New post from a new contributor!

This week's post is brought to you by guest contributor Drea Elzy.  In her post, Drea examines the dynamics of political change in higher education by stepping back in time to tell the story of university president.  While the presentation and content depart from the style and themes explored thus far, this narrative is essential insofar as it examines how institutions of higher education manage a precious resource: the human resource.  Without any further ado:

Ibsen (Part 1)

By: Andrea ‘Drea’ Elzy

….After a late breakfast at the Mont’ De Palace, while en route to his automobile that was dark and shone like a beached pebble, Henry Ibsen was struck by a sharp sensation in the mouth. Mostly a pinch on the gumline, undesirable in that one cannot scratch these sort of itches without breaking the skin. Although not entirely unfamiliar, the sensation seemed foreign to what had become accepted by him as the natural and unavoidable ailments associated with his body and life. This particular pain seemed by him to start at the base of the jaw, or where the muscle and tissue connect the top and bottom of the mouth. Without much time, it was apparent to Henry Ibsen the narrow area of the mouth and the one or two molars that were perpetrating this violence and right then he resolved to ignore them. On this particular noonday Henry was not to be harassed by a mere trifle of the mouth. Yes, it must be so! It must be ignored! For today was not just any other third Tuesday of the month. Upon the platform on which he now stood, just skipping distance from the Mont’ De Palace, our friend Mr. Ibsen, overlooking the broad Hudson, daydreamt of the good fortune which was soon to befall his sometime noble character. Henry wore a white woolen jacket, like those worn by members of the highest order of physicians; a pair of gray trousers that flared outward passed the knee and a top hat of gray. Perhaps the most memorable feature of this man’s constitution was his elongated chin which his children and colleagues found amusing. His cheeks were bulged and almost always red, especially during the colder months of the year. One could not distinguish the peek of his cheekbones and it seemed that from the eyes down the great lord had implanted but one bone that was soft and round. His sharp dark lips accounted for the faint smiles that not too often crept from the base of his chin to the wrinkle in his eye. His eyes were dark and slanted, sharp, his forehead slanted downward and his hair a light golden brown that grew increasingly thinner.

It was during this great month of February; the third Tuesday of the month that Mr. Henry Ibsen was to finally realize the wealth that for so long had eluded his purse. For it was not sixth months ago that his mentor and long esteemed colleague, The President of The City School, drew his final breathes on the New York’s upper east side bequeathing to him entrance into the esteemed league of gentlemen – University Presidency. 

The City school, founded in 1835 and nestled along the Hudson River, emerged shortly after the birth of its most comparable institution of learning - the aptly named University of the City of New York. Led by President Gallatin, The University of the City of New York proudly neighbored City Hall, while boasting new academic ‘schools,’ which sought to educate those worthy of the fortune, on subjects requiring the talents of a more wealthy breed. The Law school had been the standard measure of success in recent years. Mr. Ibsen had known colleagues, from said institution, whose longstanding tenure in multiple faculties led them to lifelong careers as educators- all of whom which he regarded as men of less than noble and interesting character. His mentor, Dr. James Thomas, had been guilty of this- as his presidency had not always been of noble intentions. Memorable moments throughout Ibsen’s tutelage often appeared like old skeletons in his closet, and he remembered the repeated lessons that Dr. James had so firmly implanted into his psyche. Those same lessons now palpable in the face of his presidency. Dr. James had regarded the presidency as the work of an opera- a dramatic coming together of a people, and repeatedly warned that much like the opera, dealings behind the curtains were to remain so:  “A president never shows his cards,” Ibsen was often told. He bore witness to the many failed attempts at this mission- an undoubted skeleton in Mr. Thomas’ closet, and an equally sad truth. 

Political dealings involving city constituents and the university proved tenuous for the immediate years of his mentor’s presidency- as a bitter competition fueled between The City School and the already established University of the City of New York- creating contention among groups who had interest with one institution over another, and those whose pockets had not yet been lined with money. Consequently, Dr. James’ presidency had been the subject of repeated scandal. These same groups, upon his death, resigned to influence discussion of City School’s new president, however attempts at influence remained unsuccessful- as the decision to name a Henry Ibsen as the new president of The City School was highly favored by faculty and students alike. Ibsen’s impending presidency, received with mixed emotions by the city of New York, was believed by many to be a sign of hope for students and education in New York City in the 1800s.

On the first day of March in 1840, reporting for presidency, a calm and confident Ibsen entered the Smith Building..

To Be Continued..

Cultivating Student Success from the Fallout of the Great Recession: An Attempt to Increase Institutional Productivity

       The Great Recession has impacted higher education such that budgets have tightened, course sections have been cut, and remaining sections have become swollen with students.  Higher education administrators have attempted to manage their enrollments and increase rates of degree completion using various means.  The University of Nevada at Reno (UNR) has implemented a strategy that partners the provost’s office with students to clear obstacles blocking their pathway to degree completion.  UNR’s program, the Course Concierge Service (CCS), works to get students the course(s) they need to complete their degrees on time.  This paper summarizes UNR’s CCS program while also providing critical analysis.  It is concluded that the CCS program is a plausible solution for institutions with limited financial resources and limited options.  

UNR launched its CCS program under the auspices of the provost’s office in 2007 to improve institutional performance in three interrelated areas.  First, UNR planned to increase the combined undergraduate and graduate enrollment by 500 students per year through 2012 (Neill, 2011, p. 8).  Second, UNR committed to increasing the six-year completion percentage for undergraduate students by 12% over five years (p.8).  Third, the CCS was implemented to increase persistence rates of freshmen and sophomores (p.8). UNR’s overarching goal is to increase institutional productivity despite drastic cuts in state appropriations.  Indeed, the CCS is an object lesson in accomplishing more with less.  The provost’s office partnered with key academic departments and faculty to construct pathways to academic success for students facing barriers arising from limited course availability or exceptionally extenuating circumstances.  The  primary function of the CCS is to supplement the professional advisement of students by facilitating solutions for certain students’ “more complex and intractable enrollment challenges” through a centralized service (p. 10).

UNR’s institutional research efforts revealed certain institutional practices were constraining students’ scheduling options thereby forcing them to enroll in elective courses superfluous to degree requirements.  For example, UNR found that transfer students were especially likely to stop-out because of UNR’s transfer credit policies.  According to Neill (2011), “The average transfer student on our campus transfers more than 50 credits….A significant number of these credits do not satisfy general education or major requirements” (p. 10).  It was also found that UNR students were being adversely impacted by the limited availability of required math and English courses.  Neill reports that to remedy this situation the UNR president took the bold step of guaranteeing the availability of high-demand courses to high-priority students (p. 8).  Under such a weighty presidential mandate, the CCS takes priority students’ needs directly to the faculty and requests that faculty permit CCS students to register in otherwise closed class sections.  According to Neill, the goal “is to ensure that students who need access to the courses have priority” (p.9).  Scholarship suggests that though the CCS may not be ideal, it is aligned with certain best practices and makes use of existing resources and offices. 

Scholarship on academic advising (Kuh, Kinzie, Whitt, & Associates, 2005; Kuh, 2008) suggests that effective academic advising be structured to accomplish institutional goals within the prevailing institutional context.  UNR’s ability to offer more sections of highly demanded courses is severely limited by Nevada’s dire financial situation.  Thus, the CCS was designed and implemented to facilitate student academic success and institutional educational goals by maximizing extant resources.  Kuh et al. (2005) found that student success is regularly obtained insofar as institutions lay out clear pathways to degree completion (pp. 313-314).  As such, the CCS is designed to clear students’ pathways by opening lines of communication between faculty and administration.  This is consistent with King’s (2007) recommendation that academic advising services collaborate and forge links among the myriad student support offices and programs (p. 249).  The CCS appears to produce positive outcomes for students inasmuch as CCS students are getting the classes they need to graduate, but more data is needed.  

While Neill (2011) concludes by asserting that the CCS, “Provides an effective and efficient enrollment management resource for the freshman class” (p. 11), he does not furnish any evidence to support this claim.  Neill readily admits that the combination of sour economic conditions with decreased state appropriations has produced “perfect storm” conditions for UNR’s enrollment and student success initiatives (p. 10).  However, these conditions are present across the country and students’ responses have ranged from enrolling in community colleges in lieu of public universities (Garcia, 2011a) to not purchasing required textbooks in order conserve limited funds (Garcia, 2011b).  Students academic and professional plans are being affected by the economy and UNR is attempting to mitigate these effects with the CCS.  The CCS attempts to help students save time and money by collaborating with faculty to place students in the classes they need to graduate on-time.  Yet, the lack of data regarding the efficacy of the CCS begs the question of whether there are more economical and effective alternatives.  Time (and data) will tell whether UNR’s CCS program is an effective supplement to academic advising.  

References:
Garcia, R. C. (2011, July 31). The great recession, two hills, and a valley. Retrieved from:      http://collegemoneytalk.blogspot.com/2011/07/great-recession-two-hills-and- valley.html

Garcia, R. C. (2011, August 28). Books and woes. Retrieved from: http:// collegemoneytalk.blogspot.com/2011/08/books-and-woes.html

King, M. C. (2007). Organization of academic advising services. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, T. J. Grites, & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 242-266). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D. (2007). Advising for student success. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, T. J. Grites, & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 68-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Neill, P. A. (2011). The college concierge service. New Directions for Higher Education, 153, 7-11.

Selective admissions, rising costs, and tuition concerns

This week's post examines the intersections of selective college admissions and college costs.  Inside Higher Ed recently released results from their 2011 survey of college and university admission directors.  Owing to the continued volatility of domestic and world markets it is unsurprising that the number one concern across all institution types is over rising costs and the effects on families.  The problem of rising costs ought to concern administrators at selective schools for several reasons.  First, the prestige arms race is  not sustainable.  The drain on resources to add amenities has been countered by increasing the price students and families pay.  Second, the demographics of higher education are shifting.  The National Center for Educational Statistics is projecting increased enrollments in postsecondary institutions for minority students, women, and students between the ages of 25-29.  The price of obtaining a college education and the costs of producing a degree can either align with the projected trends or disregard these projections and remain enclaves of privilege.  Finally, selective admissions policies are likely to met with increased scrutiny from federal and state funding agencies.  Degree productivity either has to increase or taxpayers are likely question the value of publicly subsidizing the privileges of the wealthy. 


Why should we care about the most selective schools and their admissions policies?  Most US citizens will not complete a college degree at the most selective schools.  Folks that do complete a bachelor's degree are most likely to have come from more inclusive public schools or less-selective private schools. The problem is that these inclusive schools are seldom the subject of news reports on television or in print media; all the media attention is lavished on the brand names of the Ivy League and their west coast contemporaries.  This has the unfortunate effect of shaping public perceptions of college admission and also distorts the value attached to obtaining admission.  Indeed, the USC Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice (CERPP) reports that, "The values and behaviors [selective admissions] signals as important, and its tendency to reward only a narrow band of students, undermine progress toward our nation's education attainment goals" (p.2).  Moreover, as more US colleges and universities enter the fray of the prestige arms race the access pathways become more constrained.


When I talk about selective admissions what I refer to is a constellation of practices whereby schools seek to "craft" or "build" their incoming freshmen and transfer classes.  Students are sorted through a variety of methods aimed at determining whether a given applicant possesses the academic and social chops to succeed at a given school.  While concerns over a student's ability to succeed are well-founded, the means of accomplishing this feat are dubious.  The foremost feature of selective admissions is the standardized testing requirement.  According to the above-mentioned Inside Higher Ed survey 71.7% of respondents indicated that they still required either the SAT or ACT as part of the application process.  The unfortunate reality of standardized tests is that they predict something they, at least facially, aren't supposed to predict: students' socioeconomic status  (Au, 2009; Sternberg, 2011).  Additionally, research has shown that standardized tests are weak indicators of student success (Kuh and Pascarella, 2004).  If tests are measuring SES better than predicting academic success, why do so many schools insist on them?


The answer is simple: high scoring test takers tend to come from families better able to pay the high tuitions charged at selective schools.  While merit aid (another topic unto itself) allows high achieving students to eliminate or significantly reduce their tuition, many high scoring students simply have parents that can afford the exorbitant tuitions.  But, why is tuition at selective schools so much higher than at more inclusive schools?  The answer is twofold: 1) amenities; and 2) scarcity of seats.  First, amenities allow schools to offer the trappings of luxury in order to lure applicants away from their competitors.  New student centers, athletic and exercise facilities, or elaborate research facilities increase the costs schools have to cover.  Second, selective schools are not adding seats to their incoming classes.  Indeed, if these school have added anything over the past two decades it has been the above-mentioned amenities.  The increased costs of providing new or expanded services is covered either through cuts to other services and program or by increasing tuition and service fees.  However, were a selective school to increase the number of seat in a class by any significant number they would be penalized in the rankings.  Thus, it behooves schools chasing prestige to maintain the size of incoming classes and to be just a little better than those below them. 


The national and world economies are troubled and it appears that we are in for a long recovery process.  In the meantime, the US is facing significant changes in the demographic distribution of students entering postsecondary education.  President Obama has challenged the nation to increase the number of associate's and bachelor's degree holders by 2020.  If schools can put aside the prestige arms race and focus on collaboration, we stand a better chance as a nation to reassert ourselves as a world economic power and as a leading education provider.  Schools need incentives to keep costs down and families need tuitions to flatten out to meet the future goals of our country.  Unfortunately, much of what the average person hears and reads about American higher education concerns the top 15% of schools.  Indeed, if the admission process is being referred to as "madness," the time is ripe to rethink and retool.  One of my favorite books about college admissions was written the by late Loren Pope: "Colleges That Change Lives."  His work lives on at www.ctcl.org.  Take a minute to check out the website and maybe buy the book.  The best schools are the ones that focus on student learning almost to a fault.  


Learners first, students always!

Au, W. (2009). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Kuh, G. D., & Pascarella, E. T. (2004). What does educational selectivity tell us about

educational quality? Change, 36(5), 52-58.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A broad view of intelligence: The theory of successful intelligence.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55(3), 139-154. doi:

10.1037/1061-4087.55.3.139

We are in this together

So, I originally planned to write a piece about how selective admissions policies affect college costs.  However, owing to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 I have changed my mind.  Today I write about the bonds between countrymen, neighbors, and humanity.

Quite simply: we are in this together.  The folks on this earth today are those that we will live with, die with, or will see us leave this life.  Our decisions ripple through our communities and around the globe; our choices affect us all.

Whether we choose to support the civil rights of others or advocate for equal access to education and healthcare, the fact remains that upon whichsoever side we stand our individual choices affect those around us.   Scholars and professionals attempt to help others make sense of very complex systems.  Sometimes we get it wrong.  But, the capacity to learn from mistakes and redesign is humanity's tremendous evolutionary advantage.

Our lives were changed on 9/11.  Generations will rise up having only our stories to tell them about that frightful day.  We, however, are here now. We get to choose how the faceless future meets our legacy.  I choose to be a positive force for change.  I may not get it right it most of the time.  I will need my friends, brothers, sisters, neighbors, and detractors to help me improve.  We are in this together and cannot make this world better on our own.

My heart burns for those lost on 9/11 and beats for those of us still here.  Rest peacefully and live collaboratively.

Books and Woes

Many schools' move-days have come and gone, students are back, and classes have begun.  In California the state's budget woes have resulted in fewer sections of high demand classes and larger enrollments in those sections that are still being offered.  This is particularly troubling since CSU and UC students are having to pay tuition at a rate higher than the state contribution.  According to the Los Angeles Times this is the first time in the history of the CSU and UC that this has ever happened and it appears that students will be paying higher rates indefinitely.  The implications appear dire for low income, minority, and first generation students.  If you don't believe me, then let's take a quick look at something really basic:  textbooks.

From a student learning perspective, larger classes impair student learning by severely limiting the amount of contact between students and faculty.  The physical and cognitive distance between students and faculty is a real barrier to student success.  So much so, that Bill Tierney, director of the USC Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, has quipped, "Distance education begins at the second row."  Students need access to their faculty for myriad reasons.  The most fundamental reason being self-monitoring of learning; students learn by actively engaging the content and their social and academic milieus (Astin, 1996; Baxter Magolda, 1992).  So, if student learning is already challenged by large class sections, imagine the difficulties presented by not being able to obtain a textbook.

The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that students are competing for seats in crowded classes, paying more than ever, and are not buying their required texts.  Indeed, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that 7 out of 10 students chose to not buy the required text for class.  The Chronicle obtained this data from a research project run by Student PIRGs (political interest research group).  According to the report, 13 schools were sampled and 1905 completed surveys were returned wherein students overwhelmingly responded that they did not buy a text because of cost.  Moreover, these students also recognized that their in-class experience would be qualitatively worse without the textbook.  

The problems for first generation, minority, and low SES students are magnified by the our current economic malaise.  Whereas middle and upper-middle class families can move their students to less-impacted private schools, low SES families are less able to afford the higher costs of attendance.  Our public universities belong to all citizens.  Generations of taxpayers have paid in to a system of higher education regardless of whether they or their progeny actually enrolled.  Our students (whether rich or poor, majority or minority, first, second, or third generation) deserve a quality learning experience.  According to Labaree (2007), states "cannot afford to let public schools fail, even if their own children are gaining consumer benefits from education elsewhere" (p. 179).  The costs of an unlettered and chronically poor underclass are felt throughout society.  We know that education in general, and higher education in particular, produces significant lasting positive changes in students and in their communities.  What happens when we let our schools deteriorate to such a degree that students do not or can not purchase the books required to set them on the path to learning?

Healing our social woes begins in public primary school and goes all the way to public postsecondary institutions.  Whether families or even those without children use public education is not the issue.  Rather, citizens must choose where they want to pay for the underdeveloped and unschooled.   That is, we can invest more in our educational infrastructure to promote greater economic parity.  Or, we can pay for more police, prisons, and welfare.  Kids that are in school are not running with gangs.  Young adults and emerging adults that are in school are on a path towards greater degrees of cognitive and affective development.  These are positive outcomes that are relatively easy to see.  Yet, it is difficult to persuade someone to go to class if they don't have access to the course content.

Learners first, students always!

Astin, A.  (1996).  Involvement in learning revisited: What we have learned.  Journal of College Student Development, 37, 123-133.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992).  Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender related patterns in students' intellectual development.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Labaree, D. F.  (2007).  No exit: Public education as an inescapably public good. In D. F. Labaree (Ed.), Education, markets, and the public good: The selected works of David Labaree.  New York, NY: Routledge.

Volkswagen or Rolls Royce? Both do the same thing...

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that rising college costs are negatively affecting public opinion of American higher education.  These concerns are likely to be exacerbated by the volatile fluctuations of world securities and stock exchanges that rippled around the globe this past week.  Parents and students are likely to question the value of a baccalaureate or graduate degree where the costs of attaining these qualifications are high and the markets do not seem to have settled at all since 2008.  As costs continue to rise and families face uncertain economic times it is reasonable to ask whether colleges and universities can do more to reduce costs while improving learning outcomes and degree productivity.  This weeks entry examines the college cost disease theory and asks whether anything can be done to promote broader and deeper student learning with greater access.

A pair of Bills (Baumol and Bowen) authored the theory of cost disease in an attempt to understand why certain industries are unable to achieve lower costs relative to other sectors of the economy.  Baumol, Blackman, and Wolff (1985) found that technological innovations reduce production costs and consumer price points, but only insofar as the human element of production is either absent or held to a minimum.  New technologies tend to have large upfront costs, but these costs also decrease over time.  Thus, the savings from new technologies accrue over time as costs decrease relative to increased revenues.  Think Henry Ford and the assembly line innovation.  However, these cost savings can disappear over time and the activity becomes stagnant as human labor components hold steady or increase.  "As the stagnant component must come to dominate the activity's budget, its output cost and price must approach those of its stagnant component, and therefore have to rise, succumbing to the cost disease, " explains Baumol, Blackman, and Wolff (p. 808).

In other words, technological advances that promote efficient use of resources are limited to the productivity of other components.  For higher education a primary limiting factor is the very structure of instruction itself.  Faculty are the primary "producers" of postsecondary instruction.  Classrooms are temples wherein faculty impart their esoteric knowledge to students via lecture, powerpoint, research papers, and examinations.  Faculty salaries are fixed costs.  That is, you have to pay your faculty or you'll no longer be in business as a school.  Thus, faculty are crucial to the formal activity of teaching at postsecondary institutions.   The cost disease of higher education arises from 1) dependence upon faculty to produce instruction; and 2) the lack of technological innovations for producing equal or greater measures of instruction.  According to Baumol (1993), "The services that have been infected by the cost disease are precisely those in which the human touch is crucial" (p. 19).

Part of the problem for higher education is that change occurs slowly in service industries.  In production industries like automotive manufacturing, processes that can be automated have been automated.  Except for a small handful of luxury automakers like Ferrari and Rolls Royce all mass producers have automated as many segments of their production lines for which technology provides an answer.  The result of such automation is a mass produced product available for a lower price than the handmade luxury product.  The problem for higher education is that world wide demand has skyrocketed since the 1970s, but the production techniques have changed very little.  Baumol (1993) speculated that were "the pupil-teacher ratio [to remain] constant, so that crude productivity growth per teacher-hour is zero, then a 3 percent rise in nominal teacher salaries (or any growth at all in those salaries, for that matter) will lead to a commensurate rise in cost per pupil" (p. 21). This model suggests that as faculty salaries rise to adjust cost-of-living increases so to must the numbers of students in any given classroom.  So, the cost disease of higher education arises from the human production component.

Combatting the cost disease requires institutions of higher education to meet product demands at a sustainable price point.  Technological advances have long been touted as sources of efficiency for instruction and learning.  Massy and Zemsky offer an optimistic outlook on how the internet and network computer technology can be harnessed to foster new levels of academic productivity at lower costs.  Their assessment was recently echoed by Kamenetz (2010) who argues that the internet has unbundled learning from instruction by making information broadly available at fraction of the cost.  As I argued last week, we need to change our assumptions of value in higher education.  The scarcity of seats at a school is the current metric, but it is failing.  We need to shift from an exchange value to a use value.  Thus, leaner institutions will produce graduates that can do what the bigger, more expensive elite schools can do, but in larger numbers.  Part of the strategy for public and smaller, less-selective private schools will be to increase the numbers of programs and courses offered online while also adapting current pedagogies or creating novel ones altogether.

Meyer's (2005) model for planning for cost-efficient online programs identifies three elements (development, delivery, administration) and seven factors (students, faculty, other staff, course design, content, infrastructure, and policy).  The gist of Meyer's model is to get schools to design online programs that are efficient and produce learning consistent with a given educational mission.  Meyer concedes that whatever efficiencies accrue from promoting online education hinges upon "all of the decisions an institution makes in each cell of the framework"  (p. 29).  In other words, schools will need to decide whether they want to make Volkswagens or Roll Royces.  Reluctance to accept that change is necessary will be met with increased costs that students and their families will have to pay for.  Online programs can be designed to facilitate student learning at less cost than brick-and-mortar.  Does everyone need a Rolls Royce when a Volkswagen will do the job?

Baumol, W. J., Blackman, S. A. B., & Wolff, E. N. (1983).  Unbalanced growth revisited: Asymptotic stagnancy and new evidence.  The American Economic Review, 75(4), 806-817.

Baumol, W. J. (1993).  Health care, education, and the cost disease: A looming crisis for public choice.  Public Choice, 77(1), 17-28.

Kamenetz, A. (2010). DIY U: Edupunks, edupreneurs, and the coming transformation of higher education.  White River Junction, VI: Chelsea Green Publishing. 

Meyer, K. A. (2005).  Planning for cost-efficiencies in online learning.  Planning for Higher Education,       33(3), 19-30.


Learners first, students always!

These ARE the costs you are paying for!

This week I want to talk to you about trends in student lending and to distinguish college costs from college tuition. It behooves students and families to wisely invest in a college and/ or graduate education. The bad news is that families pay more to go to college nowadays than 20 years ago. The good news is that the well-informed readers of this blog will be able to distinguish actual educational value from the shiny distractions of prestige-building institutions. If you know what a school has to spend money on to produce student learning, you are in a great position to identify where you want to send your children and your hard-earned money.

Based on last week’s posting it is clear that college tuitions are rising. The concern among folks working in higher education is that there does not seem to be a panacea for the cost disease (more on this concept next week). Costs are rising and schools are—particularly the cash-strapped public universities—having to balance public concerns with internal strategic priorities. The recession has shown us all how susceptible we are to modifications of the prices for basic goods and services. The consumer price index (CPI) is a measure of the prices paid by individuals for basic needs and it has been climbing. But it has not climbed nearly so fast as the measure of what colleges and universities pay.

The measure of higher education costs is known as the higher education price index (HEPI). HEPI is a constellation of eight cost factors: 1) faculty salaries; administrative salaries; 3) staff salaries; 4) service employee salaries; 5) benefits; 6) miscellaneous services; 7) supplies and materials; and 8) utilities (HEPI, 2010). HEPI was created by Commonfund Institute to measure the purchasing power of postsecondary institutions.  What the folks at the Commonfund Institute are finding is that schools' purchasing power is tethered to its revenue streams.  Funding the rising costs of providing an education has meant that schools have had to shift funds around, cut some line items, and raise revenues elsewhere.  The point here is that there are basic costs to pay for schools to keep functioning.  Discretionary costs function to raise the net cost of providing an education.  Thus, the base costs plus discretionary expenses equates to the actual cost of operating an educational institution.

As the recession has worn on states have—particularly in California—cut their appropriations to public higher education.  Hauptman (1990) documents the inverse relationship between state appropriations to higher education and tuition increases.  Students' and families' experiences have anecdotally born out this factually documented relationship between appropriations and tuitions.  My concern is the relationship between decreased state appropriations and the prestige-building of public-flagship institutions.  The nameplate schools of UCLA or Cal are synonymous with high GPAs, high test scores, and very selective admissions.  The public flagships are by definition public schools and exist to serve the tax-paying state citizenry.  Yet, the L.A. Times reports that more California students are finding themselves excluded from state schools to make room for non-residents and international students.  Gaps between costs and revenues, however, have meant that schools have had to raise tuitions or find more students to pay higher tuitions.  Capital projects funded by donors and state funds have additional costs buried within that adversely affect the long-term costs for which budgets must be planned.  These costs have been placed on the students and is affecting student success and student debt.

In fact, student indebtedness is rising at an alarming rate.  Deritis documents the growth of student loan balances and links the growth to 1) increased overall demand for higher education and; 2) the skyrocketing enrollments at for-profit institutions.  Meanwhile, the folks at EducationSector.org have reported that students now borrow up to 24% more money to pay for higher education than they did only five years ago.  The big problem is that we are, according to EducationSector, "Floating colleges on a sea of debt."  We know what it costs to keep an American family fed, clothed, and sheltered based on the CPI.  We have an understanding of what it costs to keep the lights on, water running, and faculty fed at postsecondary institutions thanks to HEPI.  However, our willingness to deficit finance an education must be tempered by the realization that a degree from a prestigious university does not certify any more learning than a degree from a for-profit institution.  Our quality assurance system of regional accreditation is only just now beginning to search for ways to measure learning and hold schools accountable for producing learning.

So, when you write your childrens' tuition checks I want you to remember that what you are paying for may or may not directly fund their education.  Tuition represents costs plus extras and whether those extras contribute directly to your childrens' learning and future success is an issue in which you ought to take serious interest.

Hauptman, A. M. (1990).  The college tuition spiral.  New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing.

Learners first, students always!

The Great Recession, two hills, and a valley

If there were a time in American history when the average high school graduate could expect to eke out a comfortable, middle-class existence, it has gone the way of Pontiac.   Today, college attendance is the social elevator that the high school diploma once represented.  With more students seeking baccalaureate degrees than ever before the nation has some difficult questions to answer.  This week's entry examines the effects of the Great Recession on enrollment patterns and argues for clearer thinking on funding priorities for public higher education.


For folks working in higher education, the effects of the Great Recession were not as dire as some for forecasters suggested. Enrollments did not plummet off a cliff and schools were not shuttered like so many Circuit City stores.  Indeed, InsideHigherEd reported findings from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center showing that the recession flattened students' enrollment at public four-year institutions while enrollments at community colleges and private, non-profit, four-year institutions grew.  Graphically, the distribution of student enrollments looks like a valley amidst two hills where community colleges and private schools are the hills and public schools are the valley.  This pattern, however, should concern college-bound students and families as it clearly shows that students' choices are more constrained than ever.


According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) student enrollments in degree-granting institutions have steadily increased every year from 1970 to today.  From 1999 to 2009 degree-seeking students have increased from 14.8 million to 20.4 million.  Meanwhile, the average cost of attending a public, four-year college or university has risen from $950 in 1964 to $12,804 in 2010 (NCES).  The two-fold challenge facing today's college-bound students is 1) increasing access issues (more students seeking college, but not enough seats) and; 2) costs of attending public institutions are approaching those found at private schools.  The recession resulted in a sharp drop of tax revenues and budget shortfalls that state legislatures have wrestled to contain.  In California, these shortfalls have resulted in a series of tuition and fee increases that appears to be squeezing students on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder out of the system.


Indeed, the Los Angeles Times reported that the UC Regents' approval of another tuition hike came shortly after a pay raise was granted to Mark Laret, CEO of UCSF's medical center bringing his pay up to $1.2 million for 2011.  Money that could have been expended on student services, scholarships, or instruction was instead directed towards the retention of an executive functioning in a non-instructional capacity.  These are challenging times and the governing boards of public universities have responded with belt-tightening measures that are affecting student learning, access, and success.  With the total cost of UC education approaching $31, 000 per year it is easy to see why public higher education enrollments for middle-income families have begun to sag.  These families can either no longer afford the tax-supported state university or choose to get more for their dollar by selecting a private school.


The choice that I think lays before the United States is to determine whether the country is comfortable with an increasingly privatized system of higher education.  The demand for postsecondary education is growing and will continue to grow well into the next decade.  NCES reports that as of 2009 the largest providers of postsecondary education in the United States were the University of Phoenix, with 380,232 students, and Kaplan University with 71, 011.  Arizona State University, the nation's largest public university, came in third with 68, 084 students.  From the look these figures it looks like the nation is growing more comfortable with a privatized postsecondary system, but what does this mean for publicly supported higher education?  Are we comfortable with transforming a public good into a private commodity?  Students will increasingly have to choose between community colleges or private schools to accomplish their educational goal unless we re-invest our tax dollars in worthwhile national priority.  


Learners first, students always!

First posting: Introduction

This blog provides analysis of theories, themes, and trends within the realm of higher education finance.  I intend to share and discuss information that will help students, parents, scholars, and administrators to make sense of college costs and college finance.

I am a graduate admission professional at a highly selective, private, research intensive university located in Southern California.  As an admission professional I am tasked with facilitating the enrollment goals of my institution.  I read applications, provide guidance, and facilitate the transition from applicant to graduate student.

The topic of college costs is important during our troubled economic times.  Public appropriations for higher education are shrinking as tuitions are rising and students are left without answers as to why this is happening to them.  Taxpayers deserve to understand how and where their tax dollars are spent to fund higher education; more so when those public funds act to undermine broad access to a quality education.

I will frequently resort to theory as I frame a topic.  But, I will do my best to make the theory accessible through explanations.  If my interpretation or use of a theory is incorrect with your own, please contribute to my learning and share with the rest of the audience.  Also, I come from the perspective that our institutions exist to educate students in preparation for contributing to welfare of their communities and our nation.  While this is hardly a revolutionary perspective, it is one that, I feel, has been whittled away at as educational values confront commercial values.

Finally, blogs are intended to be topical.  The first few installments will have an arc to them as I discuss theories germane to higher education finance and cost containment.  Afterwards, I will continue to post thoughts and insights as they pertain to the costs of higher education.

Thank you for your interest!  I invite you to sign on and follow me as I explore the intersections of higher education finance and student learning.

Learners first, students always!