Higher Education

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

The history of student loans goes back to the Middle Ages

Jenny Adams, University of Massachusetts Amherst

In 1473, Alexander Hardynge, who had finished his bachelor’s degree at Oxford nearly two years previous, borrowed money through an educational loan service. The loan came with a one year repayment deadline.

With some of that money, he rented a room at Exeter College and offered tutoring services to college students. He soon repaid that loan. In 1475, Hardynge took out a second loan – again, in part to rent teaching space.

Then, in 1478, he was appointed as a subdeacon, a post two orders lower than a priest, likely in Durham, a city in the north of England. From all evidence, it seems that he promptly packed his robes and abandoned his teaching gig. There is also nothing to suggest that he gave a single penny to his lenders.

For students today, Hardynge’s story would be too good to be true. Not only did he get his bachelor’s degree without incurring debt, but also, he did not have to repay the money he borrowed.

Prompted by my own anxiety about educational debt, an anxiety that intensified several years ago with the birth of my own prospective college students, I have been researching the long history of educational loans in order to get a better context for the current student debt crisis.

With student loan growth rates spiraling out of control, it behooves us to think through the ways other time periods and cultures have monetized, funded or not funded student labor.

Loan chests, books as collateral

The history of student loans starts with the establishment of institutions of higher learning in medieval Europe from the late 11th century.

The University of Bologna, considered the first official university, was quickly followed by the University of Paris, Oxford University and Cambridge University. All of these places offered degrees to young men, training them for positions in the Catholic Church and, later, in government.

Sir Thomas Bodley’s chest. Norman Walsh, CC BY-NC

At first, scholars who needed money did not differ from other borrowers: everyone took loans from the same lenders. But in 1240, Robert Grosseteste, the bishop of Lincoln, used Oxford University money to launch the first documented student loan system. He named it St. Frideswide’s Chest.

St. Frideswide’s Chest was literally a chest. Bound by two different locks, with each key held by a different college magister, or faculty member, it resided at St. Frideswide’s Priory, a religious house in central Oxford, amid the city’s colleges, academic halls and student apartments.

To get a loan from St. Frideswide’s, a borrower had to be a scholar of modest means – and likely took an oath for proving so. He also had to have something of value to deposit in the chest as collateral. From the pledge notes I’ve seen in roughly 100 manuscripts and descriptions of manuscripts, it’s clear that scholars hocked everything from silver spoons to gold plates.

But the most commonly collateralized items were books. Not fancy, illuminated books. Just textbooks. In the late Middle Ages, this included works by Aristotle, the Bible, law codes and medical tracts. Here’s a link to a manuscript at Balliol College that was used as collateral. The lines on the final page record two loans taken out by a scholar, Thomas Chace, in 1423 and 1424. The Merton College manuscript (pictured) contains eight pledge notes from the same century.

Merton MS 32, fol. 137v taken by Jenny Adams with permission of the Warden and Fellows of Merton College Oxford. The Warden and Fellows of Merton College Oxford., CC BY-NC

These were not textbooks as we know them today. They were manuscripts made from animal skin and completed through hours of scribal labor. They fetched large sums. As in modern times, medieval textbooks too derived part of their value through the educational market.

Today, for example, the Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications (US$305 secondhand) commands a high price because faculty use it to teach and students use it to research in one of the fastest-growing majors. Back then, it was Peter Lombard’s Sentences, a staple of the Oxford curriculum and also the book Hardynge used for collateral.

Leaf from Peter Lombard’s Sentences. POP, CC BY

Sadly, the pledge note in Hardynge’s text, as recorded in the British Library’s on-line description of its manuscripts, does not include the loan amount. But on another leaf of the manuscript one can see a scrawled “precii xl.s.” or “price 40 shillings.”

Hardynge almost surely did not get a loan of this amount. As noted by other scholars who have written extensively on medieval loans and debt collection, the value of the collateral far outweighed the actual amount of the loan. But given that a student in the early 15th century could pay for an entire series of lectures for six shillings, even a loan of 20 shillings, or half the book’s value, would have represented a hefty sum.

Loans for scholars

This system might sound like a pawn shop crossed with a secondhand book store. But the use of collateral meant scholars did not always feel the need to repay their loans. Once employed, they could walk away from their debts, just as Hardynge did. If that happened, the chest manager would then put the collateral back into the market. For many borrowers like Hardynge, who had finished his education, buying back his book was simply not worth it. Now employed, he had little need for his copy of Peter Lombard’s Sentences.

By the end of the 14th century, roughly 20 more loan chests had appeared in Oxford. The chests had also moved in 1320 from St. Frideswide’s Priory to the university’s congregation house, and they held the equivalent of millions of today’s dollars. Most often the money came from wealthy patrons who either wanted to support scholars or liked the thought of having their name associated with a chest.

This later impulse seems to have been the case with some of the later chests, which were funded by professionals rather than the nobility. Thus, while King Edward I’s consort, Queen Eleanor of Castile, founded a chest in 1293, the Guildford Chest (1314) and the Robury Chest (1321) were founded, respectively, by a judge and an attorney-turned-judge.

These later chests opened borrowing to all scholars, not just poor students. In short, the chests now targeted the Alexander Hardynges of Oxford. Hardynge was not poor. He probably funded his education through parental handouts and part-time work, or received on support from a wealthy patron. But clearly by several years after his graduation, he needed money to stay afloat.

Printing press changes the system

For 300 years, the loan chest system thrived. Then, one evening in early March of 1544, two men – Robert Raunce and John Stanshaw – armed with an “iron bar and hammer,” broke into the congregation house and smashed all of the loan chests. Although Raunce and Stanshaw were eventually tried and sentenced, their burglary still managed to wipe out much of the chests’ wealth.

The arrival of the printing press changed the value of a book. Thomas Hawk, CC BY-NC

Yet even before this, the loan system had started to decline. Although the arrival of the printing press in the late 15th century didn’t have an immediate effect on manuscript production, it would eventually make books cheap and thus no longer worth collateralizing. Even in the chests’ final century of use, the use of gold plate and jewelry was increasing and by 1500 had surpassed the use of books.

Around the same time, bankers began to make loans on the premise of future returns rather than in exchange for real property. The shift toward anticipated future earnings soon came with the England’s 1624 legalization of interest-bearing loans, which pushed even more people into this model of lending.

With their loan chests gone, students again became just like other borrowers. And just like other borrowers, they, too, could end up the notorious debtors’ prisons that began to swell with inmates as early as the 17th century.

