case Mr. Bacow did not notice, donors have been directing and targeting their gifts with just that goal in mind. Indeed, they are restricting their donations, not to harm institutions, but to help them -- funding, for example, enriching and rigorous programs which introduce students to perspectives they wouldn't otherwise find -- because the colleges aren't doing it themselves.

And surely Mr. Bacow doesn't mean to suggest that donors should hand over their dollars, no strings attached. As Frank Turner, former Yale University provost at the time of the ill-fated Bass gift, well understood: "universities benefit from donor restrictions as well as gifts. The donation of unrestricted funds often simply pours money into a black hole, owing to a lack of either external regulation or internal institutional discipline... Donor restrictions can call institutions... to fulfill their highest ideals."

And if institutions don't like donor restrictions, as philanthropist Charles Bronfman suggested at the conference, all they need to say is no.

Posted by Anne D. Neal on July 21, 2010 at 02:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Colleges and community service

The Treasury and Education Departments are currently studying the idea of making community service mandatory for anyone who wants to receive a tax credit for college tuition. Sounds good, doesn't it? After all, who could be against the idea of helping others? In today's Washington Examiner, Anne Neal reminds us that a "college education is about education. It's about cultivating a love of learning in students and giving them the skills and knowledge they need to become informed citizens and effective workers. It is most emphatically not about having the government dictate how students spend their time and live their lives." She argues that voluntary service should remain voluntary and that universities should stick to their educational purposes: "we should oppose any efforts by Congress to mandate community service -- something that students, by any definition, should voluntarily choose -- particularly when the available evidence suggests that students desperately need to be focused on learning, not something else."

Posted by David Azerrad on July 15, 2010 at 12:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Making higher ed less opaque

Our friends at the Delta Cost Project have unveiled an easy to use and wonderfully helpful new web-based database that will allow parents, students, trustees and lawmakers to get a clearer idea of where universities are getting their money, how they're spending it, and most importantly of all, what they have to show for it in the end. Trends in College Spending Online tracks six metrics at some 2,300 public and private institutions and allows user to make comparisons among institutions, states, and sectors. As the Chronicle of Higher Education rightly points out: "The database's major contribution is that it translates murky, complex information into standard formats that can be tracked over time, with annual data from 2002 to 2008. It also peels away layers of spending that aren't directly related to student learning."

Posted by David Azerrad on July 13, 2010 at 09:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Governing boards and federal interference

American higher education is special because its governance is special. While most other countries have education ministries to oversee their universities, in the United States, ultimate control rests in the hands of lay trustees. It is this governance structure that has rightly been credited with producing a system of higher education that The Economist calls the best in the world.

That's also why some proposed accreditation standards under consideration by a federally empowered accrediting body should give us real pause. As is so often the case, the matter involves a facially winsome goal -- protecting valuable museum assets. But, examined more closely, it opens the door for troubling bureaucratic interference that should make trustees think twice.

So far, the case amounts only to a request by the Association of Academic Museums and Galleries that colleges and universities pledge protection of museum assets for accreditation. At first blush, how could one object? But the more appropriate question is why -- and whether -- federal accreditors who are reviewing the standard should have a right to dictate, or trammel board actions. Sure, boards should have the right to pledge voluntarily to all sorts of things, and they must, of course, at all times obey the law. But if federal accreditors impose a standard on governing boards, it then becomes a veritable mandate since accreditation is a gatekeeper of massive federal funds. Should federal accreditors have the right to interfere with institutional autonomy in this way?

It is rather ironic that the higher ed sector which has, in the past, vigorously opposed efforts by accreditors to measure learning outcomes as unduly intrusive, appears far less concerned about clear interference in matters of governance. What is not acknowledged is the fact that federal accreditors, who tend to be university administrators and faculty members, are often parties whose interests may conflict with that of trustees who, at the end of the day, are expected to safeguard the public interest with their best judgment.

Accreditation was designed to protect the public interest by ensuring federal dollars go only to institutions of educational quality. There is absolutely no indication that Congress ever intended the system to supersede or trammel the authority of governing boards controlled by state statute, charter, and in some states, voters who directly elect trustees.

Sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Trustees -- beware!

Posted by Anne D. Neal on July 12, 2010 at 04:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

They build it and now they've come

When the University of the District of Columbia's president and board first put forward their plan to split UDC into a four-year university and a community college that would remain open to all, critics derided the plans on the grounds that it would lead to a sharp decrease in enrollment. ACTA alone praised the move in a Washington Post opinion piece, pointing to similar reforms at CUNY that bore fruit.

It's now been almost a year since the Community College broke off from UDC and the numbers so far look promising. The Washington Post reports that enrollment has more than doubled and 116 students have already graduated with an associate's degree (thanks to transferred credits). New programs in automotive technology, construction management and fashion merchandising will begin in the fall.

The President and the UDC Board of Trustees deserve credit for making tough decisions that are benefiting DC area students.

Posted by David Azerrad on July 12, 2010 at 04:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bye-bye blue books

It looks like final exams may soon join the ranks of other relics in higher education which include Friday classes, rigorous core requirements, tough grading and significant homework. The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences recently voted that from here on, classes will not require final three-hour examinations, unless a professor notifies the registrar within the first week of class. According to the article, the vote only confirms what had already become a fait accompli: in the spring term, only one in five undergraduate classes scheduled finals. As James Engell, the chair of the English Department noted, after you factor in grade inflation and the fact that many departments have already eliminated senior-year general examinations, it is becoming increasingly unclear how to answer the most fundamental question of "How are we assessing students?" Harvard's long-standing prestige has made it a bellwether for our colleges and universities. Let us hope this is one trend that does not catch on.

Posted by David Azerrad on July 08, 2010 at 02:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Living high on the hog

At many colleges and universities, these are times of crisis. Endowments have shrunk, fundraising is more difficult, and reductions in state funding have been massive. And the worst is yet to come, according to a Chronicle of Higher Education survey of chief financial officers.

If times are tough for the university budget, consider how difficult economic times are for students and their families. Two-thirds of today's college graduates took out loans to complete school, accumulating an average debt of more than $23,000.

That's why parents and taxpayers have some legitimate questions to ask in the wake of a report in The Examiner on executive compensation, looking not at corporate CEO's, but at Washington-area college presidents. According to the story, the presidents of Georgetown, George Mason, American University, Gallaudet University, University of Maryland, and University of Virginia are all making more than the President of the United States! Go figure. Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence that a growing percentage of "education and general expenditures" in university budgets is in fact paying for administration.

One can legitimately ask whether our college and university administrators are living high on the hog -- on the backs of students and their parents.

Of course the next important question to ask is: Where are the trustees? At a time of economic challenge, isn't it time that colleges and universities do what families do -- tighten their belts? Trustees and presidents should be looking for ways to refocus university resources on instruction -- not to mention cutting costs, where possible, as the president and trustees at the University of Missouri and MnSCU have done. There is no time to waste.

Posted by Anne D. Neal on July 08, 2010 at 11:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Universities abusing the public trust

According to a story in this weekend's New York Times, universities are actively helping corporations bypass Congressional earmark bans. A range of universities, including Eastern Kentucky, Penn State, and the University of Toledo, are shown to be serving as middlemen for for-profit companies that are in fact the primary beneficiaries of the public funds, in some cases at the request of a legislator!

Since nonprofits are exempted from the Congressional earmark ban, colleges and universities have apparently decided there is nothing wrong with helping companies circumvent it. According to the article, the University of Toledo "agreed to participate only if it could make a substantive academic contribution," but there is no detail on what that contribution would be, other than the promise of $70,000 for a faculty member and a researcher.

Of course, earmarks were banned for a reason: in recent years, they have come to symbolize a "pay for play" culture that paid little attention to transparency and competition, let alone proper prioritization and stewardship of taxpayer funds. Surely, institutions of higher education -- which receive special tax benefits in the expectation that they will operate in the public trust -- should think carefully before they play fast and loose with that trust. Trustees at these universities and the general counsels' offices would be well advised to review these arrangements.

Posted by Anne D. Neal on July 06, 2010 at 04:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack