Blog – Page 4 – Kelly Davis

Is proposing “free college” enough?

On June 6, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

Article 1: “Despite Rising Costs, College is Still a Good Investment” – Liberty Street Economics, a blog published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This post indicates that the research reports the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has produced in the last decade indicate that while the return on college investment is smaller than it has been in the past due to rising tuition costs, the return (14%) is still high and indicates that the cost of a Bachelor’s degree is still “worth it.”

Article 2: “How the Democrats Got Radicalized on Student Debt” – The Atlantic, an article describing the proposed policy changes to tackling student debt amongst Democratic candidates since the 2008 election cycle. In 2007 the conversation focused on marginal changes to pell grants – today, the policy proposals are much more drastic.

I think that these two articles play off each other – with a rising student debt issue, something that has been building over the last decade (demonstrated by the analysis in the Liberty Street Economics blog post), naturally the Democratic party is going to tackle this issue.

But are these Democratic candidates really addressing the problem wholeheartedly? In the Liberty Street Economics post, they point to reports that if a student spends more than 4 years in a Bachelor’s program, the financial benefit – the “value” or “worth” or “profit” of the degree – decreases. Students who attend state universities and community colleges are more likely to take more than 4 years to graduate as opposed to students who attend private institutions (or the UC’s, in California’s case). Most Democratic plans focus on making community and state colleges free of charge, but don’t necessarily tackle the costs of private colleges.

What is the plan to bring more support into the public systems? Or does it not matter as much if degrees are free, because students can take as long as they want to obtain them, as they do in other countries? (I am in favor of this actually – why not take more time to explore if you are sure, or if you want to take a semester off in the middle of your studies? Taking the pressure off of “graduating on time” isn’t necessarily a bad thing as long as extra costs are not associated with the decision.) Is this what the general taxpayer wants?

Hillary Clinton’s plan, mentioned in The Atlantic article, to offer free college to students who’s families make less than $125,000, makes a lot of sense – a sliding scale makes a lot of sense. Offering the option to attend a smaller college and a larger college is ideal, because students will vary in their needs. Some want a larger university, want to be on their own, while others need faculty and administration to be more “high-touch.”

We need to remember that in countries where anyone can attend university at a much more affordable price, there are other options available – vocational school, for example. We need to also remember that these societies tend to be more “tracked,” meaning students don’t necessarily get to choose the route the take, but rather test into that option at young ages.

As the tension between offering liberal arts curriculum and trending towards career-focused schooling continues, we need to be mindful of what we value as a society, and not just from an economic or financial standpoint.

What is in our inherent mission as citizens of the United States, and what will serve that mission?

I certainly believe that providing an affordable option to pursue higher education, or any form of post-secondary education, will serve the United States and what is built into our constitution. But this needs to be provided thoughtfully, holistically. We don’t just need the act, we the need the structure and the messaging to support the act.

Higher education doesn’t exist in a vacuum – it exists in the greater realm of education, and education is impacted by, and impacts, everything else.

With trends in interdisciplinary approaches, perhaps this is something we need to begin to incorporate into our governmental structure, too.

Does 4 years in college prevent “siloed” thinking?

By Kelly Davis

On May 17, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

This is definitely something I’ve wondered myself. But having worked at a professional school now for almost one year in Career Services, I have found a new respect for my liberal arts education. Not to say it’s for everyone, but that like most things, the situation is just a bit more nuanced.

Perhaps not all programs need to be as long as they often are at many institutions. I completely empathize with the feeling that keeping students at an institution for longer than necessary is a scam, a part of the cycle of extracting money from students.

I’m not sure I agree with it, however. One of the issues I find amongst students at a professional college is that their understanding of the education-to-job pipeline is so formulaic: “If I study accounting, I will be an accountant,” or “If I study psychology, I will work in clinical psychology,” which leads to, “Am I screwed over if I concentrate in Entrepreneurship within my Business Management major?”

At this point in the conversation I take a pause to consider my own track to working in Career Services and Study Abroad. “No,” I tell these students, “If you want to work in the United States, you actually have a lot of flexibility.”

I keep using the term “siloed” – how did our students get so siloed? In countries like Germany and Austria where they “track” students as early as the age of 10, that’s where your major in university – or whatever you do even before university – matters. I am not as familiar with Australia, but I have been informed that the education-to-job pipeline is a bit more rigid there, too. Here in the US, the strict guidelines only apply to a few professions. To be a doctor, you need to go to med school. To be a lawyer, you need to go to law school. Here, I totally understand the argument for incorporating these studies into a bachelor’s degree – as it stands now, it doesn’t matter what you study in undergrad, you just need to do well on the right tests to pursue med or law school. But by that point, who wants to spend more money on education?

For the rest of us, the world is kind of our oyster. What matters isn’t entirely what you studied. In 2013, the Washington Post reported that only 27% of students ended up with a job related to their degree. The degree itself matters more than the subject matter.

I’m not in disagreement with the main point of the statement displayed above: higher education does need to be made affordable and less of a debt trap. In those same countries where the education-to-job pipeline is more rigid, higher education is also more affordable, or at least there’s a better loan scheme in place. In Germany, many students remain at university for six years. Their degree and coursework only takes up three years, but students often take their time, taking off a semester once in a while to do something else. Taking your time to explore academia is encouraged. University is also much more affordable, and fewer students attend – again, this can be a good thing and a bad thing. Because students are tracked at the age of 10, the system already sends an allotment of children down a vocational track based on testing at an early age.

All that to say, German students are lucky their education is so affordable (vocational education is just as affordable), and we in the US are lucky to have flexibility. I think there needs to be a middle ground however, because both systems come at their own costs.