Modern-day loans

Student loans arrived in the United States in the mid-19th century. Like the medieval loan chests at Oxford, these loans started through a singular university, in this case Harvard, which administered them.

UMass students protest against student loans. Jenny Adams, CC BY

This localized system changed in the mid-20th century with the creation by the Department of Education in 1965 of federally guaranteed student loans made by private lenders and available to students across the country.

Students were once again put into a special category. But in this case, this meant they could now collateralize their estimated future incomes (without even knowing what those incomes might be) in order to obtain a degree.

For a long time and for many students (this writer included), this model of credit worked. Loans opened up college to many people, allowing them to pursue a career path otherwise unavailable. But now that we’ve entered the age of six-figure student loans, this freedom seems more like a virtual debtors’ prison than a chance to economic mobility.

I would never advocate a return to the Middle Ages. Yet as we consider the current morass of educational debt, we need to think harder about historical precedent.

True, medieval universities excluded many groups – religious minorities, feudal villeins (a commoner legally tied to a feudal lord in the Middle Ages) and women were barred from entry. Yet poor young men with talent had a chance. Fees were not high. Patrons helped out. And if one needed money, one might be able to pledge a book – not a future.

The Conversation

Jenny Adams, Associate Professor of English, University of Massachusetts Amherst

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

Why it’s so hard for students to have their debts forgiven

Neal H. Hutchens, University of Mississippi and Richard Fossey, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Outstanding student loan debt in the United States reached a record US$1.35 trillion in March, up six percent from a year earlier.

About 10 million people who borrowed from the government’s main student loan program – 43 percent – are currently behind or no longer making payments, with more than a third of them in default. Some students are especially at risk, such as those who attended for-profit institutions.

Meanwhile, the loan default rates widely reported by the U.S. Department of Education fail to account for borrowers who default more than three years after repayment begins. These rates also fail to account for the millions of borrowers who are struggling or unable to repay their loans but aren’t included in the numbers because they’ve claimed an economic hardship deferment.

These unsettling numbers raise the question of what happens to borrowers unable to repay their student loans.

The ‘undue hardship’ issue

While individuals with debt they cannot repay often turn to bankruptcy, this discharge option is frequently unavailable in the case of student loans. Such debtors must first demonstrate “undue hardship,” an exacting standard few borrowers are able to satisfy and one not applied to most types of unsecured debt in bankruptcy.

Credit card debt, for example, can be easily discharged as long as a person qualifies to file for bankruptcy protection. The standard also leaves student-loan debtors without the types of options open to businesses in bankruptcy to work with creditors to reduce debt.

Some student-loan borrowers may soon have some relief, however. The Department of Education proposed a new rule this week, for example, that would make it easier for students who are defrauded by their colleges to have their debt forgiven.

That’s a step in the right direction. But more needs to be done.

As higher education legal scholars who have been examining these issues for many years, we have a special interest in the ways in which laws and legal standards support or harm students. The general inability for Americans to discharge student loans under current bankruptcy law represents an issue affecting millions of borrowers and their families.

This and the growing mountain of debt have prompted lawmakers and other observers to warn of another bubble in the making, with potentially disastrous consequences.

How undue hardship was established

The federal role in student loans can be traced back to the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which made federal loans available to all students.

In 1965, the federal government shifted from making loans to serving as a guarantor of student loans. An overhaul of federal loan policy in 2010 made direct loans from the federal government the only federally guaranteed student loan program, although loans from other lenders, often referred to as private student loans, are still available.

Until the 1970s, student loan debt received the same treatment in bankruptcy proceedings as other types of unsecured debt. Concerns arose, however, that unscrupulous borrowers had sought to discharge their student loans after obtaining lucrative positions in such fields as medicine and law.

Evidence suggests no widespread pattern of abuse existed, but Congress directed in 1976 that federally guaranteed loans could not be discharged in bankruptcy during the initial five years of the repayment period, absent a showing of undue hardship. Congress extended the undue hardship requirement to seven years in 1990, and in 1998 made the standard applicable throughout the loan’s life. And in 2005, Congress also extended the undue hardship standard to private student loans not guaranteed by the federal government.

Congress did not define the term undue hardship, leaving it to the bankruptcy courts to interpret its meaning. Most courts have adopted the so-called Brunner test (named after a famous court ruling), which requires student loan debtors to make three showings. First, they must prove that they cannot pay off their student loans and maintain a minimal standard of living. Second, they must show additional circumstances that make it highly unlikely they will ever be able to repay their student loans. And finally, debtors must demonstrate that they have made a good faith effort to pay their student loans.

This stringent standard can lead to disheartening results. For example, in one case, a bankruptcy judge denied discharge under the undue hardship to a student loan debtor in her 50’s who had a record of homelessness and lived on $1,000 a month.

In practice, most courts have applied the Brunner test, or similar standards, in ways that make discharge in bankruptcy especially difficult for many student loan borrowers. In fact, a 2012 paper calculated that 99.9 percent of bankrupt student loan debtors do not even try to discharge them. Among the reasons for this low percentage is likely the difficult standard to qualify for a discharge.

Some courts push back

Recently, however, a few bankruptcy courts have interpreted the Brunner test more leniently.

In perhaps the most well-known example, a panel of judges reviewing a bankruptcy decision discharged the student loan debts of Janet Roth, a 68-year old woman with chronic health problems who was subsisting on Social Security income of $780 a month.

Roth’s creditor argued that she could not pass the good-faith prong of the Brunner test because she had never made a single voluntary payment on her student loans. But the panel rejected this argument on the grounds that Roth had lived frugally and had never earned enough money to pay back her student loans in spite of her best efforts to maximize her income.

The panel also rejected the creditor’s arguments that Roth should be placed in a long-term income-based repayment plan that would extend for 25 years. Roth’s income was so low, the creditor pointed out, that she would not be required to pay anything on the student loan anyway. Nevertheless, a remote possibility existed that Roth’s income would rise in the future, permitting her to make at least token payments.

In the court’s view, putting Roth on a long-term repayment plan seemed pointless. Applying a common law principle of basic fairness, the court stated “that the law does not require a party to engage in futile acts.”

One of the judges in the Roth case filed a separate opinion agreeing with the judgment but suggesting that courts should abandon the Brunner test altogether. He argued courts should replace it with a standard in which bankruptcy judges “consider all the relevant facts and circumstances” to determine whether a debtor can afford to repay student loan debts “while maintaining an appropriate standard of living.”

