Each year online learning initiatives becomes less of a fringe movement and more of an incorporated, and accepted, form of education. More than 6.7 million people took at least one online class in the fall of 2011 and 32 percent of college students now take at least one online course during their matriculation. It is even becoming commonplace for high schools to require all students to take an online class before graduation as a way to prep them for the “real world” of secondary education.
The flexibility and convenience of online learning is well known but what is not as readily talked about is the way distance education promotes diversity of the college population. With less red tape than the traditional college format, online students are able to earn credits while still working full time, maintaining families and dealing with illnesses. Whether students take just one course remotely, or obtain an entire degree, they are able to take on the demands of college life more readily – leading to student population with more variety.
The Babson Survey Research Group recently revealed that while online college student enrollment is on the rise, traditional colleges and universities saw their first drop in enrollment in the ten years the survey has been conducted. This drop is small – less than a tenth of one percent – but its significance is big. A trend toward the educational equality of online curriculum is being realized by students, institutions and employers across the board. The benefits of a college education through quality online initiatives are now becoming more accessible to students that simply cannot commit to the constraints of a traditional campus setting.
A controversial experiment that could lead the way to even more college credit accessibility is MOOCs, or massive open online courses. As the name implies, these classes are offered to the general public at a low cost, or no cost, in the hopes of earning their students college credit. California-based online course provider Coursera recently had five of its offerings evaluated by the American Council on Education for college credit validity. Four of the courses were recommended for college credit by ACE, and one was endorsed for vocational credit, providing student work verification through a strict proctoring process.
These credits are not earned through community colleges or online-institutions; Duke University, the University of California at Irvine and the University of Pennsylvania are on Coursera’s list of places the courses will earn credit for students that pay a nominal fee. Students that obtain these credits through Coursera can approach any higher education institution and seek their inclusion in a degree program, but the final discretion is up to the particular school.
MOCCs are certainly in an infancy stage and do not provide a “sure thing” yet for students that participate. In the Babson survey mentioned earlier, only 2.6 percent of schools offer a MOOC, but an additional 9.4 percent are building a MOCC plan. The potential for further diversity and equality in education through MOCCs is certainly on the horizon. This form of online learning means that students do not have to commit to an entire course of study to obtain credits or even commit to a particular institution upfront.
MOOCs will further eliminate the socio-economic barriers that keep promising students from seeking out college credits. Students are given more flexibility in scheduling at an affordable price. Though the MOOC trend has its dissenters, I believe it will win over even the most skeptical and increase accessibility for all people that seek higher education. After all, at one time the mention of online courses raised a few eyebrows in the educational community and look how far the concept has come. Further development of online initiatives, specifically in the area of MOOCs, represents the next big step for enriching the diversity of the college student population in America.
College and university campuses are places for progress. The nation’s youngest minds and most educated adults work together to not only better their individual lives, but to improve society. This comes in the form of medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, advancement of the arts and more. College and university settings are the birthplace of much of the nation’s innovation.
Academics are not the only area that benefit from the collaborative and ambitious natures of higher education populations, though. Advancements in social thought also take place on these campuses, creating the mold of behavior that the rest of the country should, and often, follows. Diversity programs on college campuses, both school- and student-sponsored, are about more than cashing in on a perennial buzzword. These initiatives make a difference, from impacting immediate communities to influencing public policy and laws.
In my own research, I read about a lot of different schools doing tremendous things in the areas of promoting diversity, on campus and beyond. Here’s a look at a few of the strongest programs I’ve come across recently:
California Community Colleges
As reported on this site, the California Community College system recently announced a partnership with Historically Black Colleges and Universities that will link two-year achievements at the California schools with furthering that education at nine of the nation’s HBCUs. Students who earn a transfer level associate’s degree and at least a 2.5 GPA will have priority status for admissions, housing and even financial aid at HBCUs. What I like so much about this program is that it is actually boosting diversity on HBCU campuses, particularly when it comes to California’s relatively large Latino/Latina college student populations. It is not just black students who will benefit from this program; other minorities, and even white students, will also have greater opportunities beyond their two-year degrees.
College of William and Mary
Sometimes the diversity programs outlined officially by elite colleges can come across at being a little bit dry, or lacking passion. Over the years as I’ve read about them, it has often struck me that these policies are more a result of duty and less driven by a desire for real change (to be fair, a lot of official college diversity policies come across this way, not just on expensive or elite campuses). This feeling is exactly why I was so impressed to read about a student-led initiative at the College of William and Mary called “Table Talk.”The four-part series of conversations aligns with the school’s sixth annual diversity celebration and features topics like “Assumptions and Stereotypes.” There is even diversity within the diversity topics, with religion, socioeconomic class, ability, gender identity and ethnicity all on the Table Talk agenda.
University of Buffalo, Law School
In 2012, the law school at the University of Buffalo launched a four-week summer program that targeted minority students who would be a good fit for law school, even if those students had never considered law as a profession. The program has continued every summer since then. Inspired by a request from the Minority Bar Association of Western New York the program was launched to help expose first-generation and minority college students to life as a lawyer, or in other law professions, and in the process recruit a more diverse graduating body of lawyers. The University of Buffalo is not the first to participate in the DiscoverLaw program, which has taken place on 18 campuses since launching in 2002, but it is an important one because of its east coast presence. Twenty-eight past participants answered a survey about the program at Buffalo and 17 said that they had applied to or planned to apply to law school. A country with more diverse legal minds is vital to progress for all citizens and this Buffalo program is on point with its aim to recruit more variety in law students in the pipeline.
As colleges and universities continue to evolve, so will society. Diversity programs on official and non-official levels matter when it comes to the country’s overall progress in areas like acceptance, tolerance and respect.
**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**
Dressed in a black hoodie and sagging jeans, DeAndre (name changed) swaggers down the street, singing loudly the gritty lyrics of a gangsta rap.
This routine typifies DeAndre’s journey to and from school. Many of those watching DeAndre’s behavior during his school commute could assume him to be a thug and a gangster.
Such a narrative, a result of theracialized and gendered narratives that black male adolescents live with in urban areas, is part of DeAndre’s schooling as well as out-of-school experiences.
Black males are presumed to lack intelligence when it comes to academics, particularly mathematics.
For more than ten years, I have been researching the lives and experiences of black STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) high school students all the way up the pipeline to black STEM faculty. I have looked at the achievements of black students in mathematics within their first eight or nine years of schooling.
The truth is DeAndre is a high school junior and a high-achiever in mathematics and science from an urban area. DeAndre is not hardened, but he is fragile.
His STEM identity is especially tenuous.
DeAndre is not alone. There are thousands of young men like DeAndre in urban cities across the country, who are STEM high-achievers and have the potential to succeed as STEM professionals.
However, too often they receive negative messaging about their continued success in STEM. Such messages from teachers or counselors downplay or minimize their mathematics abilities. The low expectations from these talented boys serve to further discourage them from pursuing STEM fields.
In 2011, whites held 71% of STEM jobs, Asians held 15% and blacks only 6%. In 2009 white students obtained 65.5% of the STEM undergraduate degrees. However, STEM undergraduate degrees for blacks have remained flat for the last 9 years.
When it comes to academic success, young black students face many other challenges that are only made worse by the negative messaging.
There are societal messages that equate black maleness with criminality, with teachers often being afraid of their black male students.
Often enough, as my own research shows, unequal access to treatment results in poorer healthoutcomes for black kids.
The early academic years for these students are riddled with long-term (two months or longer) illnesses that negatively impact their schooling and result in attending at least one summer school term.
DeAndre, for example, has a higher rate of school transfer; his current school is his third high school in three years. This lack of continuity for high achieving black male students can lead to additional pressures to prove their intellectual abilities in mathematics to an unwelcoming or skeptical school culture.
Fighting racial stereotypes can also wear them down.DeAndre is weary of racial stereotypes in general and stereotypes about black males in particular.
DeAndre’s coarse behavior during his school commute is actually performed to repel or deflect potential violence via aggressive posturing, as evident in his “swagger.” In reality, he hasn’t been in any “real” fight since second grade and is filled with trepidation every time he walks home from school.
Such few options
Young black students also work toward what is called “performing whiteness.” This in their words means: talking ultra proper English while enunciating every syllable, dressing preppy, not talking about their families, pretending to go on vacations, not telling too many jokes and proving to their white female teachers that they are not to be feared but to be loved and nurtured.
The result is that their intrinsic motivation for learning mathematics and steadfast internal drive get constantly eroded by a host of structural and environmental challenges.
In addition to all these above challenges, they are often at schools that do not offer enough academic opportunities to support their interests. DeAndre’s school does not offer AP classes that would position him more favorably for a STEM college major.
Another problem that black kids face is an absence of role models. The successful black role models that students like DeAndre are exposed to are mostly athletes and rappers. DeAndre does not want to be an athlete or a rapper.
Even so, the likelihood of DeAndre going on to pursue STEM remains frail.
Instead DeAndre has chosen to be a social worker. Through this justice-orientated work, DeAndre wants to address the social and racial inequities in his neighborhood. We don’t know if he will use STEM in the future or not.
If DeAndre has managed to come this far, it is thanks to the support he has received from family members. DeAndre has fond memories of playing dominoes with his grandfather and mathematically complicated card games with his aunts.
