ACTA's Must-Reads

« April 2011 | Main | June 2011 »

Sewanee!

Ed Williamson, a former trustee of the University of the South ("Sewanee"), mentions ACTA in his Washington Examiner about reducing tuition:

"My hope is that Sewanee's clarion call for a sustainable level of private education costs will help to refocus the conversation where it should be focused -- on identifying schools that provide real educational value.

For too long, the discussion about higher education has virtually ignored education, relying on rankings like U.S. News & World Report's that focus on what students bring rather than on what they take away. They are not valid, and, yes, they raise costs.

Isn't it time that changed? In its What Will They Learn? project, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni has done just that: grading more than 750 academic institutions on the basis of whether they have rigorous core requirements for their students in composition, literature, U.S. history, a foreign language, mathematics, economics and a science. Of the top 14 liberal arts colleges ranked by U.S. News, eight received Fs from ACTA.

When it comes to providing educational quality: Sewanee has a story to tell. Its core curriculum earns a solid B from ACTA -- requiring all of its graduates to study composition, literature, a foreign language, math and a science."

Sewanee's stand is a good sign that someone is taking cost and quality seriously.

Posted by Michael Pomeranz on May 31, 2011 at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Intelligent Donor's Guide

Over at Philanthropy Daily, Anne Neal is excerpting from the revised edition of the Intelligent Donor's Guide. Read how to ensure, in the words of investor and philanthropist Stephen Friess, "that philanthropic dollars are investments in the values of American and its future."

Posted by Michael Pomeranz on May 27, 2011 at 11:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

ROTC and Yale

American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) Applauds Return of Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) to Yale
National Higher Education Group's Advocacy Pays Off; ACTA Experts Available to Comment on ROTC at Elite Colleges

Yale President Richard Levin announced the return of ROTC to Yale . Yale's faculty recently voted to overturn the rules that had banned ROTC from campus in the late 1960s. Importantly, the new rules grant academic rank to ROTC instructors and ensure Yale provides necessary facilities for ROTC. The press conference is anticipated to announce an agreement between the Yale Corporation and the Navy to restore ROTC on campus.

"We praise the Yale Corporation for bridging the troubling chasm between the academy and the military," ACTA President Anne Neal said. "By underscoring that defense of our liberties is an important form of public service, the trustees have exercised their fiduciary responsible to improve student life and learning. Now the trustees must work with faculty to ensure that ROTC students are enrolled in an excellent academic program. We applaud Yale for joining institutions such as Harvard and Columbia in restoring ROTC."

For years, ACTA has supported the return of ROTC to Yale and other peer institutions, corresponding with the Yale Corporation and other boards of trustees. In addition to writing to boards, ACTA President Anne Neal has spoken about ROTC at Columbia--words quoted by Columbia legend Jacques Barzun in his Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for ROTC's return--and was profiled by the Harvard Crimson for her efforts at Harvard and was quoted in the AP story about ROTC's return to Harvard.

ACTA policy experts are available to discuss ROTC. Contact Senior Researcher Michael Pomeranz at 202-467-0376 or MPomeranz[at]goacta.org.

Posted by Michael Pomeranz on May 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

ACTA Mentioned in Washington Examiner

John Horak writes about the Koch Foundation gift in the Washington Examiner,

"Koch agreed to fund economics professors at FSU, on the condition that an advisory committee - mutually agreed to by the department and the foundation - vet and approve a pool of eligible candidates.

Now, because of hostile press coverage, the gift is under attack, with some faculty members claiming Koch has violated their academic freedom. Who's right? Who's wrong? What's a donor to do?

These are questions that drive the second edition of the "American Council of Trustees and Alumni's Intelligent Donor's Guide to College Giving," hot off the presses.

Colleges rightly reject efforts to make them comply with someone's particular political, religious or personal agenda. But donors rightly do not want to support programs they don't believe in. After all, it's their money."