Such a standard would be more closely aligned with how most other types of debt are eligible for discharge in bankruptcy.

So far, federal appeals courts have not taken up the suggestion to scrap the Brunner test, although several lower courts have begun applying it more humanely. The Brunner test, however, is a subjective standard, and debtors experience widely different outcomes when they attempt to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy.

President Obama signs a presidential memorandum on reducing the burden of student loan debt in 2014. Larry Downing/Reuters

Moving toward a more humane standard

Recent actions by the Obama administration on the issue – including this week’s announcement on “predatory” colleges – has accompanied the judicial activity.

For example, in 2015 the Department of Education offered guidance on when loan holders should “consent to or not oppose” undue hardship petitions involving government-backed student debt in bankruptcy proceedings.

The department also recently announced an initiative to address problems in making loan forgiveness available to individuals who are permanently disabled.

In the case of private student loans, the Obama administration has urged Congress to make such loans no longer subject to the undue hardship standard.

Courts and federal agencies can help to humanize interpretation and application of the undue hardship standard and make discharge a more realistic option for some borrowers. Ultimately, however, authority rests with Congress to make any substantive changes to the treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy.

While likely on hold until after the November elections, the pending reauthorization of the Higher Education Act – the centerpiece of federal higher education policy – presents a key opportunity for Congress to review the undue hardship standard. At a minimum, Congress should give serious consideration to abolishing the standard for private student loans.

Other options include reinstating limits on how long the undue hardship standard should apply to federal student loans or directing courts to adopt a more flexible test for discharge in bankruptcy, such as that advocated in the separate opinion in the Roth case.

With so many student loan borrowers struggling, circumstances suggest the need for Congress to take decisive action on this critical issue on public policy and humanitarian grounds.

The Conversation

Neal H. Hutchens, Professor of Higher Education, University of Mississippi and Richard Fossey, Paul Burdin Endowed Professor of Education, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

What your choice of degree means for your future earnings

Francis Green, UCL

The mass expansion of higher education, the arrival of high fees in English and Welsh universities, the ongoing technology revolution and the Great Recession have pushed and pulled the graduate labour market in contrasting directions over the last 15 years.

So a new study published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies to help us to better understand how new graduates fare when they leave university is especially welcome. Until now, our understandings have come from surveys, with only some thousands of respondents, or else from the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey, which tracks earnings six months after graduation.

By linking administrative data from the Student Loan company, pay data from HMRC’s records, and university level data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, the study’s authors have been able to work with a data set containing a quarter of a million English-domiciled graduates. They have been able to look at earnings in much greater detail, by institution and by subject area.

The study also captures earnings at the upper extremes better than surveys can, which is especially important at a time when earnings have become more and more unequal at the top end. Despite some weaknesses – it only covers students who applied when they were living in England, for example – this is a significant step forward.

Big differences in earnings

It’s well known that graduate earnings vary a lot according to subject taken. The report confirms that medicine and economics graduates earn the most, while creative arts graduates occupy the bottom of the earnings table, as the graph below shows. In addition, the study finds a remarkable spread in how much graduates earn, even among those doing the same subject at the same institution.

On the face of it, the investment in higher education is quite a risky business, when looked at solely in financial terms. The authors illustrate this with remarkable findings from the LSE, where the top 10% of male graduate earnings was £170,000, compared to median earnings at around £40,000. At the bottom end, graduation does not guarantee employment in a graduate job.

Naturally, there are also substantial earnings variations between graduates from different universities. Yet most of this is accounted for by differences in student intake and in subject composition.

The study also found that graduates from high-income households earned much more than those coming from low-income households – some 45% more for women and 60% for men. This family income gap is partially accounted for by subject choice, and further mediated by the university a student attended.

Nevertheless, it looks as though parental income continues to affect children’s fortunes beyond their time growing up – more so for men than for women, and more at the extremes of the earnings spectrum. So, while higher education continues to matter a great deal, the labour market seems not to be entirely meritocratic. Possible explanations have centred on the role of social and cultural capital, including the role of social networks.

What’s the endgame?

More studies such as these can be expected over the coming years as administrative data is better harnessed for research purposes. The ultimate aim is to find and present accurate information of the graduate earnings premium for each institution and subject. This information would then be available to aid students in their choices. It’s hoped this could address Britain’s low social mobility by minimising unwise choices by those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds.

While better information will surely be welcome, we should not hold too many high expectations for this new era of big data for higher education research. Not least, the focus will inevitably always be on earnings and employment. There will be a great temptation for the media to hold some universities to account when their students do less well in terms of pay. Yet one could hardly expect those universities to somehow fix the labour market by altering the changing demand for skilled labour – which is where the problem may lie.

While the IFS study does not name institutions at the lower end of the graduate earnings spectrum, it seems only a matter of time before this happens as future studies emerge with even larger data sets.

Concentrating only on the employment and pay implications of going to university also encourages neglect of the broader educational needs of a modern advanced democracy. Yet as my own ongoing research is finding, even when graduates do not succeed in getting graduate jobs, they gain in other ways: they contribute external benefits to others in society, and still earn more on average than those in non-graduate jobs.

The Conversation

Francis Green, Professor of Labour Economics and Skills Development, UCL

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Higher Education

The real reason more women don’t code

Karin Verspoor, University of Melbourne

I menstruate and I code. I share this perhaps shocking personal information in the interest of full disclosure, and in solidarity with a new satirical campaign from Girls Who Code.

The campaign proposes a simple explanation for the low numbers of women in tech: that our hormonal cycles interfere with our ability to code.

Other explanations offered up in the campaign include that women can’t code because their boobs get in the way or their long eyelashes make it hard to see the screen.

These explanations are obviously ridiculous and therein lies the point. For example, if women can’t code because they menstruate, then there isn’t much we can do.

After all, menstruating is part of our basic female biology. If it prevents us from concentrating, or thinking rationally, or coding … what hope do we have?

According to the Australian Computer Society’s recent figures, only 28% of all ICT jobs are held by women in Australia. The proportion is even lower for specifically technical roles in ICT.

So there is certainly a basis for wondering whether there is a fundamental reason that women are so underrepresented in IT and computing roles.

But I’m not convinced that the latest campaign from Girls Who Code is asking the right question. “Why can’t girls code?” is a question that starts from the assumption “girls can’t code”. Is this really the prevailing attitude?