His first mathematics teacher was his father. Today, DeAndre is like a human calculator, spitting out complicated number algorithms.
Diversity vital to STEM
As we work to minimize the fragility factors affecting youth like DeAndre, we often overlook what protects DeAndre’s STEM and academic identity. The socialization in mathematics that does happen in many black households remains unappreciated by schools as it does by the predominantly white social structures.
My experience of investigating lives, such as those of DeAndre has convinced me of the need for rigorous research that contributes to a more accurate and nuanced portrayal of black males in STEM.
The vitality of United States will be derived in large part from fostering the STEM identities of young men like DeAndre who reside within our urban communities. Their participation is important for innovation – and for a more equitable society.
Our DeAndres should not see a conflict between pursuing a STEM college trajectories and an unyielding sense of responsibility for the improvement of their home communities.
Since the 1980s, there has been robust real-world evidence of a preference for hiring women for entry-level professorships in science, engineering, technology and math (STEM). This evidence comes from hiring audits at universities. For instance,in one audit of 89 US research universities in the 1990s, women were far less likely to apply for professorships – only 11%-26% of applicants were women. But once they applied, women were more likely to be invited to interview and offered the job than men were.
But what went on behind the scenes with these hiring decisions? Did women applicants give better job talks than men, publish more or in better journals, or have stronger letters of recommendation? Were hiring committees trying to address the faculty gender balance that typically skews more male than female?
To find out why academic faculty preferred women, an experiment was needed, and we recently conducted one.
Collecting hypothetical hiring data
Previously, in five national experiments, we asked 873 faculty from 371 colleges and universities in all 50 US states to rank three hypothetical applicants for entry-level professorships, based on narrative vignettes about the candidates and their qualifications. We told participants our goal was to collect information about what faculty looked for in job applicants when hiring, so we could advise our own graduate students.
We asked them to imagine that colleagues in their department had already met these hypothetical applicants, evaluated their CVs, attended their job talks, read their letters of recommendation – and rated the applicants as 9.5 out of 10 (very impressive) or 9.3 (still impressive, but just less so).
One of the applicants was an outstanding woman, pitted against an identically outstanding man. Because men and women were depicted as equally talented, any hiring preference had to be due to factors other than candidate quality. We included a third, male, foil candidate as one of the many ploys we employed to mask the gendered purpose of the experiment. In this previously published research, we found that both female and male faculty strongly prefer (by a 2-to-1 margin) to hire an outstanding woman over an identically outstanding man. The sole exception to this finding was that male economists had no gender preference.
Faculty of both genders exhibit 2-to-1 preference for hiring women applicants with identically outstanding qualifications, with the exception of male economists.
Even when we gave faculty only a single applicant to evaluate, those given the woman rated her more hireable than did those given the identical applicant depicted as a man. Not surprisingly, this finding caused a media frenzy, as it contradicted what many believe to be sexist hiring in academia.
Note that these experiments were not designed to mimic actual academic hiring, which entails multi-day visits, job talks and so on. The purpose of our experiments was not to determine if women are favored in actual hiring but rather to determine why data suggest they are in real-world conditions. To answer this question, one needs a controlled experiment to equate applicants.
Remember that our experiment looked at typical short-listed candidates – who are extremely qualified – at the point of hiring, and did not address advantages or disadvantages potentially experienced by women, girls, men and boys throughout their development. It is worth acknowledging, though, that a 2-to-1 advantage enjoyed at the point of tenure-track hiring is substantial and represents a pathway into the professoriate that is far more favorable for women than men.
Finding the limit to a preference for women
We wondered how deeply the faculty preference for women that we’d previously identified ran. Do faculty prefer a woman over a slightly more qualified man? How about a much more qualified man?
Ourmost recent experiment, just published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, examined this question.
Using the same methods from our earlier study, we presented 158 STEM faculty with two male applicants and one female applicant for a tenure-track assistant professorship in their specific field. We presented another 94 faculty with two female applicants and one male applicant. In one contest, the female applicant was slightly less outstanding than her two male competitors, although still impressive; in the other, the male applicant was slightly less outstanding than his two female competitors.
It turned out that faculty of both genders and in all fields preferred the applicant rated the most outstanding, regardless of gender. Specifically, faculty preferred to hire slightly more outstanding men over slightly less outstanding women, and they also preferred to hire slightly more outstanding women over slightly less outstanding men.
Reconciling with other STEM sex bias research
These results show that the preference for women over equally outstanding men in our earlier experiments does not extend to women who are less accomplished than their male counterparts. Apparently, when female and male candidates are not equally accomplished, faculty view quality as the most important determinant of hiring rankings.
This finding suggests that when women scientists are hired in the academy, it is because they are viewed as equal or superior to males. These results should help dispel concerns that affirmative hiring practices result in inferior women being hired over superior men.
