Tag: affordability

In the first few days of the first vacation I took during my new job, I read a recently published book that has received wide acclaim: Normal People, by Sally Rooney, speaks to the complexities of relationships between folks in their early adult years quite effectively. The two main characters completed secondary school in 2011 in Sligo, Ireland, a year before I completed high school in California. The story between the two characters, Connell and Marianne, reveals the many varying natures of these relationships, university life, and explores issues of class and abusive relationships. It’s relatable, and asks similar questions we are asking ourselves in the United States.

I’ve recalled the book frequently in the last week since I’ve finished it, but for only one of the book’s topics: social class. Connell’s mother works as a housekeeper and serves Marianne’s family. Marianne and Connell attend secondary school together, and towards the end, their relationship begins, which leads them both to Trinity College. The “status” of their relationship fluctuates throughout the novel, so I am not giving anything away by referring to one point earlier in the book when Connell notes that the cycle of money in their lives goes something like this: His mother works for Marianne’s family, who then pays her. Connell’s mother gives him spending money, which he then often ends up spending on Marianne when they spend time together. Their class differences bothers Connell at many points in the novel.

The other morning, I sat at a local coffee shop that serves a great espresso. The day before, I’d flown in from Italy where I was visiting my sister (who is studying abroad there) and I needed two shots. Halfway through the espresso, I was already certain I would be accompanying these two shots with a cup of green tea when I arrived at my office later. I also ordered a small breakfast dish – it happens to be the cheapest one, but really I was just trying to avoid more bread after 8 days in what I dub as “the land of bread” (Europe, not just Italy. Whenever you travel to Europe, you are effectively traveling to THE Land of Bread).

I was served my oatmeal by a Menlo student. I have never spoken to her before, and while I did recognize her it took my brain far too long to place her. But I think she recognized me. I suddenly felt ashamed while eating at this café. I could have eaten at the other café nearby and would have spent the same amount of money on this breakfast, but if I had ordered anything else, the prices of this place would have climbed to a obnoxiously high.

If this student thinks anything like I did as a student, then she may feel upset that I am spending my salary, aka students’ tuition money, on this fancy little breakfast I’m having. And if she doesn’t think quite like I used to, she could just feel weird and uncomfortable about the whole thing, similar to how Connell felt weird about the cycle of money between his family and Marianne’s family.

I thought about this quite a bit at NAFSA. I was extremely stringent with my spending, making sure I kept under the budget I was allotted. I looked around at colleagues from other institutions who didn’t have to do that, who instead felt obliged to make sure they spent their entire budget (which was probably a lot bigger than mine). It feels odd, because there are a lot of young adults who go into debt attending all of our institutions, and the amount of money that goes into sending staff to conferences and providing decent benefits is not insignificant.

But in any other job, that’s often a precedent, and becoming more and more an expectation. There are articles upon articles about how Millenials – and soon Gen Z – are picky about what they are offered in a job opportunity. We want more vacation days because we see the value in rest. We want flexible hours for the same reason. We demand assistance in professional development. Without necessarily articulating it, we believe in the saying “Work smarter, not harder.”

So as I sit here reaping the benefits of my work – a double espresso, and some oatmeal with… goji berries? – is this what I should be spending my money on? Is this a responsible way to be spending this money, which may be the money that the student who served me pays Menlo in order to complete her degree? I suppose in some ways it’s ending up back in her pocket. But do we say that to make ourselves feel better?

Working in higher education as an administrator harbors weird conundrums in financial responsibility that I’m not sure any other sector has to deal with in quite the same way. It’s both political and quite personal, it involves customer service. Word on the street has been for a while now that HEIs are spending too much on administration, which is definitely true in some cases. But does working in this sector where students are struggling to pay for their degrees mean that we who sit in these positions need to suffer in the same way? Maybe. But then, no one would work in this sector long, and that would be a problem.

Many people believe that cutting back on administration will help keep costs down at universities. (Here is my young millennial response to this: LOL.) This may be true in some cases, perhaps at large universities (even this can be disputed – I haven’t worked at a large university, nor have I looked at any stats). But it’s not like those administrators aren’t doing good work. Today’s economy makes demands for more than a deep knowledge of one’s subject. And the financial beast of it all is such a big beast, I think even the higher education auditors are afraid to tackle it. So some of that “bureaucracy” may be there for a reason.

As I typically do, I come back around pointing fingers at the system we’ve set up for ourselves here. And as we consider how best to change that system, I ask that we don’t act rashly when it comes to cutting back administration. Like with everything else, let’s attempt to do this effectively in a way that serves the interests of the people who matter most here: the students.

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.

Tag: affordability

Student tuition pays my salary. How should that impact how I spend or save it?

Is proposing “free college” enough?

Does 4 years in college prevent “siloed” thinking?