Boys v girls

There is, certainly, evidence that boys favour other boys when estimating the performance of their peers in science class.

There is also evidence specifically from the open-source software community that there is bias against accepting code produced by women, despite the overall high quality of their contributions.

Anecdotally, most technical women can share a story of a situation where their work wasn’t taken seriously.

Dr Maria Milosavljevic, national manager innovation & technology and chief information officer at the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), told me how when she was the only girl in a year 12 computer science class, every boy in the class offered to “help” her with her assignments because they assumed she would need their help.

The implication seems to be that if boys don’t accept that girls can code, then girls can’t code. To me, that’s horribly paternalistic.

Worse yet is the idea that female biology is not suited to coding, an idea that was recently floated (seriously, I fear) citing a 1999 study of 15 people that identified brain differences between men and women.

Surely, there are biological differences between men and women. Periods, brain structure and so on must exclusively determine what women enjoy doing and what we are good at. Right?!

Girls can code

Let’s start from the default assumption that girls can, in fact, code. Nothing in our biology prevents us from being able to learn how to code.

There are plenty of examples that this is the case – after all, the proportion of women in technical roles is not 0%. And there have been some very high-profile female computer scientists. They include: arguably the first computer programmer, Ada Lovelace (1815-1852); the developer of the early COBOL programming language, Grace Hopper; her syster’s keeper Anita Borg; and Google’s first female engineer, now Yahoo’s CEO, Marissa Mayer.

Here in Australia, Kay Thorne was one of the early programmers of the CSIRAC computer nearly 60 years ago.

So, I think a better question is: “Why don’t (most) girls code?”

This is a question that has been explored many times, and even one that I have written about previously.

It is generally seen as a pipeline problem, with the challenge being getting girls interested in coding. The solutions proposed involve developing engaging opportunities for learning and creating with tech, demystifying coding and boosting confidence, and highlighting female role models.

Girls Who Code, Code Like a Girl, Go Girl, Go for IT and Tech Girls are Superheros are all organisations working to create these opportunities.

The truth behind the employment numbers, however, is more complex than that pipeline.

While we know that enrolments of females in ICT courses at tertiary level lag behind males, we also know from research done at Harvard that even if women enter employment in ICT, they don’t always stay there.

Beating the ‘brogrammer’ culture

There have been accusations of a “brogrammer” culture in tech that is hostile to women.

Microsoft got into trouble earlier this year for organising a party at a developer event featuring half-naked dancing women, highlighting that even companies that have worked to support women in tech still lose their way sometimes.

Which brings us full circle back to our biology and the idea that girls can’t code. Yes, women are different from men. Yes, women certainly can code.

On the other hand, women don’t want to face sexism or misogyny in the workplace, behaviour that is driven primarily by their biology. If girls are getting the idea that they can’t code simply because they are girls, then it’s no wonder they don’t see coding as a viable career path.

So maybe they don’t code because someone makes them feel that they can’t.

The Girls Who Code campaign oversimplifies a complex problem, and it delivers a message with nuances that may be lost on the people who need most to understand them.

But it has provoked a question about the connection between biology and cultural attitudes towards women in tech that is worth considering. Period!

The Conversation

Karin Verspoor, Associate Professor, Department of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

If we really want an ideas boom, we need more women at the top tiers of science

Emma Johnston, UNSW Australia; Nalini Joshi, University of Sydney, and Tanya Monro, University of South Australia

On Wednesday March 30, Emma Johnston, Nalini Joshi and Tanya Monro spoke at the National Press Club for a special Women Of Science event. Here they outline their views on how to promote greater participation by women at the top levels of science.

Few of us would imagine accepting that our daughters have fewer options than our sons. And yet that is exactly the situation we allow to persist in Australian science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) today.

The 2016 woman scientist’s story starts well enough, particularly when you compare it with her 1960s counterpart.

Fifty-six per cent of undergraduates and half of PhD students are female. Even better, almost 60% of junior science lecturers are female.

These bright, talented people are eager to find cures for all cancers, explain dark energy, invent faster mobile phones, design robots, become astronauts and prove the Riemann hypothesis, a millennial open problem in mathematics.

But towards the top end, things are very different. In STEM, women comprise about 16% of top-level professors. That figure rises to 23% if you include medicine.

Our own personal stories reflect this: when Tanya Monro arrived at Adelaide University in 2005 she was its first female professor of physics, even though there had been physics professors there since the 1880s.

In 2002, Nalini Joshi was appointed the first woman professor of mathematics at the University of Sydney, Australia’s oldest university.

In this respect, Australia is frozen in time. We are throwing away our opportunity to harness the huge intelligence and prodigious drive of the females already in the research workforce. How is this so different to the 1950s when talented women like Ruby Payne-Scott, one of the inventors of radio astronomy, when she was required to resign as soon as she was married?

The push now is often subtler, embedded in principles, conventions and bias that is rarely visible. Modern science is still conducted within organisational cultures that resemble a feudal monastery; information is power and it is tightly held, it is difficult to find anything unless you know the right person to ask, survival rests on competition to be noticed by a “nobility”.

Unconscious, subjective conventions have evolved in response and that impacts everyone, both men and women.

As a nation, by forcing half our potential innovators to work much harder to reach the same seniority as the other half, we are doing ourselves a grave disservice.

Buried bias

The standard of living for future Australians depends on how effectively we can bring innovation into our businesses. We know that 75% of jobs in the fastest-growing industries require STEM skilled workers, and since last year’s announcement of the National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA), it appears we’re in an ideas boom.

NISA proposes “encouraging our best and brightest minds to work together to find solutions to real world problems and to create jobs and growth”.

We agree. And we propose that the single most powerful response Australia could mount to this challenge would be to transform the relationship between women and science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Australia is at, or near the bottom, of the OECD rankings in a range of critical innovation measures. The reasons for this are complex and multi-faceted, but a big one surely has to be that a huge proportion of our great thinkers – our potential science and innovation leaders – are being subtly and pervasively pushed out of STEM. Not based on their merit but based on gender.

A 2014 study found that without any information other than a candidate’s appearance (making gender clear), both males and females are twice as likely to hire a man than a woman to complete a mathematical task.

A study published earlier this year found that both male and female undergraduates were more likely to explain a woman’s science-related setbacks by mentioning factors about her, such as “she was let go because she messed up an experiment”. Whereas a man’s setbacks are more likely to be explained by contextual factors, such as “he was let go because there were budget cuts”.

Then there’s the “motherhood penalty”, with negative effects on income, career advancement, and perceived competence relative to both fathers and women without children.

Australia must pursue change. The benefits of that change will clearly go beyond gender, beyond sexual identity, race and ethnicity. That change will make our society become more creative, abundant, and innovative.

There’s no doubt that improved female engagement in STEM will drive all areas of science and innovation, and achieve aspirations articulated across the whole NISA agenda.

Re-think

There’s no single solution or silver bullet, but the prize is big enough that it’s critical that we tackle every facet of this issue.

We need to challenge the assumptions: the first and biggest is that it’s just a career pipeline issue. It isn’t, and we can’t just wait for the passing of time to solve it.

Next we need to re-think what a good research track record looks like. When Tanya Monro secured her Federation Fellowship in 2008, she had three children and had moved across the world to set up a lab from scratch in the five years over which track record is traditionally assessed. At the time, the application process provided no mechanism for extending the time window over which her productivity was assessed.

We need to re-think the language we use to describe women and their behaviour. Men are often called “assertive” where women are called “aggressive”. Male researchers who have children are more often described as “scientists”; female researchers who have children are often described as “mothers”. We can be both feminine and assertive. We can be both outstanding research scientists and loving mothers.

And we need to work on shifting the conscious and unconscious bias that many of us don’t want to admit exists. Science goes to great lengths to remove bias from observations and experiments, yet many in science fail to adequately recognise and respond to our own biases.

One of the most powerful ways to combat this bias is via the relentless promotion of role models – as NISA suggest – we should “highlight the amazing stories of Australia’s successful female innovators and entrepreneurs”. However, the media consistently under-represent women in science. One only needs to think of television science celebrities, and even in the social media, to find that 92% of the most successful Twitter scientists are male. And when female scientists are mentioned, they tend to focus on our appearance or parental status.

All three of us have done our bit to increase the representation of women in the media, taking every opportunity to speak in public and on radio and television – through news, Q&A, the National Press Club this week, Coast Australia, Catalyst, and other radio, TV and social media.

Be bold

The good news is that we know how to enact change. Some of it is as simple as structural and regulatory changes to increase early career job security, provide parental care that can be accessed by both parents, create flexibility in the workplace, enable career breaks with guaranteed re-entry, move towards anonymous grant and journal review processes, allocate teaching and administrative tasks in transparent manner and value those tasks.

We need to push against that “motherhood penalty”, and there have been some real gains in recent years. For example, changes to the Australian Research Council criteria, which now allows for the selection criterion of Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE) to replace the concept of “track record”.

We must also embrace our national character: our diverse community, relatively flat hierarchy and willingness to challenge and take risks.

We must be willing to implement quotas or targets. You only have to look at the consistent success the Academy of Technology and Engineering (ATSE) has had in bringing in significant numbers of stellar female Fellows over the last decade, and the recent pleasing developments at the Australian Academy of Science (AAS).

We need to remind ourselves that whenever we see a space where there isn’t a diverse workforce we don’t have the best possible people for the task.

Part of the solution has already been underway in the United Kingdom for more than ten years. The Athena SWAN program requires participating organisations to look internally, find out where the holes in their own career pipelines are and propose action plan to address these holes. The charter then rates organisations based on these policies and practices, rewarding them with gold, silver or bronze awards.

The AAS and ATSE have joined together to mount a pilot of the Athena SWAN program as part of the Science in Australia Gender Equity (or SAGE) initiative. Thirty-two enthusiastic organisations have already signed up to participate in the pilot.

Even the first step, – data collection and analysis – will be a challenge for most pilot participants. Of course they know how many women work there and how many may be promoted there, but they have probably not considered questions like how many are in the eligible pool for the next promotion or how long a period qualified female staff have waited before being promoted.

The Athena SWAN evaluations in the UK tell us that the outcomes will encourage and improve the working life of everyone, whether they are men or women.

Australia stands today with an unparalleled opportunity to engage the next generation of potential scientists. We simply cannot afford to lose so many of the talented people that we produce. So many great ideas that go elsewhere.

Imagine if we could encourage and keep these talented people. Imagine the great ideas doubling our Nobel Prize winners. Imagine being in a room full of female STEM professors.

Imagine the ideas boom then.

The Conversation

Emma Johnston, Professor of Marine Ecology and Ecotoxicology, Director Sydney Harbour Research Program, UNSW Australia; Nalini Joshi, Professor of Mathematics, University of Sydney, and Tanya Monro, Deputy Vice Chancellor Research & Innovation, University of South Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Higher Education

How to keep more women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)

Merryn McKinnon, Australian National University

There have been myriad promises made by the major political parties over the years focused on funding programs aimed at increasing the number of women pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

Although some of the policies do target disciplines where women are underrepresented, there seems to be very little acknowledgement of the bigger problem.

Attracting women to STEM careers is one issue, retaining them is another. And that does not seem to get the same level of attention.

Simply trying to get more women into STEM without addressing broader systemic issues will achieve nothing except more loss through a leaky pipeline.

Higher Education Research Data from 2014 shows more females than males were being awarded undergraduate degrees in STEM fields. Early career researchers, classified as level A and B academics, are equally represented in the genders.

Gender disparity in STEM fields at the higher academic levels (C-E) based on Higher Education Research Data, 2014. Science in Australia Gender Equity (SAGE)

At senior levels, though, the gender disparity plainly manifests – males comprise almost 80% of the most senior positions.

A biological and financial conundrum

Studies in the United States found that women having children within five to ten years of completing their PhD are less likely to have tenured or tenure-track positions, and are more likely to earn less than their male or childless female colleagues.

Angela (name changed) is a single parent and a PhD student in the sciences. She told me she is determined to forge a career for herself in academia, despite the bureaucratic and financial hurdles she has to overcome.

Finding ways to get enough money to afford childcare […] jumping through bureaucratic hoops […] It was ridiculous and at times I wondered if it was all worth it.

It may be just one reason for women leaving STEM, especially those with children, and doubly so for single parent women.

Women tend to be the primary caregivers for children, and are more likely to work part time, so perhaps this could explain the financial disparity. But according to the latest report from the Office of the Chief Scientist on Australia’s STEM workforce, men who also work part time consistently earn more, irrespective of their level of qualification.

Percentage of doctorate level STEM graduates working part time who earned more than $104 000 annually, by age group and gender.Australia’s STEM Workforce March 2016 report from the Office of the Australian Chief Scientist., CC BY-NC-SA

The same report also shows that women who do not have children tend to earn more than women who do, but both groups still earn less than men.

