According to a new Gallup-Lumina Foundation poll, many Americans feel that college is no longer affordable. Just 17 percent of white Americans polled believe that “education beyond high school is affordable to anyone in this country who needs it” and only 19 percent of black people polled believe the same.
Hispanics are far more optimistic in their view of college affordability. By way of the Gallup poll, more than 50 percent of Hispanics polled responded that college is affordable to those who live in America.
Separated into three categories of white, black, and Hispanic, the gulf between how Hispanics feel about the cost of higher education compared to whites and blacks is staggering. That may mesh with how some view the outlook and direction of the country.
But this study also mentions the rising cost of tuition and the copious amount of debt that students are saddled with upon exiting college. According to Gallup, tuition at a “public four-year college has increased by more than 250% over the past three decades.”
That’s likely why many students carry an average of $30,000 in student loan debt and why some in the federal government want to extinguish student loan debt when filing for bankruptcy.
This new study is another in a long line that show just how un-affordable higher education has become for some. With the rising cost of tuition and student fees, many students are being priced out of the ability to attain a college degree.
The cost is also turning off some students as they are afraid of amassing thousands of dollars in debt and ruining their financial future. If anything, this shows just how dire the situation has become and why the federal government needs to act on fixing the problem.
Emotional Intelligence (EI) in leaders enhances thoughtful choices and unselfishness in their followers. As a result, leaders who are able to identify and manage their emotions and those of others develop sincerity and helpfulness among their followers. The expression of emotions is a vital component of charismatic leadership, and is linked to the leader’s ability to inspire and motivate followers through the emotional contagion process; that is, shared feelings encourage cooperation among everyone involved.
It has also been shown that the expression of positive emotions has a positive impact on groups. However, there is a lack of research on how leaders express negative emotions such as disapproval, anger, and disappointment, and how this expression affects group performance. One practical suggestion is that skilled and controlled expression of so-called negative emotions is important for leaders, so as to avoid decreasing workers’ motivation, or building up resentment and resistance.
Since practiced emotional expressiveness is necessary, effective expression of the leader’s negative emotions requires skills in expression, emotional control, and emotional sensitivity so as to gauge how these negative emotions are received by followers. There has recently been considerable interest in the role of emotional sensitivity, which is the ability to “decode” emotions in the work setting. In some of the research studies, measures of emotional decoding skills have been used as a substitute for emotional intelligence. Other studies have examined the notion of emotional “eavesdropping,” where leaders decode followers’ emotions even when they are not intending to convey them directly. Emotional eavesdropping involves an acute awareness of follower’s body language, tone of voice, and other unspoken indicators to understand their true feelings.
The reason there has been so much interest in emotional decoding is that there are a number of measures available for researchers to study. Also, it makes sense to study the ability to “read” others’ emotions in the workplace. Although effective leaders must possess good skills in emotional control, especially during crises, individuals who are particularly good at controlling and masking their emotional expressions usually seem distant and aloof.
Any imbalance in the possession of emotional and social skills is linked to poorer psychosocial adjustment in teams and, therefore, to poor leadership. In summary, we find that, across most of the research, emotional intelligence improves effectiveness in organizational settings. Effective leaders must make serious efforts to detect, analyze, and understand the feelings of their followers. As a part of this effort, leaders must also be careful of how they express their own emotions to their staff. A thoughtful leader will listen to their followers concerns, and speak with care and conviction about their own.
In order for colleges and universities to truly prepare students for the real world, these places of higher learning need to cultivate diverse populations. There is a lot of attention placed on the changing face of college students but I feel that for college campuses to truly remain effective long term, diversity in faculty needs to be a paramount concern.
Why is Diversity Important on College Campuses?
Student bodies are no longer composed of primarily male, white students. Some estimates show that half of America’s current workforce now passes through college first and 75 percent of students in high school spend at least some time studying in a higher education setting. That number is up from an elite four percent in 1900. What’s more – the numbers of college students from low-income and minority families continues to rise. More Americans from every color and creed are now earning college educations so college faculty should reflect that. While students can certainly learn from people outside their own sex, ethnicity and belief system, faculty with similar backgrounds provide stronger role models.
Diversity in faculty should not only be sought out for the students’ advantage though; the college legacy as a whole benefits when many different perspectives are represented. Yes, it is important to have diversity in student populations but those groups are temporary college residents. Faculty members have the long-term ability to shape the campus culture and make it more in sync with the rest of the real world.
How Diverse are College Campuses Today?
The short answer is “not very.” A report from the National Center for Education Statistics found that full-time faculty on college campuses heavily favors white candidates (at just over 1 million) over black (not even 100,000), Asian (86,000) and Hispanic (under 60,000) faculty. These numbers may not mean much out of context however, so let’s take a closer look at why they matter.
While nearly 30 percent of undergraduate students around the nation are considered minorities, just over 12 percent of full-time faculty are minorities. That number drops to around 9 percent for full-time professors of color. Though half of all undergraduate students are women, roughly one-third of full-time professors are women. In 1940, the number of women faculty was at 25 percent, showing just how slowly this particular minority group is climbing. The numbers are going in the right direction, but not quickly enough.
So, What’s the Problem?
Faculty positions are extremely competitive. Colleges and universities often value professors that have publishing ability, or a strong past of publication, over actual teaching methods. This is not to say that there are not women and minorities with high qualifications but rather to point out that sometimes sex and race are simply not part of the hiring equation. Facts and figures on a resume are tangible ways to show what a particular candidate can bring to the job. It is more difficult for higher education decision makers to gauge the benefit of a person’s background or life experience on the students that pay good money to learn at a particular institution.
That being said, many colleges are stepping up their diverse hiring games. Schools like the University of California, Harvard and the University of Washington both study faculty diversity issues and try to piece together the most well-represented group of educators possible. Even Historically Black Colleges and Universities are trying to bring in students and faculty members outside the traditional population, especially since the original mission of those schools has changed. Certainly there are strides being made but in order to best serve each generation of college students, the push for faculty diversity needs to continue on an upward path.
Note: Today’s op ed comes to you courtesy of George M. Johnson, an advocate for change in Higher Education. He is the Former Director of Student Accounts at Virginia Union University and counsels students properly preparing for college. He has been published in HBCUDigest.com and blogs at iamgmjohnson.com. Follow him on twitter @iamgmjohnson
Yesterday, a tweet from @Med_School12 took Social Media by storm that stated “A 4.0 at a HBCU is not equivalent to a 4.0 at a rigorous PWI. Sorry, but it’s the truth”. Immediately twitter swarmed this tweet as the thousands of retweets with comments ranged from a question mark to all out fury. I too, took my frustrations out tweeting how my multiple degrees from HBCU’s have in no way made me less that of a person who received their degrees from a PWI. After the initial shock and awe of the situation, I decided to sit down, gather my thoughts, and really think about what she actually wrote.
The tweet, although less than 140 characters is much layered in contradiction and furthermore should have been sold as her opinion not truth.
Issue 1: What differs a PWI from a Rigorous PWI
At first read, the tweet all but diminishes the worth of attending an HBCU in comparison to going to a PWI. But upon further analysis, she actually does compliment and offend all in the same sentence. Based on her teeth, she agrees that a 4.0 at an HBCU is equivalent or better than that of one from a normal PWI, just not a rigorous PWI. So the true question that needs to be answered is “what is a rigorous PWI”. Is it a top 20 ranked college? Is it a private school as opposed to a public school? Is it based on the college’s endowment? Either way, the determination of what makes one college rigorous compared to another is purely subjective to the student that attends. Some students probably thought Harvard was easy as compared to those who may have struggled at Rutger’s. There is no true way of determining the “rigors” of one college over another.
Issue 2: Is the statement based on where you were educated or where you teach?
This is one I had to think about. Let’s say the PWI is made up of 5 professors that all were educated at HBCU’s. The school they are being compared to is an HBCU that is made up of 5 professors that were all taught at PWI’s. There is probably no need to go any further as you can probably see where I am going with this. The statement does not take into account the people that are actually doing the instruction. Based on the statement, your professors could have come from community college and HBCU’s, but as long as they are “worthy” enough to teach at a “rigorous” PWI, the learning will be greater. But if you attend an HBCU with all professors with Harvard Education, your learning will not be equivalent because the perception of the HBCU as a whole is less than the standard. The patriarchy and privilege in that statement alone is disappointing.
Issue 3: The final issue, which was also my initial reply, “whose truth”?
In this age of social media, people are very quick to make accusations, assumptions, opinions, and poorly executed statements and claim that they are truth as if some actual research had been done. Her claiming that the PWI she is attending is rigorous for her is “her truth”. This should not be generalized and projected on others as a factual statement about the university that she attends. My truth is that I have never attended a PWI, and any statement made about the rigors of one would solely be my opinion. And to play devil’s advocate, there are many people whose truth is that they attended a PWI and an HBCU and found the HBCU to be more rigorous than the PWI. That statement vice versa is someone else’s truth.
Living in the age of social media can be quite fun and intriguing, but it can also be dangerous when we begin spreading our truth’s as facts and making them the beliefs of others. Rather than arguing if a 4.0 at an HBCU is equivalent to that of a 4.0 at a PWI, we should be praising and commending anyone that receives a 4.0 at any institution of Higher Education. For that takes “rigorous” work.
Despite receiving an award for HBCU ‘Female President of the Year,’ Elmira Mangum is facing stiff criticism from the school’s board of trustees.
According to Tallahassee.com, Rufus Montgomery who serves as chairman of the board of trustees, wants Mangum placed on a 90-day probation plan.
“And while some board members talked about moving forward and having faith in Mangum’s leadership, trustees chairman Rufus Montgomery pushed members of the Special Committee on Presidential Evaluation to place Mangum on a performance improvement plan “and hold her accountable.” He suggested a 90-day plan.”
Good thing for Mangum that Montgomery doesn’t make the final decision. The board rejected his plan and decided to go another route.
But the problems between the board and Mangum stem from the board’s assertion that Mangum is failing to meet expectations in her role as president. Magnum, obviously, believes otherwise.
She outlineda list of challenges that she’s faced since arriving.
“She said when she arrived, FAMU was dealing with the aftermath of a hazing scandal, unfavorable financial audits, changes in top leadership and addressing the large percentage of students enrolled who were not ready for the academic challenges.”
The board will meet August 6th and the Special Committee on Presidential Evaluation will meet the day before.
FAMU seemed to be on higher ground as the school had emerged from a cloud of scandal. A string of good press and Magnum’s award were definitely good ways to show off what the school had to offer.
But as the power struggle continues between Magnum and the board, the way forward for the school hangs in the balance.
The face of higher education is rapidly evolving as more middle- to low-class young people find ways to obtain a college degree or technical training. The Hispanic population in the U.S. is no exception as the number of college applicants and enrollees increase every year. While these strides benefit this specific group of students, everyone stands to benefit from Hispanic higher education success. Let’s look at why:
Hispanics are the largest (and fastest-growing) minority in the United States. The U.S. Census reports that the estimated Hispanic population in the nation is 52 million – making residents of Hispanic origin the largest minority in the country. In fact, one of every six Americans is a Hispanic. That number is expected to rise to over 132 million by 2050 and Hispanics will then represent 30 percent of the U.S. population. Children with Hispanic roots make up 23 percent of the age 17 and under demographic — making future higher education legislation critical for this growing and thriving minority group.
Many Hispanic college attendees are first-generation college students. Young people of Hispanic origin face specific challenges when it comes to higher education. Many prospective students are first-generation Americans, or even undocumented residents, and do not have the first-hand experience or guidance from parents regarding the college experience in the U.S. Like all other ethnic groups, Hispanic youth face financial difficulty when trying to determine if college is a possibility. Many young Hispanics may feel overwhelmed by the social and financial pressure associated with college attendance and are in need of the right guidance. While higher education initiatives are changing to address these issues, only 13 percent of the Hispanic population over the age of 25 had a bachelor’s degree or higher in the 2010 Census.
The DREAM Act is giving undocumented immigrants opportunities to thrive here in the United States. The Obama administration recognizes the rapid growth of the Hispanic community, specifically as it impacts higher education, and has put several pieces of legislation into motion including the DREAM Act. First introduced in the U.S. Senate in August 2001, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act was designed to reward children in good standing that came to the country illegally. Temporary residency is granted for a six-year time frame for young people that seek out higher educational pursuits with an option for permanent residency after completion of a bachelor’s degree or beyond.
The bill went through several iterations before President Obama announced in June 2012 that his administration would stop deporting undocumented immigrants meeting DREAM Act criteria. While this legislation applies to more than Hispanic immigrants, they are the group that stands to benefit the most from its enactment. With no fear of deportation, Hispanic youth with higher education aspirations are free to pursue them and work toward a better individual and collective future.
Helping the Hispanic community succeed means helping America succeed. Increasing higher education opportunities for Hispanics has obvious positive benefits for the demographic itself, but the influence will be felt even further. Think of it as a ripple effect, where the Hispanic community represents the initial splash and all other ethnic groups feel the impact too. The Obama Administration has made known its goals to make the U.S. the leader in college degrees earned in proportion to population. In order for this goal to be met, Hispanics (specifically those of Latino descent) will need to earn 3.3 million degrees between now and 2020. The economic success of geographic areas, specifically urban areas, is directly affected by the number of college graduates that study and stay there. In states like Texas, this is an especially poignant point where a one-point college graduate rate increase can result in $1.5 billion more in annual economic activity for cities like San Antonio. Without the help of Hispanic youth, these numbers are difficult, if impossible, to achieve.
Legislation like the DREAM Act is just the start of changing the culture of higher education to be more welcoming to Hispanic youth. Individual colleges and universities must also step up and offer academic and financial aid programs with specific Hispanic needs in mind. The future achievements of higher education in the U.S. are dependent upon the inclusion and success of Hispanic students and the same is true of a stable economic climate. The sooner federal and state initiatives, along with colleges and universities, embrace these inevitabilities, the better.
A recent article via Forbes.com asks a fairly interesting question regarding financial aid for students attempting to attain a higher education.
Does financial aid help colleges more than students?
The article is based on a report via the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that shows how well financial aid works for students.
“Students pay an extra 55 cents in tuition for every dollar of Pell Grant they receive, meaning they only save 45 cents in terms of out-of-pocket costs. Colleges gain even more than the 55 cents from each dollar of new Pell Grants because they collect the extra tuition from all their students, including all the ones who do not receive Pell Grants.”
Basically students can’t seem to catch a break.
The study goes further by stating that student loans make the situation worse as “college tuition goes up by 70 cents for every extra dollar of student loans.”
So basically, if the federal government truly wants to help drive down the cost of higher education and help students, making student loans and Pell Grants more available to students isn’t the best route to take.
The other part of that is how may students attain capital in order to attend college without help from the federal government? Is there a way to place caps on the tuition charged to students who receive loans and grants? If so, then that would make the playing field uneven for everyone.
Certainly a study worth looking further into, the government has to find ways to ensure that colleges aren’t unfairly profiting off of programs meant to help students.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
