HBCU

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

Fewer poor students are being enrolled in state universities. Here’s why

Robert Kelchen, Seton Hall University and Luke J. Stedrak, Seton Hall University

States have traditionally provided funding for public colleges and universities based on a combination of the number of students enrolled and how much money they were allocated previously.

But, in the face of increasingly tight budgets and pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness to legislators, more and more states are tying at least some higher education funding to student outcomes.

As of 2015, 32 states have implemented a funding system that is based in part on students’ performance in at least some of their colleges. In such states, a portion of state funding is based on metrics such as the number of completed courses or the number of graduates.

Research shows that performance-based funding (PBF) has not moved the needle on degree completions in any substantial way. Our research focuses on the unintended consequences of such funding policies – whether colleges have responded to funding incentives in ways that could hurt disadvantaged students.

We find evidence that these systems may be reducing access for low-income students at public colleges.

Just a popular political strategy?

What is performance-based funding (PBF)? And does it improve college completion rates?

Performance funding, the idea of tying funding to outcomes instead of enrollment, was first adopted in Tennessee in 1979. It spread across the country in waves in the 1990s and 2000s, with some states dropping and adding programs as state budget conditions and political winds changed. In this decade, several states have implemented systems tying most or all of state funding to outcomes.

By basing funding on outcomes such as course completions and the number of degrees awarded, PBF has become a politically popular strategy to improve student outcomes. It has received strong support from the Bill and Melinda Gates and Lumina Foundations – two big players in the higher education landscape.

However, the best available evidence suggests that PBF systems generally do not move the needle on degree completions in any substantial way.

For example, a study of Washington state’s PBF program by Nick Hillman of Wisconsin, David Tandberg of Florida State and Alisa Hicklin Fryar of University of Oklahoma showed no effects on associate degree completion at two-year colleges. The study found positive effects on certificates in technical fields that took less time to complete, but those were the ones that were not as valuable in the labor market.

Performance-based funding do not have much of an impact on college completion rates. Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA

When Tandberg and Hillman conducted a nationwide study, they found no effect overall of PBF programs on degree completions at two-year and four-year colleges.

However, the small number of PBF programs that had been in effect for at least seven years (giving colleges plenty of time to change their practices in response) did appear to increase the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by a few percentage points.

More selective and lower standards

While there is no significant evidence of impact, there have been many unintended consequences of this policy.

There is a growing body of evidence, for example, that shows that colleges may be trying to change both their student body and their academic standards in order to meet the state’s performance goals as well as their own priorities.

A research team at Teachers College who interviewed administrators in three states with “high-stakes” PBF systems (Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee) found that colleges facing PBF were both becoming more selective in accepting students and lowering academic standards among current students in an effort to have more students graduate.

A new study by Mark Umbricht and Frank Fernandez at Penn State and Justin Ortagus at University of Florida used data on incoming students to show that Indiana colleges increased selectivity in response to PBF.

They estimated that Indiana colleges lowered admissions rates by nearly 10 percent and increased ACT scores by nearly a full point compared to similar colleges in other states.

What’s the influence of money on who gets admitted? reynermedia, CC BY

In our research, published recently in the Journal of Education Finance, we examined whether public two-year and four-year colleges nationwide changed how they either received or spent money in response to performance funding systems.

We found that colleges generally did not change spending on instruction or research, but they did see significantly less revenue from federal Pell Grants that are primarily given to students with family incomes below US$60,000 per year, suggesting fewer low-income students enrolled. We estimated a statistically significant decline in Pell revenue of about 2 percent at both two-year and four-year colleges.

We also found that four-year colleges offered more institutional grant aid, potentially in the form of merit-based scholarships to attract higher-income students with a greater likelihood of success.

Implications for policy

Although research suggests that performance funding systems have not been particularly effective in increasing the number of degrees that public colleges grant, the fact is that PBF is being adopted in more states. For example, five more states have adopted PBF since 2014, with additional states debating whether to adopt plans of their own.

We believe, this is unlikely to go away anytime soon.

And many states’ existing funding systems are highly inequitable. They favor research universities over less-selective colleges, even though less-selective colleges enroll the lion’s share of low-income students.

States should consider placing provisions in both their enrollment-based and performance-based funding systems to encourage colleges to continuing to enroll an economically diverse student body.

Several states, such as Arkansas, Ohio and Florida, provide additional incentives for graduating Pell Grant recipients. But states need to ensure that these additional funds are sufficient to encourage colleges to enroll academically qualified students from low-income families as well.