Perhaps children do play a part in earning capacity, but the pay disparities or part-time employment do not seem to fully explain why women leave STEM.

Visible role models

The absence of senior females in STEM removes a source of visible role models for existing and aspiring women scientists. This is a problem for attracting and retaining female scientists.

Having female role models in STEM helps younger women envision STEM careers as potential pathways they can take, and mentors can provide vital support.

Yet even with mentoring, women in STEM still have higher attrition rates than their male colleagues.

So what else can we do?

There are many programs and initiatives that are already in place to attract and support women in STEM, including the Science in Australia Gender Equity (SAGE) pilot, based on the United Kingdom’s Athena SWAN charter.

But women’s voices are still absent from leadership tables to our detriment.

Homeward Bound

This absence is especially noticeable in STEM and policy making arenas, and was the impetus for Australian leadership expert, Fabian Dattner, in collaboration with Dr Jess Melbourne-Thomas from the Australian Antarctic Division, to create Homeward Bound.

Dattner says she believes the absence of women from leadership “possibly, if not probably, places us at greatest peril”.

To address this, Homeward Bound is aimed at developing the leadership, strategic and scientific capabilities of female scientists to enhance their impact in influencing policy and decisions affecting the sustainability of the planet.

Initially, it will involve 77 women scientists from around the world. But this is only the first year of the program, and it heralds the beginning of a global collaboration of 1,000 women over ten years.

These women are investing heavily – financially, emotionally and professionally – and it is clearly not an option for everyone.

Flexible approaches

There are other simple ways to support women in STEM, which anyone can do.

Simply introducing genuinely flexible work arrangements could do a lot towards alleviating the pressure as Angela shows:

My supervisor made sure that we never had meetings outside of childcare hours […] or I could Skype her from home once my child was in bed. They really went above and beyond to make sure that I was not disadvantaged.

We have already attracted some of the best and brightest female minds to STEM.

If keeping them there means providing support, publicly celebrating high-achieving women, and being flexible in how meetings are held, surely that’s an investment we can all make.

The Conversation

Merryn McKinnon, Lecturer, Australian National University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

An Open Letter to College Marketing Directors

Note: The following guest post comes to us courtesy of Steve Fireng, CEO of PlattForm. He has more than 25 years of experience in the education industry covering admissions, financial aid, Group President for Career Education Corporation, and CEO and President of Embanet Compass Knowledge Group (now Pearson Embanet).
Dear College Marketing Director:

First let me say, I feel your pain. Your job has never been harder.

For the last 25 years, I’ve watched higher education undergo a vast transformation with the rise of career education, specialized institutions, distance and online learning. But we are also hearing more complaints about rising tuition and the relevance of a college education in an era of stagnant family income. Students, parents and policymakers are paying close scrutiny to their investment in higher education and questioning their return on this investment. They want to know that it is going to pay off with a degree and more importantly, job opportunities.

A generation ago, the college search/application business was pretty linear. Students talked to their high school counselors, friends, and family members and sent away for brochures. Then they typed up their college essays and sent in their applications. But with the advent of the internet and social media, that process has gone the way of the typewriter.

To succeed in this changing environment, colleges and universities have to recognize the importance of differentiation, of having and communicating the clear value. Over the next several years, the strength of marketing and brand presence could be the difference between survival and growth. It is time for universities to stake their position, clearly define their value, and own their marketplace – showcase how they’re above the competition. If they don’t, they risk failure. As a Harvard Business School professor’s dire prediction states, as many as half of the more than 4,000 universities and colleges in the U.S. may fail in the next 15 years.

Scores of colleges and universities are spending precious dollars on marketing efforts that don’t produce their intended results. The challenge of reaching students and parents on multiple devices, across multiple channels with multiple vendors has many schools scrambling to figure out how best to spend their marketing dollars. But while the multi-channel marketing mix required to reach today’s fragmented customer base has changed dramatically, there are still some marketing basics that should be followed:

Understand your market. According to research, only 15 percent of today’s college students fit the traditional model: 18-22 year olds, attending college full-time and living on campus. The fastest growing student segment in higher education is the “over 25” population. Many of these adult learners are returning to school for job training in order to stay competitive in today’s employment landscape which is increasingly STEM focused. In order to attract this growing market segment, higher education institutions need to offer flexible class options, online/distance learning opportunities, the ability to transfer credits, as well as update/add courses, majors, and curriculums that will prepare students with the highest level of 21st century skill sets to match the demands of the global job marketplace.

Be consistent. Don’t disaggregate your brand. Prospective students are reading and learning about your college or university in lots of different places. Your challenge is to deliver a consistent message, a consistent look and feel, and a consistent appeal at each stop on their journey. If your marketing team is not talking to your creative department and they are not working with your social media group, your messages and your brand will get disaggregated. If that happens, you will likely waste valuable marketing dollars.

Have a well-defined value proposition. Prospective students are looking for the education they want at a cost they can afford. Helping them find what they are looking for by providing options on how to keep tuition at an acceptable and affordable price-point turns prospects into students.

Use data to make informed decisions. The days of making decisions based on surveys and a “gut feeling” are over. We are in an industry where everything can, and should be tracked and analyzed to turn insights and measurements into buying decisions. Knowing more about your students will give you a competitive edge. The questions you need to ask yourselves are “how much do I know about my students, how do they behave, where can I find them and what message is needed to attract them?” Don’t ignore the data. You must utilize these tools to stay ahead of the competition.

Move with your market. Today’s tech-savvy students are just as likely to use their mobile and tablet devices to aid their college search process as a traditional computer. According to research, 68 percent of students said they have viewed a college website on their mobile device and 73 percent of students would download campus-specific applications for schools on their target lists. Investing in a comprehensive digital marketing campaign with content and images designed for “small screen” communications and ensuring those are consistent with print materials is crucial to delivering marketing messages with big value.

Be creative and authentic. Prospective students want to know about your school and how it can help them reach their goals so they can easily envision themselves enrolling. Creative, authentic messages and images can help answer their questions and communicate your school’s unique attributes and values across marketing channels. Develop content that answers prospective students’ questions, with messages and creative that engages and moves them through the enrollment process.

To compete effectively in today’s highly competitive environment, higher education institutions must adopt a marketing model similar to those used by companies in other sectors. Unless you are an “ivy” or high-profile, competitive school, relying on brand name recognition for meeting enrollment goals is a likely non-starter.