The absence of preference for a less outstanding man does not necessarily imply that academic hiring is meritocratic under all conditions. It is possible that with different levels of candidate information (or if the candidates were somewhat less competent, as opposed to being stellar), results might differ. Discrimination may be a concern when candidate qualifications are ambiguous, but, based on our study, not when candidates are exceptionally strong. Thus, our interpretation of our results is that women who are equal to or more accomplished than men enjoy a substantial hiring advantage.
These findings may provoke concerns. If affirmative action is intended to not merely give a preference to hiring women over identically qualified men, but also to tilt the odds toward hiring women who are slightly less accomplished but still rated as impressive, gender diversity advocates may be disheartened. Those who’ve lobbied for more women to be hired in fields in which they are underrepresented, such as engineering and economics, may find the present findings dismaying and argue that extremely well-qualified female candidates should be given preference over males rated a notch higher.
One claim finds no support in our new findings: the allegation that the dearth of women in some fields is the result of superior female applicants being bypassed in favor of less accomplished men. If excellent women applicants were given short shrift, the slightly less qualified man would have been chosen frequently over more qualified women. But this scenario occurred only 1.2% of the time – similar to the number of times a slightly less accomplished woman was chosen over a more accomplished man.
None of this means women no longer face unique hurdles in navigating academic science careers.
Nor do the present findings deny that historic sexism prevented many deserving women from being hired, or that current implicit stereotypes associating science with menare not related to lower science course-taking.
All of these studies suggest areas in need of further work to ensure equality of opportunity for women.
On the other hand, based on hundreds of analyses of national data on the lives of actual faculty women and men across the United States, we and economists Donna Ginther and Shulamit Kahn found that the overwhelming picture of the academy since 2000 is one of gender fairness. Our analyses examined hiring, remuneration, promotion, tenure, persistence, productivity, citations, effort and job satisfaction in every STEM field. The experiences of women and men professors today are largely comparable, as is their job satisfaction.
Our new experimental findings call into question unqualified claims of biased tenure-track hiring. Sex biases and stereotypes might reduce the number of women beginning training for the professorial pipeline, but when a woman emerges from her training as an excellent candidate, she is advantaged during the hiring process.
This past weekend, it seemed that every social media newsfeed was full of people cheering on their alma maters or sending shout outs to their favorite college mascots. The football season on the professional level and every tier below it has become an iconic fall tradition of American culture. This glorification of a sport, particularly in the case of college athletes, put priorities in the wrong spot though.
Does our collective obsession with college football and other collegiate sports give K-12 kids the wrong idea about the purpose of higher education?
Let’s face it; athleticism is at least partially genetic. People love to mention the story of Michael Jordan being cut from his high school basketball team as an example of motivation for anyone who faces adversity. No disrespect to Mike, but his raw athletic ability had to be apparent during his high school years. The fact that he was cut from the varsity team was likely more a result of relying on that talent, and not putting in the effort to hone it. Once he realized what a lot of practice and persistence, paired with unmatched talent, could mean in his life he was able to excel at what he was already good at doing.
Call me cynical, but not every kid who is cut from a sports team has the ability to be like Mike by just putting his nose to the grindstone.
The same goes for college athletes, many of whom are put on a pedestal by peers, coaches and parents. Yes the feats of the human body are admirable but should a young adult with athletic ability be treated better by an institution of higher learning than one whose strengths are in engineering or the life sciences? The promise of fame and fortune (achieved after a college career if NCAA rules are followed) make a “career” as a college athlete look glamorous. But what is lost from an academic standpoint?
Colleges and universities do not elevate athletes in principle, of course. There is no bylaw that mandates the best athletes be given advantages or treated better than everyone else on campus. But money talks. The highest grossing college football program is at the University of Texas and it brings in an astonishing $90 million annually to the school. You can add the Ohio State University, the University of Florida and the University of Notre Dame to the short list of college football programs that consistently bring in revenue in the tens of millions to their schools.
The direct financial impact is not the only way football, and other popular athletic programs, aid in a school’s bottom line. A strong athletic program brings in more future students and rallies boosters under a common cause. To call college football a cash cow is an understatement; these programs are more like the blue whales of university revenue outside of actual tuition.
So students athletes like Aaron Hernandez are allowed to act suspiciously, getting into violent bar fights, as long as they are part of an epic college team headlined by Tim Tebow. Years later when Hernandez is accused of involvement in multiple murders, and no longer a college football player, people claim that there was always something “odd” about him. So why did he get a pass?
Of course most college athletes walk the line. They hone their athletic abilities while showing respect to academics and the reputation of their schools. They should be applauded for their accomplishments but not to the point that academics take on a role of secondary importance on campus. It’s not the fault of the athletes, most of whom are just young adults. It is the fault of the school officials and supporters that send the message from grade school that sports culture is greater than academics.
What do you say? Does the cultural obsession with college sports send younger students the wrong message about the purpose of higher education?
Throughout the nation’s history African-Americans struggled to combat economic, education, political and social obstacles. For instance, grandfather clauses and literacy tests were designed to prevent African-Americans from participating in the electoral process. Despite the barriers African-Americans stood steadfast and slowly chipped away at policies designed to maintain a caste system. To counter years of oppression stakeholders utilized the judicial system to reverse Jim Crow policies. After years of incremental steps African-Americans continued to encounter roving groups that sought to maintain a system of oppression through physical intimidation. Fortunately the overt threats did not deter civil rights organizers from pushing for a legislative framework that addressed systemic flaws. Several HBCU alumni including Ella Baker, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr. and countless others helped to reshape the political landscape. Today, the lessons learned from HBCU alumni of the past can help solidify the future for HBCUs.
Recently, Congressman Bobby Scott, Ranking Member, Education and Workforce Committee and Senators Tammy Baldwin and Corey Booker introduced the “America’s College Promise Act.” The bill is an extension of President Obama’s free community college proposal, which is modeled after Tennessee’s education plan. The bill provides $10 billion over a ten-year period that would benefit thousands of minority, first generation and underserved students. Congressman Scott’s and Senators Baldwin and Booker’s plan would benefit HBCUs by strengthening the post-secondary pipeline, encouraging more Black and Latino students to attend HBCUs, support the efforts of students who require academic enrichment and lower student debt.
Throughout his tenure President Obama highlighted the importance of increasing opportunities for students of color. The President recognizes that the nation’s success is linked to creating more opportunities for all Americans. Ignoring the gaps between affluent and underserved communities could undermine efforts to increase the number of Americans with postsecondary degrees or certificates. HBCUs are uniquely equipped to enroll students from various socioeconomic backgrounds and prepare them to compete in the global economy. However, they need additional funding to ensure students have access to academic and social supports to achieve the American dream. Passing “America’s College Promise Act” would provide HBCUs with vital resources to improve conditions for students from urban and rural communities with limited resources. Without a new funding stream thousands of students will not have the opportunity to pursue a postsecondary education.
Recently, social upheaval in Baltimore and Ferguson reignited calls from social justice advocates to improve conditions in under-resourced communities. This neo-Civil Rights movement is reminiscent of the fight in the 1960’s that pressured the U.S. government to pass the Great Society programs. Events including sits-ins led by North Carolina A&T students galvanized the African-American community and reshaped the nation. A half a century later HBCU advocates, alumni, faculty, staff and students could use the template developed by Civil Rights advocates to increase support for “America’s College Promise Act.” Advances in technology allow supporters to coordinate via social media to encourage legislators to pass initiatives that close the resource gap.
Utilizing relationships with alumni and student government associations, black greek letter organizations (BGLO’s) and sports related groups is important. Working closely with these organizations provide critical linkages that exist in states throughout the United States. HBCUs should work collectively to encourage politicians to back proposals aimed at funding traditionally underserved institutions. Based on recent history it is apparent that efforts to protect HBCUs can produce positive results.
The 2013 decision was significant for two reasons: acknowledging HBCUs were treated unfairly and creating a template for other institutions to follow. For example, Cheyney University filed a lawsuit against the commonwealth of Pennsylvania asserting that the state did not abide by a 1999 agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. Cheyney is the oldest HBCU in the nation and faces several obstacles that supporters contend are directly related to the state’s refusal to meet specific guidelines outlined in the agreement.A coalition of civil rights lawyers, alumni and advocates “Heeding Cheyney’s Call” believe the state is culpable and seeks to remedy years of inequitable funding. The decision by alumni and supporters in Maryland and Pennsylvania to fight for changes could impact HBCUs in states throughout the nation.
HBCUs continue to encounter barriers that hamper efforts to improve programs, recruit faculty, lower attrition rates and renovate facilities. Consequently, institutions have used the judicial system to address years of unfair treatment. Despite the barriers HBCUs graduate 25% of Black science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) majors and create pathways for students from predominantly low and moderate-income households. With additional financial support HBCUs could increase the six-year graduation rate for Black students. Ensuring students from traditionally underserved communities have access to a quality education is important. The nation is at a crossroad. Currently, a disproportionate number of Black and Latino students live below the poverty line yet the country’s demographics continue to change. Supporting initiatives that address years of unequal funding between HBCUs and PWIs is the key to protecting the nation’s future.
Dr. Larry J. Walker is an educational consultant focused on supporting historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). His research examines the impact environmental factors have on the academic performance and social emotional functioning of students from HBCUs.
Do you have a good university lecturer? What makes them good? Is it because they make their classes relevant? Are their lectures interesting or challenging?
Or maybe they’re just fun to be around?
Good quality teaching can be hard to define and there is no single way of measuring it. But all students, throughout their education, experience the highs and lows of teaching ability.
In my own case, my love of some subjects was destroyed by incompetent, boring and, at times, uncaring teachers. But others helped me develop a passion for a subject that I never thought I would be interested in. My good teachers were the most creative and served as role models. They mentored their class on a journey of lifelong learning.
In my own experience as both a teacher and a student, I’ve found there are some key skills that good quality teachers have in common. You need to be creative, enthusiastic, be clear and keep the information relevant. Those tired lecturers, who never vary from the same worn lecture notes or PowerPoint slides year after year until they reach retirement, do a great disservice to themselves, the students and their profession.
But is good (or bad) teaching something you can measure?
My field is statistics and the students I teach are, in the main, doing an MBA and have an average age of about 30, along with generally being in middle to high management positions. They do not want simply to be entertained, but actually want to learn something of substance that can be applied in the “real world”. Otherwise they see a course as a waste of their time and money.
Students surveys can be an imperfect indicator. But these mature students can distinguish a “quality” teacher from a “popular” one, who might present an easy course that can be passed with little effort. In this sense these students’ judgements generally coincide with what academic colleagues think about the teacher as well.
I undertook a five year study of these surveys that included an overall rating of the teacher, along with questions regarding the teacher’s knowledge, the class dynamics, the teacher’s preparedness, organisational skills, enthusiasm for the subject and teaching, availability outside class time and a number of other factors.
Although these responses all correlated to varying degrees with the overall rating given to the teacher, there was one question that was consistently most highly associated across all subjects areas over all the years.
This was the one that asked whether the teacher was able to explain the course material clearly. There were a number of instances where a teacher was rated enthusiastic, knowledgeable and well-prepared, but still was considered a poor teacher overall.
The conclusion from this study was that if you cannot explain the concepts in a way that the audience can understand, it doesn’t matter what else you do. In this case, they will not enjoy the experience but leave frustrated.
Whenever I introduce a new topic, particularly if it is complex, into the lecture room, I am fully aware that although I have been familiar with it for many years, it is the first time that most of them will have heard it. And during my explanation I think to myself, “if I had been hearing this for the first time, would I have understood what I just said?”.
Sometimes the answer is no, and so I then go through it again in a slightly different way. I need to be satisfied that at least the majority of students have understood the principles and, of course, I always encourage questions at any time.
Whether a teacher has been effective or not naturally depends on just what the student has learned from the experience. A teacher might rate well immediately after a course is completed, but several years down the track when the student looks back they may find what they learned of little value or relevance.
This often means that they have retained next to nothing not long after the final exam, did not develop a passion to explore the field further or find any use for it in later life. To me that is a great shame.
Although students may not always remember what you teach them, they will always remember their outstanding lecturers and how good they made them feel about the subject. That is their greatest gift and the mark of a good teacher.
This piece is appearing as part of a series on Choosing a University. Read more pieces in the series here. This topic will also be discussed on #TalkAboutIt on ABC News 24, iview and abc.net.au
John Croucher, Professor of Statistics at Macquarie Graduate School of Management
In 2013 President Obama outlined a plan to introduce a college ratings system to provide prospective students and their parents with the tools to make informed decisions. The proposed system was consistent with the President’s view that students from under-served communities encountered obstacles that hindered their effort to attend college. Based on comments from the President, colleges throughout the country would be judged based on criteria including loan debt, graduation rates and after college income. Supporters believed the ratings system would hold post-secondary institutions accountable by creating transparency. However, some policymakers, college administrators and stakeholders raised concerns including: (1) the government exceeding their right to evaluate schools and (2) the impact the system would have on institutions that serve predominantly students from under-served communities including historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Concerns from the HBCU community regarding the proposed system would continue throughout the development process.
Members of the HBCU community were apprehensive because of complications relating to 2011 changes to the PLUS loan program, which impacted school attrition rates. Several HBCUs experienced a drop in enrollment because of new loan guidelines that disqualified low income and middle class families. Subsequently, some HBCUs implemented cost cutting measures including eliminating staff and curtailing programs. Traditionally HBCUs enroll low income and first generation college students. Consequently, regulatory or statutory changes can have a long-term impact on their ability to increase graduation rates.
The administration asserted that the new system would ensure all students had access to important information relating to cost, retention rates and student debt. Throughout his tenure President Obama has sought to level the playing field for first generation, minority and low-income students. For instance, the President outlined a free community college proposal that would likely increase college completion rates. However, despite the President’s record of supporting pathways to success for under-served students’ members of Congress opposed the college ratings system.
The controversy surrounding the system caused the U.S. Department of Education to announce that they will abandon the use of certain metrics. Post-secondary institutions will not be compared to other colleges based on graduation rates, student debt along with other measurables. As a result, HBCUs won’t have to worry about fighting comparisons to large post-secondary institutions with significant endowments. Holding HBCUs to the same standard as predominantly White institutions (PWIs) that educate students from middle class and affluent backgrounds would be difficult. Throughout their history HBCUs have encountered several obstacles including inequitable funding, which hinders their ability to fund scholarships and offer certain programs.
HBCUs continue to educate students from under-served communities. Their mission to enroll Black students with limited resources is consistent with President Obama’s call to open opportunities for all students. Without HBCUs students with limited social capital would not have the opportunity to attend college. HBCUs continue to play a critical role in preparing Black students to compete in the global marketplace. Thus, expanding opportunities for students from under-served backgrounds should include implementing policies that ensure HBCUs remain viable.
Dr. Larry J. Walker is an educational consultant focused on supporting historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). His research examines the impact environmental factors have on the academic performance and social emotional functioning of students from HBCUs.
Turn on your television to any local station during daytime hours, and you’re sure to see a handful of commercials touting the amazing benefits of enrolling in for-profit colleges. These idyllic spots highlight flexible classes, accelerated programs, online classes available from the comfort of home, and more. Usually the information about the particular college is delivered by a once-uneducated person turned career success – often a working dad, or single mom, whose kids are clearly proud of what the parent has accomplished. Obtaining a college education, particularly from the school mentioned, looks so easy to do.
While the description above may seem like the stuff of marketing clichés, it’s a tactic that has worked for many for-profit colleges. Targeting minorities and other non-traditional college students through commercials like these has been the bread-and-butter of for-profit schools for at least the past two decades and those tactics are just now starting to see some legal pushback.
To be clear, not all for-profit colleges are created equal. There are some that boast high graduation rates and seem to have student success at the heart of their endeavors. The very fact that these colleges exist have actually progressed the entire university system in the U.S. by pushing innovative programs, like online degrees, and showing that there truly is a large market for non-traditional college students.
Let’s not kid ourselves though. The non-profit college push is a very thinly-veiled attempt to enroll a volatile market – often the most eligible for federal loan and grant assistance.
The financial facts speak for themselves:
As of 2014, for-profit colleges served just 13 percent of total higher education students but received 31 percent of federal student loans due to the minority, at-risk and low-income statuses of their students. Former veterans cashing in GI Bills also attend for-profit schools at higher rates than traditional colleges.
The same report from the U.S. Department of Education reports that half of all students who default on their loans attend a for-profit college.
Which leads to the unavoidable question: Have non-profit colleges preyed upon at-risk students for the sake of making a quick buck?
All the right words
One of the reasons for-profit schools have seen such a surge in enrollment in the past two decades can really be pinned on the smart marketing of two words: flexibility and acceleration. For students who simply did not have the funds, nor desire to incur college debt, right after high school, for-profit schools have stepped up as a second chance, of sorts. These colleges are places where non-traditional students can continue to work and take flexible courses, many or all of which are online. Most for-profit schools also offer a faster route to degree attainment, which piques the interest of students who don’t want to dedicate years of their lives to college aspirations but are looking for a way to advance their careers. The University of Phoenix, perhaps the most recognizable name in for-profit online colleges, recently announced a new initiative to count other course work and work experience towards degree attainment. This initiative, and others like it, are designed to recruit students who don’t want to start from square one and don’t have the time to commit to a traditional college experience.
So what is wrong with either of these options? Nothing, in theory. Flexibility and accelerated degrees are a good fit for many students who otherwise could not chase any sort of college degree. Where many non-profits fail their students, however, is in charging astronomical rates and not offering enough support to keep students enrolled until graduation. In essence, these schools market well enough to get the students enrolled in courses but don’t do enough to guide them to their degrees. All the flexibility in the world can’t help a student understand a difficult concept, or learn better time/study management skills. Accelerated programs without mentorship options run the risk of burning students out, especially if they have no inspiration or focus.
It’s clear that the recent outcry for accountability for non-profit colleges is long overdue. Students deserve better than what they’ve been served by these institutions, and quite frankly, so does the entire American population. It’s time for these schools to deliver on their promise of career success for those who enroll – and that starts with student support that extends beyond recruitment.
There’s no denying that Historically Black Colleges and Universities have had a tremendous impact on the education levels of the black community. Since their founding, these campuses have served underdog students – first-generation, minority and other at-risk college attendees. The question of HBCU relevance is constantly floated in education circles but lately I’ve been pondering an even more poignant query: Is there a conspiracy to destroy Historically Black Colleges and Universities?
Of course the word “conspiracy” makes it sound like a top-secret, well-orchestrated attempt to eliminate these colleges from the higher education landscape. I don’t believe that is the case exactly, but there are certainly some factors that seem to hurt HBCUs more greatly than PWIs.
Policies that hurt HBCUs
For those who believe there is a conspiracy afoot, there are all sorts of reasons they believe so. Here are a couple of the most common:
Changes in the PLUS Loan Program. In October of 2011, the U.S. Department of Education adjusted its lending policies for these popular, and in many cases necessary, loans to align more closely with what a traditional bank would require in the way of income and credit worthiness. All colleges took a hit with these changes, but HBCUs lost an estimated $50 million in the first full year these changes took place. For many HBCUs, the college population is made up of first-generation students with parents who often have not set aside the funding for a college education, but want to contribute financially. When PLUS loan eligibility changed, it felt like a blow directed at HBCUs.
Online schools targeting minorities. Perhaps the largest factor crippling HBCUs today is the prevalence of online college programs. From schools like the University of Phoenix which is completely online to individual programs offered by traditional campus schools, students who need college-work-family flexibility are finding it outside HBCU campuses. All demographics have flocked to online schooling, but minorities have been especially targeted. HBCUs have traditionally been viewed as places for underdogs, but online schooling programs have overtaken that description with the combination of convenience and a wide array of programs.
Policies to merge HBCUs. Governors like Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Mississippi’s former governor Haley Barbour have announced plans to merge HBCUs with each other or other predominantly white institutions in moves that are intended to slash state operating costs. Treating any two HBCUs as institutions that are alike enough to merge without incident is flawed though. Planning to merge a HBCU with a predominantly white schools is even more off-base. These individual schools have their own histories, their own student cultures. Perhaps it makes financial sense to merge HBCUs with others similar in size or scope, but it undermines the collective institutions, undercutting their autonomy and what they can offer to potential students.
Ways HBCUs hurt themselves
Of course HBCUs cannot completely play the role of victim here. I’m a Dean at a HBCU and completely believe in the message – but even I can see that there are things we do collectively that are hurting our student populations and chances for longevity. We need to change that, together, and that starts with recognizing where we have made mistakes.
Slow adaptability. We’ve spent too much time wringing our hands and not enough time looking for solutions. Why were predominantly white institutions better prepared when the PLUS loan changes took place? Could we not have come up with our own solutions too? When it comes to online schooling – most HBCUs are just finally implementing full-degree online programs and embracing the idea that our students don’t need to be on a physical campus to benefit. Yes, the campuses of HBCUs are their biggest advantages, steeped in history and a palpable air of shared struggle. This doesn’t mean we should force our students to set foot on our campuses, or not come at all. The inability to move quickly and keep up with the higher education times has hurt HBCUs but hopefully not permanently.
Lack of diversity. HBCUs are getting better at recruiting all students to their campuses and programs, but this is another area where we’ve done too little, too late. HBCUs are no longer the only option for students of color and haven’t been for decades. So why have we spent so little time rebranding ourselves as institutions that welcome all students and help those students succeed? The number of Latino, white and Asian students on HBCU campuses is rising slowly, but relying on our historically largest segment of students (after it became clear they did not need us as much as we needed them) has hurt us.
Lack of stability in administration. Over the past decade, too many HBCU presidents have seemingly disappeared in the middle of the night without explanation. South Carolina State University, for example, has seen 11 different presidents since 1992 but why? Often the answer lies in the fact that a board of trustees clings to the past, or spends too much time micromanaging and not enough looking at the future and big picture of the HBCU landscape. Such instability at the top cannot inspire confidence for faculty or students. To really plant roots for the future, there needs to be consistent leadership that aligns with the long-term goals of the HBCU.
Not appreciating students. This may sound petty but alumni who do not feel that their universities really gave them a world-class education, or at the very least an adequate one, are less likely to give back financially. An essay written by a recent HBCU graduate who declined to name her school specifically expressed shock at the under-sophisticated classrooms and technology resources at her HBCU. While she points out the social atmosphere was top-notch and ultimately the reason she stayed until graduation, she says she would rather see her former school be shuttered than donate money to it. This is only one story, of course, but it rings true with other graduates I’ve met and read who believe they received a sub-par educational experience at a HBCU (sometimes on very basic levels) and who have no desire to donate money back. This is no way to maintain long-term student pride or bring in future students.
The combination of outside factors and internal issues has created a perfect storm when it comes to declining enrollment and revenue at HBCUs. I still believe these institutions have an important place in the U.S. college landscape but will have to fight just a little bit harder to stay relevant.