Read the whole piece here. This is not the first op-ed referencing ACTA's Intelligent Donor's Guide

Posted by Michael Pomeranz on May 25, 2011 at 07:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

VOTE for Good Governance at Colgate University

Colgate Alumni now have the opportunity to be heard on issues of college governance. A Better Colgate, a group of Colgate alumni concerned about the direction of the college, is urging alumni to VOTE in the current election for candidates for the Colgate Alumni Corporation. The Colgate Alumni Corporation serves primarily to support the efforts of the trustees and administration through fundraising and by engaging alumni in Colgate activities. Voting would reveal that alumni care deeply about the well-being of the University and are interested in taking an active role to ensure it's taken care of. You can read about their slate of candidates here.

Posted by Jose Herrera on May 24, 2011 at 06:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Your So-Called Education

Michael Poliakoff, ACTA's Vice President for Policy, wrote the first letter in Sunday's New York Times. He responded to a column by researchers Arum and Roksa, whom we've discussed before.

Poliakoff wrote:

"Your So-Called Education" (Op-Ed, May 15) is a timely warning. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, the distinguished authors of "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses," did not offer soothing pieties about American higher education as the envy of the world and the sound investment for future success.

We learn instead that 36 percent of the graduates -- many with quite good grades -- showed no significant gains in complex reasoning or writing abilities.

It is easy to connect the dots between a vacuous college curriculum and the rising number of students who graduate with huge debt and no job prospects. Mr. Arum and Ms. Roksa call on trustees to hold administrators accountable for student learning. Trustees need to be fiduciaries of academic quality more than they need to be fund-raisers and cheerleaders. They need to demand genuine core requirements that ensure intellectual growth.
And shame on the college accrediting agencies that have allowed colleges to give students a diet of gut courses and to substitute opaque ad hoc assessment systems in place of the clear metrics that informed "Academically Adrift."
Honest diagnosis is the beginning of higher education's improvement. The remedy for the academically adrift is not more money; it is academic integrity and leadership.

Posted by Michael Pomeranz on May 23, 2011 at 09:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

"Trust, but Verify"

"Trust, but verify," are the famous words of Ronald Reagan. Should you take precautions when generously giving to an institution you want to see improve? This recent article by David French explicitly speaks of the "donor's dilemma."

The Intelligent Donor's Guide was recently put out by ACTA addresses this issue. The guide provides step-by-step instructions for donors on how to target their giving, with profiles of successful gifts. Ensure that your generosity is being used with care and in a valuable way.

Posted by Jose Herrera on May 18, 2011 at 04:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Is College Worth It?

According to a new survey by Pew, more than half of Americans (57%) say the higher education is not providing a good return on investment. A large majority--75%--say college is not affordable for most people.

Another uneasy trend Pew mentions is that the price of a college education at both public and private institutions has roughly tripled since 1980 in inflation-adjusted dollars. A record number of students are borrowing to finance their educations, and the typical student who graduates from a four-year college with an outstanding loan starts out with an excessive balance of $23,000.

ACTA believes the purpose of college is to educate the citizenry and equip them with the skills to add value in our society.

Tuition is sky-rocketing, and students are not learning. In ACTA's What Will They Learn? study of over 760 schools, more than 450 of them received a "C" or worse in the strength of their core curricula. Less than 20% require a broad survey class in American History or US Government. Less than 5% require economics for their students to learn.

The average tuition & fees for an "F" school was $28,200. Students at these schools are not only stuck with an oversized bill, but also were short-handed a quality education.

What can be done? Trustees need to cut costs and to strengthen the core curriculum to ensure that all students are learning.

Posted by Jose Herrera on May 17, 2011 at 11:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

St. John's, the Core, and Student Success

For over seventy years, St. John's College has passionately devoted itself to the teaching of the liberal arts, which its dedicated instructors present through the College's signature Great Books Program. Washington Post education writer Daniel DeVise reports that despite an adversarial economy, St. John’s endowment has grown five-fold under its current president, and its applicant pool has rebounded.

DeVise's detailed story of the College and its long-time president, Christopher Nelson, argues for the enduring value of a high-quality liberal arts degree. ACTA agrees: both St. John's campuses--Annapolis and Santa Fe--were among the 2.5% of institutions nationwide that earned an "A" in the WhatWillTheyLearn.com study of core curricula.