No question, marketing directors face challenging circumstances. As a marketing professional with a quarter century of experience, I’ve seen a lot of change and yes, in many ways, your job has never been harder. But today’s technologies are providing new opportunities for smart, cost-effective brand strategies. From where I sit, enrollment marketing presents exciting new possibilities. Never before have we had the intelligence to understand marketing performance in such a holistic way. And we can use that information to provide value to prospective students – not just noise.

Sincerely,

Steve Fireng

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Higher Education, Matthew Lynch

Diverse Conversations: Issues and Trends in International Higher Education Financing

Have you ever wondered how higher education is financed in other parts of the world? No matter what country you choose, you will find that the topic of financing higher education is a contentious one. Over the last decade, there has been a worldwide shift of the burden of higher education costs from governments and taxpayers to parents and students. This is much to the chagrin of parents of course. To find out more about current trends in international higher education financing, I sat down with Dr. John C. Weidman, Professor of Higher and International Development Education at the University of Pittsburgh. Without further ado, let’s begin the interview.

Q: Historically, how has financing higher education internationally differed from the American model?

A: The main differences stem from variations in the role of national governments with respect to education. In most countries, there is a national ministry that has overall responsibility for education. In some cases, there is a separate ministry for higher education but it still tends to be a national entity. Countries also vary in level of funding provided to public higher education institutions. In most countries other than the USA,

In the federal system of the USA, education is the responsibility of the states so the influence of the national government is much more limited than in most countries. In the USA, responsibility for covering the cost of higher education has been shifting continuously to the individuals benefitting, namely students, through a variety of loan schemes. At the same time, states have been reducing their contribution. Consequently, there is considerable variation by state in the types and costs of available higher education. In the USA, the most highly regarded and hence most difficult for students to gain admission are private. It is just the opposite in most other countries in the world, with public universities having the highest status.

Countries differ in their approach to meeting increasing demand for higher education. Three main ways are expanding the numbers of government-funded institutions, enabling the expansion of the private sector without significant government investment, and various combinations of public and private expansion. One reflection of such differences is the proportion of students attending private as opposed to public (government funded) institutions. According to data collected by the Program for Research on Private Higher Education (PROPHE) at SUNY-Albany, this varies from less than 10% in several European countries (e.g., Austria, Germany, Czech and Slovak Republics, Ireland, Italy, Spain), Australia, and South Africa to more than two-thirds in Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. In the USA, about 26% of all undergraduates are enrolled in private higher education institutions. This is actually below the worldwide average of 31%. All of the countries with very high private enrollments regulate student fees much more than the USA.

The third alternative is to charge higher tuition to less qualified students attending government-funded institutions. In Kenya, for example, the scores on the national secondary school leaving exam required for students to receive government scholarships to attend universities have been slowly increasing. Students whose scores to not reach the grade threshold are still eligible for university admission, but they have to pay tuition at an unsubsidized rate for “Privately Sponsored Students Programs” (PSSP).

Q: Increasing the price of tuition is usually proposed as a way to guarantee quality in higher education. Does the seemingly annual escalation of tuition worldwide make sense?

A: This notion is very possibly driven by the mistaken belief that the very high tuition, elite, private universities in the USA (e.g., California and Massachusetts Institutes of Technology, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford) that are placed in the top tier of most international rankings are the inevitable model for quality worldwide. Much lower tuition (i.e., highly government subsidized) institutions (e.g., University of California-Berkeley and the University of Michigan in the USA, Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, Tokyo University in Japan, Seoul National University in South Korea) are also highly ranked. Quality is a function of skills and academic productivity of faculty as well as institutional resources. Escalation of tuition is primarily a function of a) the increasing costs of maintaining institutional capacity (foremost among them faculty salaries and benefits along with infrastructure such as classrooms, libraries, laboratories, etc.), and b) a pattern of decreasing government funding. Unfortunately, ways of reducing costs in higher education are not necessarily related to maintaining quality.

Q: Loan systems usually mirror changes in tuition. What are the major trends in student loans internationally?

A: The main trend internationally is to reduce the amount of direct government funding of loan schemes. This means developing better ways of collecting payments on government provided loans so there is a revolving fund that does not require huge annual investments. Another trend is moving responsibility for student loan schemes from the government to the banking sector, though often not without some type of subsidy.

Q: Are there countries that you think do an exceptional job of promoting quality higher education, with access?

A: In both South Korea and Japan, virtually all secondary school graduates attend higher education. Both countries have built strong private higher education sectors to absorb the huge demand for enrollment rather than expanding public higher education. In both countries, the private higher education sector is strongly regulated, with government limits on the amount of tuition that can be charged and strong monitoring systems to make certain that acceptable levels of quality are maintained.

Q: As you look at worldwide trends in financing higher education, do they create opportunities for U.S. higher education?

A: In my view, the most important trend driving higher education finance worldwide is the increasing demand for higher education, both from prospective students and from governments aspiring to stimulate national economic development by increasing the numbers of highly educated people entering their workforces. If governments are unable to meet excess demand for admission to higher education institutions through expansion of publicly funded institutions in their respective countries, students and their families may seek opportunities in other countries. In China, for example, there are only places for about 20% of the age cohort seeking higher education admission. As a consequence, many higher education institutions in the USA (as well as other countries) have begun actively recruiting Chinese students. For public higher education institutions in the USA that charge a higher tuition for non-resident students, this is a potentially significant source of revenue. It also provides opportunity for institutions faced with decreasing enrollments due to population shifts in the USA to increase enrollments. In addition, many countries are funding scholarship programs for graduate students to pursue degrees abroad, especially in fields in which their own universities have limited space and/or quality. Those institutions recognized in widely accepted international rankings (e.g., Times Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University) as being in the highest quality tiers will continue to attract significant numbers of international applicants.

Well, that concludes my interview with Dr. Weidman. I would like to thank him for consenting to this interview and for his contributions to the field of higher education and humanity in general.

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

Public universities are under threat – not just by outside reformers

Brendan Cantwell, Michigan State University

A new documentary, “Starving the Beast,” recently examined the state of public higher education. Directed by Austin-based award-winning documentarian Steve Mims, the film argues that a network of right-wing think tanks and educational reformers are undermining public universities. It suggests that America’s great public universities may die from a thousand cuts unless policymakers change course.

My experience as a higher education policy researcher leads me to share many of Mims’ concerns. There are many serious challenges facing public universities.

However, my research also shows more than a right wing conspiracy is to blame for the condition of public higher education today.

Let’s first look at what the film tells us

This film’s story has many villains and few heroes. It describes how conservative politicians, think tank wonks, education reformers and wealthy political donors work together to transform public universities. According to Mims, they have two goals. The first is to run public universities like businesses. The second is to stop universities from teaching and research that contradict conservative values.

Have universities really been idyllic bastions of academic freedom?
Kimberly Vardeman, CC BY

The film shows how many recent reforms are ideologically motivated. For example, one idea that motivates reform today is economist Arthur Laffer’s “trickle-down economics.” Laffer theorizes that all government spending slows economic growth and innovation.

Laffer’s ideas lead reformers to believe reducing state support for higher education will boost the economy and prompt universities to become more efficient.

The other concept that has gained much traction is Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen’s idea of “disruptive innovation,” which holds that established organizations innovate only when upstart competitors upend their business model. For the reformers this means promoting for-profit colleges to compete with public universities.

Anti-tax lobby groups like Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) are also implicated in the film. Since 1986 many elected Republicans have pledged to ATR never to raise taxes, making it hard to adequately fund higher education.

The results of all of this, according to Mims, are devastating budget cuts, program closures, and the erosion of academic freedom.

But here’s the problem: In focusing on contemporary developments, the film implies that public universities were, until recently, well-supported, idyllic bastions of intellectual freedom.

In creating this impression, Mims indulges in what I describe as higher education critics’ tendency “to reject the present by pointing to a more perfect past.” Idealizing the past may tell a good story but it ignores the long history of political struggle that has led to the present crisis.

Why there’s another side to the story

Let’s consider the recent history of some of the challenges facing public universities.

Declining funding for higher education has been a serious problem in recent years. After the Great Recession in 2008 public universities in most states experienced dramatic funding cuts. But these cuts followed decades of decline.

A 2015 report of the American Academies of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) shows that in 1990 14.6 percent of state budgets went to higher education, but by 2014, this share had dropped to 9.4 percent.

I share the assessment that the states invest too little in higher education. Decline in state funding has led to increased tuition. But, as the AAAS report shows, other demands on state budgets, including increased health care spending, partly explain declines in higher education funding.

Research does show that Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures fund higher education less generously than Democratic governments. Nevertheless, some of the policies that weaken public universities have enjoyed bipartisan support. For example, policies allowing more public funding to go to for-profit colleges have had backing from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Let’s look within

Another claim made in the film is that reforms are designed to undermine academic freedom.

I disagree that threats to academic freedom come only from outside forces. This portrayal is too generous to universities, which often make decisions for nonacademic reasons.

Mims shows that intellectual activities that disagree with conservative ideology sometimes attract the ire of conservative politicians. One troubling example from the film is the closure of a poverty research center in North Carolina.

But as public policy expert from University of California, Berkeley David Kirp demonstrates in his book, “Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line,” financial interests often trump academics at America’s universities. Although painful for those involved, many program closures are motivated by cost and efficiency concerns rather than political ideology.

A large number of faculty are now hired on a part-time or contingent basis.
Roger W, CC BY-SA

“Starving the Beast” also identifies anti-tenure policies as a major threat to academic freedom. Sure enough, recent developments, such as policies in Wisconsin and Texas, weaken tenure and academic freedom. These are threats that come from outside of higher education. And, indeed, these policies concern me.

But more than one-half of all faculty are now “contingent” – that is, they teach on a semester-to-semester basis. This “new faculty majority” has little protection for academic freedom. In my assessment, widespread use of contingent faculty by colleges and universes poses the greatest threat to the academic profession.

Who is responsible?

Mims suggests that most people don’t know what is happening to public universities. That may be true. But in my assessment, social values might also contribute to the problem.

Results of a study by University of Michigan economists Brian Jacob, Brian McCall and Kevin Stange indicate that most students make enrollment decisions based on campus amenities such as state-of-the-art gyms rather than academics. Campus officials seem to be responding to what students want: Campus amenities are among the fastest-growing categories of expenditures at public universities.

It’s also the case that many students go to college for job training rather than the intrinsic value of learning. A study by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA shows that 70 percent of college freshman believe earning a college degree is “very important” in order “to be able to make more money.”

Often student enrollment decisions are based on campus amenities.
Penn State, CC BY-NC-ND

What is more, policies and politics destructive to public universities appear to be popular. Tax increases would be necessary to maintain high-quality education at low costs. Yet a majority of Americans believe their taxes are too high.

And several of the politicians featured in “Starving the Beast” as being harmful to universities, including Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, were elected to two terms by the people of their states.

Asking some tough questions

What does this all mean?

If, like me, you are anxious about the condition of public universities, “Starving the Beast” will only heighten your concerns. The film is a compelling account of how special interests collude to weaken public universities.

However, it tells only part of the story.

In addition to holding educational reformers and ideologues to account, it is my view as an educational researcher that we should also ask tough questions of ourselves, our neighbors and to university officials:

Are we willing to pay higher taxes for better higher education? How do we make educational choices for ourselves and for our families? Should university leaders rely on contingent professors while investing in football stadiums and gyms?

By asking these questions, I am not providing excuses for policies that Mims correctly identifies as harmful to public universities. I agree that state policies have been harmful to public universities. But what I am suggesting is that those concerned with the condition of public higher education consider the problem in a broader context with research-based evidence.

Excellent, accessible and affordable public universities are not possible without a broad public support.

The Conversation

Brendan Cantwell, Assistant Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education, Michigan State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's, Higher Education, Matthew Lynch

4 Ways Our College Football Obsession Sends the Wrong Message about Higher Education

During college football season on any given weekend, it seems that every social media newsfeed is 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 collective obsession with college football and other collegiate sports give K-12 kids the wrong idea about the purpose of higher education? Yes—and here’s why:

  1. The brutal truth about athleticism: Let’s face it—it’s 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.

  1. The pedestal athletes are placed on: This applies to college athletes as well as the pros. Peers, coaches, and parents think of them and treat them as budding celebrities.

I won’t deny it: the feats of the human body are admirable. However, what’s the impact on academics when a young adult with athletic ability is 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, again, what is lost from an academic standpoint?

  1. The money schools throw at athletic programs: 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.

  1. The less-than-appropriate behavior we tolerate from student athletes. So student 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 athletes’ fault. Most of them are just young adults. The blame falls on 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? Leave a comment below.

  • no reactions
0
Share