As the push for assessment raises questions regarding the effectiveness of higher education institutions in the US to teach important skills is, such as critical thinking, the ability for students to think outside of the boxes of their own disciplines is also a concern. We won’t attain an “innovation economy” if the sociologist doesn’t dabble for a moment in astronomy, or if the mathematician doesn’t consider for a moment the historical complexities that exist in South Africa or India or Slovakia (or anywhere else that’s not here).

So, does a liberal arts education keep students away from “siloed” thinking, or is it a “complete scam for your money”? If the former, are the other, more affordable ways of providing liberal arts education in a way that succeeds at helping students with the following:

Expanding their world view;
Developing key skills demanded in our changing economy (critical thinking, oral/written communications, collaboration, etc.);
Cultivating reflection practices and techniques.

A system change, a mindset change, or both?

By Kelly Davis

On May 10, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

In late April, a message was sent out through a Study Abroad listserv from Naropa University regarding a study abroad program that they offer in Bhutan. Intrigued, I took a look at the program (which I would love to send some of my students on one day), and with my curiosity peaked, I explored the website of this university that has been around since 1974. Naropa University is very niche with about 400 undergraduates and just over 600 postgraduates. It is a liberal arts university with a curriculum influenced by Buddhist practices, with a few select majors, including Yoga Studies.

This little niche university reminded me of Natalie Garrett’s experience at Prescott College, which she reflected on when she was interviewed in Inside Study Abroad’s fifth podcast episode in 2016. There aren’t too many other HEIs offering “Adventure Education” majors.

These two small institutions, much like Menlo College, have narrowed in their focus. Granted, as the Chronicle of Higher Education warns in reflection of the closure of Green Mountain College, being “niche” is not enough.

But what if the system were to change?

What if high school students were encouraged to investigate these smaller colleges more closely, and consider them for their degrees? What if we brought these colleges to the attention of students earning their Associate’s degrees at community colleges, seeking transfer opportunities?

What we if we invest our government, societal funds just as much into these niche opportunities – that encourage innovation – just as much as we should be investing in vocational opportunities?

There are enough options for students to be successful somewhere. There are enough funds in this country to be able to make such options accessible. Yet we choose to continue stressing high school students to the point of irreparable measures by focusing so much on the most elite institutions and the most demanding but lucrative positions.

This is a call to employers, parents, and educators alike: Employers, seek curiosity and innovation. Look in the most surprising places for this creativity. Parents, be open-minded. Continue to be mindful of ROI, but engage in learning about how the system has changed and how will continue to change. Educators, don’t forget that the students aren’t the only ones who need to be educated for the system to start moving and shaking – we are at least partially responsible for promoting ideas for change amongst these other stakeholders as well.

Blog focus: global higher education policy

By Kelly Davis

On May 29, 2018

In Uncategorized

Standing at the entrance of Charlottenstraße 97, about to go our separate ways, a fellow classmate from the United States studying with me in Berlin asked this question: “Why should I pay extra for the little extra I get at NYU, when I could attend a university here in Germany and save thousands of dollars?”

We all began to question how much students pay for college in the US – how much NYU students pay, especially – in our Sociology of the Globalization of Higher Education class that semester. Every semester a group of students take that course at NYU Berlin, mingle with German students, and unleash Pandora’s Box of information on the rest of the cohort: “Did you know that they don’t pay anything to go to college in Germany?”

(This is not 100% true. German students pay semester fees and pay for books, however the total cost of higher education in Germany reaches maybe $1,000 a year, living expenses not included. This number is still far below the cost of even state universities in California, for example.)

During our escapades in Berlin, the question of student debt festered back home. When I returned to NYU New York, I invested my time in the environmentalist communities. However by my senior year (2015-2016), the emphasis of intersectionality began picking up while activism focused on anti-racism and labor rights experienced “moments of the whirlwind,” a term used among activists when a chain reaction is caused by one branch to ignite groups across the country or globe to escalate action. While I continued to advocate for the environment, I felt my focus and energy pivot towards questioning something NYU is known far too well for – it’s lack of scholarships and financial aid support.

Somehow this all led me to focus my Master’s – still concentrated in European Politics and Policy – on the affordability and funding of higher education in Europe. Once I was done with my Bachelor’s thesis, I picked up two books on European higher education and spent the summer reading. I began to consider cost of higher education, structure of universities, the legitimacy of private universities in different countries, the impact of an economic system on culture and perceptions of higher education options. I glanced at the admissions process in German universities, in Irish universities, and I thought back to my own experiences applying to colleges in the US. At the time I was working on my Master’s, my sister was applying to schools, and her journey served me a paradox.

My Master’s thesis aimed to bring forward the voices of Irish and German students at universities and how they perceived the cost of their education. Now, I am looking to learn about the system through a new angle: counseling high school students on the college admissions process. It’s a messy one, and while you’re in it as a high school junior or senior, you can only see it from the front end.

The purpose of my research and work is to question our narratives, systems of funding education, and the institutions themselves. What I will agree with and disagree with I can’t be certain.

With my experience at NYU, one of the most expensive and least financially forgiving private universities in the United States, as well as one of the most “global” universities in the world, and with my interest in continuing the international research I started two years ago, this blog will dive at these questions through examining a large assortment of research:

How do we measure our “value” of post-secondary education? Should this change?

What is our price for quality education?

To what extent should post-secondary education be funded as a public good?

How does our “value” of post-secondary education impact young adults?

I will look to students in both secondary and post-secondary education to examine my questions, and I will look as close to home as the San Francisco Bay Area, and as far away as the United Arab Emirates. It will be political, it will also be very cultural – and often, the stories will be personal.