Is such an education a ticket to economic nowhere, as Paul Krugman recently argued? Not according to Investing, The Last Liberal Art, by Robert Hagstrom, which holds up St. John's curriculum as a paradigm of effective preparation for the demanding world of 21st century finance. St. John's prepares its graduates for career and community and shows that economic success and a sound, liberal arts core curriculum are fully compatible. . .and often inseparable.

Posted by Michael Poliakoff on May 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Mountains Go Into Labor

...and a ridiculous little mouse is born, as Horace once wrote. A massive committee of all of the groups with an interest in maintaining the current system of accreditation will do what, pray tell?

Instead of a high-level talk-a-thon, here are three straightforward ways to ensure fiscal probity and transparency, while starting a real "Race to the Top" for academic standards.

1) Make access to federal Title IV student aid funds, which are the lifeline for most colleges and universities, dependent on an independent audit and disclosure of performance metrics, rather than the cumbersome process of regional accreditation.
2) Require every institution that receives Title IV funds to post key performance metrics like graduation rates, loan-default rates, job placement, and licensure test results on their websites. Add stiff sanctions for false reporting. Peer pressure will encourage the additional, voluntary posting of such indicators of academic progress as the Collegiate Learning Assessment, the Proficiency Profile, or the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency. The College Portraits developed by APLU and AASC&U are a good beginning.
3) Make all accreditation voluntary. Institutions will vie for the credentials of agencies with the reputation of probity and rigor. Accreditors will compete on the basis of their standards and their cost-effectiveness. Accreditation will reclaim its heritage of providing professional review and judgment, voluntarily sought for its certification of academic excellence.

Posted by Michael Poliakoff on May 13, 2011 at 04:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Requiring Economics

A Washington Post editorial appropriately praised the Virginia State Board of Education for its successful--and unanimous--insistence on an economics and financial literacy requirement for high school graduation. The Board rejected the argument that this crucial material could simply be worked into existing courses. Requirements matter. Would that higher education would show similar resolve! ACTA's WhatWillTheyLearn.com project, which now includes the analysis of over 760 colleges and universities, reveals that only 26--less than 4%--require a basic course in economics. Do colleges mean what they say when they promise to prepare students for effective citizenship and global competition? Parents, taxpayers, and policymakers look to higher education leadership--especially trustees--to deliver on the promise of an education that serves students' needs. Requirements are the delivery on that promise.

Posted by Michael Poliakoff on May 09, 2011 at 10:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Made in Maine!

Policy Director, Dr. Michael Poliakoff, was recently in Maine meeting with the Commissioner of Education, the Governor, and legislators on the topic of our newest report card, Made in Maine.

The report was conducted in conjunction with The Maine Heritage Policy Center. Findings from the report indicate the seven-campus system has low graduation rates, high tuition, weak core curricula, and a real need for the trustees to improve academics. Dr. Poliakoff believes they will find ways to improve. "This, after all, is a university system that's been distinguished for inventiveness and achievement," he says. Watch the recap of his trip on WABI TV.

Posted by Jose Herrera on May 06, 2011 at 05:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Honorary Degrees and Trustees

It's graduation season--with the obligatory farewell address and honorary degrees. What is the role of trustees when it comes to honorary degrees? Here is a quick primer.

To award an honorary degree is a decision that should be made thoughtfully and advisedly by the board to reflect the highest standards of the university. It is not a matter of faculty academic freedom. At many schools, committees of faculty members recommend candidates for the trustees to approve. While faculty may view those recommendations as orders, in point of fact, they are not. The board is well within its rights to decline to honor candidates--indeed, it is within its responsibilities to reject candidates that do not deserve the award or whose award may harm the school.

Honorary degrees should not be conveyed automatically--and the board should not simply be a rubber stamp for the faculty's recommendations. To believe that the board has no choice but to accept the faculty's determination is to take away the discretion and judgment that the board has every right (and, indeed, every obligation) to exercise.

