Category: Higher Education Policy

“Graduation Rates are Rising, but is that because Standards are Slipping?”- by Katherine Mangan, from the Chronicle of Higher Education: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Graduation-Rates-Are-Rising/246480?cid=db

When we compare grades in the United State universities to those in other countries, it’s clear that grades in the US are inflated. I had a sneaking suspicion of this earlier in my undergraduate days. The pressure on maintaining grades seemed to have significantly dropped after parting ways with my high school in Silicon Valley. It took a couple of semesters, but eventually I didn’t care what anyone else’s grades were, and I let the amount I cared about a class guide how much effort I put forward. Even then, I didn’t care about the grade too much (I wasn’t thinking that far ahead about grad school and I didn’t have to, unlike those looking to attend Med school).

The classes I took while studying abroad in Ireland were led by Irish professors. They were small classes of the American students in the summer program, a mix of people studying the humanities and sciences. A mix of people who knew how to write a history paper and those who had less practice.

When I received a B on my mid term paper, I looked through the comments and nodded to myself. I deserved my marks. All my paper had needed was a read-through, an extra hour or two to tighten up the argument. I had not yet perfected my paper-writing routine.

But my classmates were not in agreement with their grades, varying as they were. The pre-med students feared for their high GPAs and there was an uproar among a class of about eight students. I think the Irish professor was a bit taken aback – especially because someone on the NYU side of things had a conversation with him to explain what was happening. The following week, he informed us that he would be adjusting the weight of our grades.

“Keep in mind, if any Irish student received a B- on a midterm paper, they would be very happy about that. That’s good here,” he informed us in so many words or so. I think he may have even directly pointed out how weighted our grades are in the US in comparison. And he’s not wrong, making this anecdote a perfect example of what the Chronicle’s article is explaining.

The sticker price for that NYU summer program in Ireland was approximately $11,000. This included six weeks of housing (a room in the Trinity College dorms – the nicest accommodations I ever had through NYU), fees for small weekend and day trips, health insurance, and the tuition cost for a total of 8 credits, or two courses. The program coordinators were great people, the professors were all great, too, to be credited to both NYU and Trinity College. These features are quite typical of such study abroad programs.

I find it surprising that the authors of the paper indicated in the Chronicle don’t look to the price of a higher education degree, or that the article of the CHE article decided not to mention that component (I haven’t read the report, so I’m not sure who missed the beat there). The sticker price of an NYU degree in general is high, as it is for any private university. And the cost of state colleges have increased since the 1990’s as well, the duration of time that this study regarding graduation rates and standards to graduate took place.

When you raise the price of education, when you take it out of government hands to fund, it becomes a product, and the student becomes the customer. Often times the parents are also customers, which creates this really weird dynamic where the students aren’t treated like the adults that they should be because suddenly a million new liabilities come into play.

Here’s what I imagine happened as prices increase: the demand increases to get out of the institution as fast as possible, and you want more for what you’re paying. You had better get something good out of that degree, because yes, you are working more hours than you are studying to pay for the goddamn thing that is supposed to help with your mobility. Gary Roth’s book The Educated Underclass: Students and the False Promise of Social Mobility, will be published on Saturday, and I’m interested to read it for this very reason – are degrees actually delivering social mobility?

In the article I wrote last week, I referenced an article published on the New York Federal Reserve’s blog indicating from their research that college is still worth the investment, even though the rate of return has decreased. Maybe these degrees do pay off in the long run, at least for some people. Literally pay in financial return, at least. But that’s hard to believe unless you are delivered quality and measurable results while you are actually fronting the money. Even college students understand the value of assessment to some extent – we all are taught to value what the numbers show, and we can also measure this value based on the interactions we have while at the institution.

So the pressure is on to deliver those high GPAs in addition to passing out more diplomas. You can argue that it’s all pressure from “the government,” because if more money were allocated to universities and degrees and the right policies were put in place, it wouldn’t cost as much to get a degree and that weird “student as the customer” relationship might disappear – somewhat, and over time. It would have to because more people would get degrees. If you hire a graduate you might pay more attention to that GPA. But employers are looking for skills, and even if the degrees become more affordable, employers would still need to see the right things on a resume to offer someone an interview.

All I’m really trying to say here is that we need to remember that the more expensive product, the higher expectations of the customer. And the same applies to higher education. But when we really think about how higher ed prepares students for the working world… at what point will the employers become the customers?

Is proposing “free college” enough?

By Kelly Davis

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.

International Higher Education Researcher & Educator

Category: Higher Education Policy

Who Sets the Standards, and Who Meets the Standards?

Is proposing “free college” enough?

Does 4 years in college prevent “siloed” thinking?

A system change, a mindset change, or both?