To do this, states would need to take three concrete steps. First, states should provide incentives for colleges to not raise admissions standards beyond what is needed to succeed in coursework. Second, they could also provide additional funds for graduating students who require a modest amount of remedial coursework (courses to build skills of less-prepared students), before taking college-level classes.

And finally, it is important that state policymakers and college leaders have honest conversations about the goals of PBF systems and what colleges need to improve their performance. This could help reduce the unintended outcomes.

The Conversation

Robert Kelchen, Assistant Professor of Higher Education, Seton Hall University and Luke J. Stedrak, Assistant Professor of Education Leadership, Management and Policy, Seton Hall University

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

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

Could gay-straight alliances reduce school bullying?

Robert Marx, Vanderbilt University and Heather Hensman Kettrey, Vanderbilt University

As students across the country zip up their backpacks and get on the bus for the first day of school, many will have more to focus on than memorizing their new schedules or making it to homeroom on time.

For some, the chief concern will be avoiding the bullying and harassment that follow from class to class, through the hallways or into locker rooms.

Although federal data indicate rates of bullying have decreased over the past decade, bullying remains a significant issue. One in five students still reports being bullied at school.

Even though all students are at risk, bullying does not target or affect all students equally: Some students are not only more likely to be bullied, but are also more likely to be negatively impacted by it. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer students are approximately 91 percent more likely to be bullied than their heterosexual peers.

Tragically, being bullied is associated with higher rates of anxiety disorders, depression and poor academic performance as well as suicide, suicidal attempts and suicidal thoughts. Students who are bullied for their actual or perceived sexuality or gender expression (that is, victims of homophobic bullying) are more likely than students who are bullied for other reasons to experience depression and suicidal thoughts.

In some ways, this may explain why LGBTQ students report rates of attempted suicide two to seven times that of their heterosexual peers.

So, what can be done about this?

One promising solution is the establishment of gay-straight alliances in schools.

What are gay-straight alliances?

Gay-straight alliances are student-run organizations that provide a space for LGBTQ students and their straight allies to come together. Gay-straight alliances often aim to promote a supportive school climate for students of all sexual orientations and gender expressions, to decrease bullying, and to provide students with a space to be themselves.

The earliest gay-straight alliances emerged in Massachusetts in the late 1980s when students and teachers at three different private schools began to hold meetings between LGBTQ and straight students.

Today, there are over 4,000 local chapters of gay-straight alliances, officially registered with the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network, illustrating their popularity in addressing homophobic bullying in the United States.

Students meet to socialize, watch movies, discuss social issues, and plan dances and events for the school. Liz Henry, CC BY-ND

Students meet to socialize, watch movies, discuss social issues, and plan dances and events for their school. They also organize advocacy initiatives such as the Day of Silence and No Name Calling Week, that bring attention to anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in schools.

The promise of gay-straight alliances

Considering the high risk that LGBTQ students face for being bullied, harassed, or victimized at school, we sought to determine whether gay-straight alliances were associated with lower rates of homophobic bullying.

We believed our partnership was perfect to explore this question: One of us (Robert) is a former high school teacher and gay-straight alliance advisor, and the other (Heather) is a sociologist who studies gender and sexuality. Together, we wanted to explore the existing research on gay-straight alliances to determine if there were any uniform findings that could be important for policymakers and school leaders.

The promise of gay-straight alliances. Tim Evanson, CC BY-SA

We combined and analyzed data from approximately 63,000 adolescents who participated in 15 independent studies about their experiences with gay-straight alliances and bullying.

We found that, although individual studies offered mixed results (as some said gay-straight alliances were associated with lower reports of student victimization, while others said there was no association), data indicated students at schools with gay-straight alliances reported less bullying.

LGBTQ students at schools with gay-straight alliances were 52 percent less likely to hear homophobic remarks like “that’s so gay” at school. Additionally, these students were 36 percent less likely to be fearful for their own safety and 30 percent less likely to experience “homophobic victimization,” such as being harassed or physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation or gender expression.

Can gay-straight alliances change school environment?

Interestingly, in our analysis, we did not distinguish between gay-straight alliance members and nonmembers. That means LGBTQ students may derive the potential benefits of having a gay-straight alliances at their school regardless of whether they participate in these clubs themselves.

Perhaps having a gay-straight alliance promotes an accepting school climate by sending the message that a school is welcoming and committed to the success of all its students and, therefore, homophobic acts will not be tolerated. Perhaps gay-straight alliances raise awareness of LGBTQ issues among all students and, thus, create a supportive environment for all LGBTQ students, not just those who are gay-straight alliances members.

Regardless, it is heartening to know that all LGBTQ students could benefit from gay-straight alliances.

Importantly, our research is consistent with the existing body of literature around bullying. Our findings indicating that gay-straight alliances are associated with lower rates of bullying are right in line with previous evaluations of general anti-bullying programs that do not specifically target homophobic bullying.

Gay-straight alliances lower the risk of bullying. Western Connecticut State University Peggy Stewart Follow, CC BY-ND

That means that gay-straight alliances, which are student-initiated, student-run organizations that require little funding beyond an advisor’s stipend, may promote benefits similar to those derived from outside programs that can require considerable funds and resources to implement.

There are hurdles

Despite the promise of gay-straight alliances as a potential solution to homophobic bullying, there are obstacles to the establishment of these clubs. In some cases, students’ attempts to establish gay-straight alliances in their schools have been thwarted by opposition from parents or school administrators who believe these clubs are inappropriate for adolescents – or even that they impose a gay agenda on students.

Under the Equal Access Act, American students have a right to establish gay-straight alliances. However, some students have found themselves embroiled in legal battles to ensure this right. To date, there have been 17 federal lawsuits in which students and parents have successfully sued school boards for denying charters or banning gay-straight alliances.

In spite of these challenges, we find it powerful to know that one of the most effective weapons in the fight to stop LGBTQ bullying is simple: youth coming together to talk, laugh and share their lives.

The Conversation

Robert Marx, Ph.D. Student, Vanderbilt University and Heather Hensman Kettrey, Research Associate, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

What schools don’t tell you about campus sexual assault

Andrea A. Curcio, Georgia State University

Throughout the summer before my daughter left for college, I repeatedly warned her: never put a glass down at a party; use the buddy system when going to parties; and never go upstairs at a fraternity party.

Instead, what I should have told her is: the place you are most likely to be assaulted is in your dorm; you are most vulnerable the first weeks of the semester; and your attacker is most likely to be a friend or acquaintance.

In the past couple of years, much has been written about the high rate of sexual assaults on college campuses. What no one seems to be talking about is that most assaults occur in the dorms.

Vulnerable freshman year

A 2015 study found over 20 percent of all women surveyed experienced unwanted sexual contact while attending college. This confirmed earlier findings from a survey conducted between 2005 to 2007, in which one in five women reported being sexually assaulted since entering college.

The most vulnerable time is the first two months of the freshman year. In fact, to symbolize the danger, the first few months of the fall freshman semester are now commonly called the sexual assault “red zone.”

Most likely an attacker will be a friend or acquaintance. A study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, the research wing of the U.S. Department of Justice, found that 90 percent of college sexual assault victims knew their assailant.

The majority of assaults happen when one or both parties have consumed alcohol. Parents and students usually associate alcohol use with parties, and particularly fraternity parties. Rarely is the connection made about what happens when a student returns to the dorm after those parties.

Schools’ legal reporting obligation

Colleges and universities that receive federal funding (which is virtually all schools) are required under the Clery Act to compile and publish an annual report on the nature, date, time and place of crimes occurring on and off campus. On-campus crime reports must indicate whether the crime occurred in on-campus residential housing.

It is likely that campuses underreport sexual assault victims. Wolfram Burner, CC BY-NC

Rapes and “fondlings” are among the crimes that must be reported. Fondlings are defined as forcible and/or nonconsensual touching for sexual gratification. Nonconsensual situations include those in which the victim is incapacitated and thus unable to consent.

It is quite likely that the Clery Act reports significantly underrepresent the number of campus sexual assaults. As the table below shows, in 2014, the combined total Clery Act reports from all U.S. colleges and universities was 4,971 reported rapes and 2,521 reported fondlings.

Even if the data underreport the total number of sexual assaults, what they do show is where assaults happen.

Where campus sexual assaults happen

Here’s what national Clery Act data show:

In 2014, 3,658 out of 4,971 (74 percent) of all reported rapes and 1,236 out of 2,521 (49 percent) of all reported fondlings occurred in on-campus residential housing. When looking only at on-campus occurrences, as opposed to the total of on- and off-campus occurrences, the percentages are even higher. Approximately 82 percent of all reported on-campus rapes (3,658 out of 4,464) and 53 percent of all reported on-campus fondlings (1,236 out of 2,330) occurred in campus housing.

These data are consistent with Clery Act reports from earlier years, which also show the majority of sexual assaults occurring in campus residential housing.

On-campus residential housing includes dorms, other student residences and fraternity and sorority houses owned or controlled by the university or located on university property. Under the Clery Act, schools do not need to distinguish between fraternity houses and dorms when reporting where sexual assaults happened.

However, a 10-year study looked at rapes and sexual assaults between 2001 and 2011 occurring on Massachusetts’ college and university campuses – including dorms, apartments and fraternity houses. The study found that 81 percent of all reported rapes and assaults occurred in the dorms, 9 percent occurred in houses or apartments and only 4 percent occurred in fraternity houses.

“See-no-evil” approach is risky

Why does knowing where assaults occur matter?

As my scholarship suggests, part of the sexual assault education process involves debunking myths and stereotypes.

Exposing the myth that most sexual assaults happen in fraternity housing, as well as educating students about the dangers of dorm-based assaults, raises awareness and allows students to take appropriate precautions.

Paying attention to the fact that most assaults occur in the dorms also allows targeted prevention measures. At the very minimum, given how many assaults occur early in the fall semester, parent and student summer orientation programs should include education about dorm-based assaults and appropriate preventative measures.

Why the ‘see-no-evil’ approach does not work. Ally Aubry, CC BY

Schools may be reluctant to acknowledge and discuss where assaults are happening because they don’t want to frighten either parents or students. But the “see no evil” approach comes with significant risk of potentially preventable harm and liability.

Recently, parents of a young woman allegedly assaulted in her dorm filed a class action lawsuit against the University of Kansas (KU).

The suit alleges KU violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it solicited students through representations of its residence halls as “safe and secure” despite its knowledge that numerous students had sexually assaulted other students in its dorms.

The student herself filed a Title IX lawsuit against KU. Title IX protects against gender based discrimination with regard to educational opportunities. Her lawsuit rests mainly upon allegations about KU’s conduct after the assault report. However, it also alleges KU is liable for its failure to take reasonable steps to make the dorm safer in light of the data it had about dorm-based assaults.

Other lawsuits have been filed against colleges, alleging failure to warn of and protect students from the reasonably foreseeable danger of sexual assaults occurring in college dorm.

While colleges likely will refute allegations of wrongdoing, as KU has done in the suits against it, these suits lead to undesirable publicity and expenditure of university resources on litigation defense.

Preventing sexual assault

It’s sexual assault awareness month. Alachua County, CC BY

When colleges fail to examine where assaults happen, they expose themselves to litigation. More importantly, they miss critical opportunities to explore solutions to the widespread campus sexual assault problem.

Schools should look closely at their own sexual assault reports and consider targeted solutions if there are particular dorms with a high incidence of assaults.

Studies should be conducted at the national level to examine overall patterns. Those studies should examine questions such as whether sexual assaults are more likely to occur in certain types of dorms, such as athlete dorms or even coed dorms. Studies should also look at whether it makes a difference if dorms are coed by floor, by hall or by room.

Using and building upon campus sexual assault location data brings the issue of where campus assaults occur into the open. It also adds an important component to the education and prevention discussion.

The Conversation

Andrea A. Curcio, Professor of Law, Georgia 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, list, Matthew Lynch

4 Random Facts You Didn’t Know About Community College

Ever since their inception, community colleges have been viewed as the step children of higher education. Sure, anyone with a brain knows the important role that they play in America. However, many people can’t see past their perceived lack of “prestige” or “swagger” if you will. Yet without much acclaim or fanfare, they continue to be the backbone of America’s higher education system.

Here are four facts you might not have known that will change your perception of these schools.

  1. Obama proposed free community college tuition in his State of the Union address this year.

President Obama laid out proposals to revamp the tax code by raising taxes and fees on the wealthiest Americans and largest financial institutes to pay for free tuition for two years of community college.

Obama’s plan would give many people in America the opportunity to receive post-secondary education– something that many people in our country have always wanted, but could never afford.  The President points out that more people will have the ability to obtain a degree, and we will also see a more competitive nation with a stronger middle-class economy.

In his proposal for free tuition, Obama highlights that students would need to maintain a 2.5 GPA, attend at least half time and be on track to graduate on time. The proposal would not be exclusive to recent high school graduates.

The President estimates the cost of the free tuition program at $6 billion a year.

  1. About 7 million students enroll in community colleges—over half of all undergraduates at public colleges and universities in the U.S.

According to Dr. Alicia Dowd, associate professor of Higher Education at the University of Southern California, about 7 million students are enrolled in community colleges. As she says, “[I]t’s not an overstatement to say that community colleges are an integral part of the national narrative in the United States about the ‘American Dream.’ Sandwiched between high school and four-year colleges and universities, they are an important rung in the ladder of our very stratified society and educational system.”

Community colleges are important to many students because of the increased opportunities for success provided by conveniences such as price, flexibility for those with busy work schedules, proximity, and accessibility for non-traditional students.

  1. There are more than 1000 students for every counselor at community colleges.

Budget problems are a real concern at community colleges, according to Dr. Dowd. There are more than 1000 students for every counselor, and in places such as California, 1700 students for every counselor. Figuring out the requirements for a degree, setting up a transfer to another school, or even just going for career advice becomes much more difficult.

Some other practical implications of budget concerns: students are often turned away from classes they need to take because there are not enough seats, and classrooms are overcrowded. These problems all have real-life effects on the quality of a student’s education, and can even affect the timing of completing a degree program.

  1. Over 1/3 of community college students in the U.S. come from California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

Dr. Dowd says that California contains over 20% of all community college students today. California, Texas, Florida, and New York combined enroll over 1/3 of community college students.

All of these states happen to have large Latino populations, and community colleges have made efforts to serve their Hispanic students. However, the diversity of the faculty does not quite match that of the student population. As Dr. Dowd says, “But the number of Latino faculty is still very small and colleges haven’t been intentional about developing their Hispanic serving identity, for example through curriculum development.”

Many Americans wish they could pursue their dream of college education. Community colleges are the key to an affordable one, especially when paired with 4-year college initiatives. Let’s remember them as an option and support initiatives that strengthen them.

Articles used:

 

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

Diverse Conversations: An Online Course to Recruit Online Learners

Massive Open Online Courses are often associated with topics that are normally taught within college classrooms and by college faculty. The untapped potential of MOOCs extends well beyond the basic academic reach though, and is showing promise to advance the success of university systems as a whole.

Austin-based digital marketing agency Tocquigny recently hosted a four-week MOOC that focused on recruiting students for online learning programs. Instead of targeting the students themselves, the MOOC guides administration and admission personnel through smart marketing tactics to attract their audiences to their online course offerings.

I talked with the company’s CEO, Yvonne Tocquigny, about the concept for this MOOC and the evolving role of online learning.

Q: These courses at Tocquigny are aimed at college administrators, as opposed to students, correct?

A: Yes, specifically the courses are aimed at admissions, enrollment and marketing staff responsible for acquiring new students within higher education institutions.

Q: How are colleges succeeding in online enrollment, and where can they improve?

A: Colleges are in fierce competition for the same students. Most colleges and universities are using the same strategies and tactics so there is very little discernible differentiation between the institutions. Colleges and universities can do a better job of creating distinctive brands that set them apart rather than “me too” brands that make them all look about the same. They can do a better job of segmenting their audiences and delivering tailored messages to resonate with specific groups of students. And, they can do a better job of using and optimizing digital marketing. Schools should have visibility into a quantifiable cost per acquired student metric, and they should have specific initiatives to consistently lower that cost through rigorous testing and by optimizing campaigns.

Q: Based on your research, what types of students are enrolling in online college programs the most?

A: Online learning is most popular with a group Tocquigny refer to as “career advancers.” These are people that are currently employed, but cannot advance because they lack the educational certification. Online education is also popular with mothers as they find more time to dedicate to their futures, as well as military personnel coming out of active duty.

Q: How important is a university’s digital branding when it comes to recruitment, particularly for online learning?

A: As students shop for their university of choice, they are likely to first investigate their options through online sources, often using their mobile device. The school must engage a student prospect effectively at this first touchpoint in order to move the student into the consideration phase and on to the submission of an application. Prospective students today will not only visit the school’s website, but will investigate the school through social media, videos and blogs. It’s imperative for schools to have an accessible, relevant differentiated brand online in order to engage prospects.

Q: How will online college learning evolve in the next 5 years and what are some factors leading to change?

A: We at Tocquigny believe online higher education options will continue to evolve to offer more variations that are both paid and free for an audience that is not able or willing to attend a brick and mortar school. We are pioneering our own MOOC because we see the power this form of education has in the marketplace. Integration with emerging online collaboration tools such as SubjectMatter will allow more direct contact with instructors to give the student a richer experience. We expect that new curricula around niche learning topics may spawn new certifications created to enhance specific skill sets required for jobs. This may lead to a proliferation of alternative learning paths that blur the edges between a traditional degree and other certifications.

Q: What university clients have you taken on already, and what campaigns have been launched?

A: Tocquigny has a seven year relationship with Regent University to handle its online student acquisition. We are also in the process of launching a social media campaign for Rice University aimed at recent graduates. I serve as an advisor for the School of Undergraduate Studies at The University of Texas at Austin.

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

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

Missing Men: The Lack of African American Head Coaches in College Football

College football is arguably the most popular sport at the nation’s colleges and universities. Bringing in over $90 million annually in revenue at the highest grossing University of Texas, it is no wonder that school leaders view the football team as less of an extracurricular activity and more of a moneymaker. The revenue that is generated by college football programs only represents a small piece of the overall financial benefits. Schools with strong athletic programs, particularly in the area of football, bring in more prospective students and have larger booster groups in place.

The Facts

Not many African American head coaches at the college level have had the same success as Strong – mainly because many have not been given the chance. Of the 124 Division 1-A college football schools, only 15 had African American coaches in the 2012 season, according to an executive report by the Black Coaches Association. The Big Ten conference has seen zero black head coaches in the past 10 years.

While head coaches are the most visible, support positions are severely underrepresented as well. Only 312 of 1,018 of college football assistant coaches are black and only 31 of 255 of offensive and defensive coordinators are African American. Combined, black football coaches and support staff represent a measly 5 percent of Football Bowl Subdivision numbers.

At Division II and Division III schools, diversity is even worse. The Black Coaches Association reports that in the 2012 season, only 9 schools of 113 in these two categories had head coaches of color. These numbers exclude historically black universities.

The Problem

Despite the thousands of black college football players in recent decades, barely a handful have been trusted with leading teams. These ex-players obviously understand the game and know what college athletes face on the field — so what gives?

Part of the problem is that schools are quick to dismiss coaches of all backgrounds when immediate improvement does not take place. The most recent high-profile example was the firing of Jon Embree by the University of Colorado in November. Floyd Keith of the Black Coaches Association called the firing a “disappointment” and wished that the school had given Embree a third season to prove himself. The school pointed to a 4-21 record over the course of two seasons as the reason for the firing but critics, like Keith, say that just two years is simply not enough time to turn a team around.

Many critics are also quick to point out that white coaches with bad numbers are often still considered a hot commodity by other schools when they are on the market, whereas black coaches have historically been given just one shot to prove their talent.

It is also important to note that a college football coach does not have the same responsibilities as an NFL one. Winning is valuable to the university, but so are other aspects like graduation rates of players and team conduct. Both play an indirect role in the revenue the school is able to generate in future years by attracting new students. Yet with turnover rates of all college coaches rising every football season, a shift toward a “winning takes place on the field” mentality is evident.

Solutions

The statistics are indisputable when it comes to underrepresentation of African Americans in all levels of college football coaching. With so much being said about this issue, not much in the way of problem solving has arisen. Colleges and universities would do well to take a cue from the NFL when it comes to hiring minority coaches. Established in 2003, the Rooney Rule requires NFL teams to interview at least one minority candidate for all vacant head coaching positions and other executive football operation spots. After just three seasons, the Rooney Rule lead to an increase of 22 percent in the number of African American head coaches in the NFL and those numbers rise every season. A similar rule only makes sense in a college athletic setting, especially since so many other aspects of higher education use affirmative action programs to bolster diversity and opportunity.

Another possible option is for schools to set up coaching mentorship programs for minority players that show leadership potential. An even better approach would be an NCAA-sanctioned program that seeks out talented players and gives them some exposure to coaching and maybe even a certificate program. These earmarked players could then begin working their way through the coaching ranks sooner and have a common knowledge base.

All changes need to be initiated by the NCAA, college athletics governing body. For a real dynamic shift to be felt across the board, every school needs to have the same diversity opportunities and rules as all the others. It is not enough to wish that more schools took a closer look at African Americans to fill head football coaching spots; an overarching game plan needs to be in place for true change to occur.

 

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

Gallup poll: College affordability out of reach

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.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch

The Impact of Emotional Leadership

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.

 

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

Diversity in College Faculty Just as Important as Student Body

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.

 

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

Projecting False Truths: The 4.0 GPA at an HBCU vs. a PWI

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.

 

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share