Quite literally, the public has given the university to trustees in trust, and they are obligated to oversee the institution with responsibility. The faculty are responsible for educating the students, and particularly the undergraduates, and for advancing human knowledge. But faculty do not have the unilateral right to determine honorary degree recipients--unless the board has delegated that authority.

Posted by Anne D. Neal on May 06, 2011 at 03:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Harvard Overseer Election: David Vitale

Every year, the alumni of Harvard elect some of their number to the Board of Overseers. The Overseers are one of two Harvard governing bodies--the other being the Harvard Corporation. The Overseers play an important role, outlined by President Eliot in his 1869 inaugural address, "The real function of the Board of Overseers is to stimulate and watch the President and Fellows. The Overseers should always hold toward the Corporation an attitude of suspicious vigilance. They ought always to be pushing and prying."

This year's election for the Board of Overseers at Harvard is particularly significant because the Corporation has announced its desire to interact more with the Overseers. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni asked nominated candidates for the Board to respond to a survey about university matters.

Following is the entire response of candidate David Vitale '68, Executive Chairman, Urban Partnership Bank, who has given ACTA permission to post his responses:

RESPONSE TO ACTA

GOVERNANCE AND PROCESS

I have served on the governing boards of two institutions of higher learning and visiting committees at two other universities in addition to my previous involvements at Harvard. I believe this experience has provided me some perspective how governance roles and governance process work in a university setting. While Harvard has split the governance role between the Corporation and the Overseers, I believe that substantively the Overseers are responsible for overseeing and providing informed guidance to all aspects of the university including student life and finance. The Overseers cannot and should not manage the university enterprise that is the role of the administration. But structuring the Overseers work through committees, as the Board of Overseers does, allows members to be sufficiently informed on specific issues to provide the guidance and oversight that is their responsibility.

I have participated in several Harvard Committees and task forces or study groups with overseers over the past thirty years including those related to Harvard's engagement internationally, its development strategy, and most recently its communication strategy to external constituencies. I have found that these efforts have appropriately engaged faculty and student input as well as the views of external constituents including alumni and others that interface with the university. The recommendations that have come from this work have generally been accepted and implemented, e.g. a robust study abroad program for undergraduates or an electronic daily email on important developments at Harvard. This is not to conclude that all issues have been addressed or to suggest that all issues have been handled so successfully but rather to suggest that in my experience the model for oversight and engagement that does work has been practiced effectively.

As to the relationship between the two governing bodies, it is obviously in evolution as the changes most recently announced are implemented. For the continuing and new overseers, this will be an opportunity to shape those relationships under the new structure.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

As I have previously said, the overseers have a responsibility to oversee all aspects of the University including undergraduate education and student life. As a contributor to endowed scholarships for students I have had the good fortune of being able to get continuous feedback over the years from the undergraduates that my contributions support. I try to have lunch or dinner with them at least annually. Similarly I have maintained relationships with faculty and administrators, some who are former classmates, about the state of undergraduate education. Reaching beyond the formal reporting to gather information is an important responsibility of an overseer.

The greatest strength of undergraduate education is the incredibly talented students who choose to come to Harvard. They are attracted by a second strength, an outstanding faculty. The three areas where there are opportunities for additional improvements include the hiring additional faculty so that the ratio of senior faculty to students is improved to allow for greater faculty student interaction and more seminar type courses; additional investment in the Houses both physically and programmatically; and finally in greater counseling for undergraduates to help them navigate not only their Harvard experience but help them look beyond that experience.

THE FUTURE

Harvard is an extraordinary educational institution. As with any organization that has had as much success as the University has, complacency may be its biggest challenge. Educational institutions are notoriously slow to undertake change. This characteristic is somewhat appropriate for institutions that have a long term perspective and objectives. But that perspective cannot be used as an excuse for not improving and growing. Harvard must maintain the right balance between preserving what is great and addressing the future.

DAVID VITALE

Posted by Michael Pomeranz on May 03, 2011 at 09:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack