Higher Education

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, International Education

How competing for students will transform universities

Duncan Bentley, Victoria University

Historically, universities were privileged institutions for the “intelligent elite”, almost exclusively male communities, where great thinkers lived and worked and passed on their wisdom to fellow scholars and their students. Imagine Oxford, Harvard and the University of Melbourne before 1960.

Today, universities remain institutions in which groups of scholars contribute to the world’s knowledge and pass it on through teaching and exchanging ideas with the wider community. The difference is they try much harder to serve as many people as they can.

Institutions of distinction

The power of the university community is that it has never been bound to an institution or a country. Many academics and their students are more closely tied to their colleagues across the world in their own discipline than to an academic across the corridor in another field.

Demand tends to follow prestige.
Aleksandar Todorovic / Shutterstock.com

Traditionally, groups of scholars have banded together to compete in the race for new knowledge. They have not based their work on their institutional affiliation.

Universities, on the other hand, bundle their best groups together and claim a reputation. This has been the major driver of distinction and competition for universities and is reflected in the different world rankings.

Reinforcing this approach to competition is that student demand continues to follow elite status in the different rankings. This means that countries building their university systems are increasingly entering the “brain race”. Elite scholars are attracting lucrative incentives and contracts, similar to elite sport.

New competition

In Australia, competition will continue to transform universities. Australia has followed the world in democratising university education. The last 50 years has also seen a significant increase in the scope of degrees offered, particularly as universities have incorporated training for the growing number of professions.

Uncapping of places following the Bradley Review of higher education led to a significant growth in demand and university revenue. As the rate of growth has slowed, universities have sought to maintain revenue by trying to attract different types of students using a range of delivery methods.

While different university groupings exist, it is difficult to see much difference other than in positions on the research rankings. Many universities have regional presence. All universities are trying to “innovate” and this includes different levels of online delivery. All universities are working internationally.

Many universities were, until relatively recently, polytechnics or technical colleges and the pecking order among universities and therefore the demand from students largely reflects the research rankings, which favour the established elite.

The student experience: a new way universities compete
Nils Versemann / Shutterstock.com

Newer universities are therefore trying to re-invent the student experience and to develop links with industry and specialised degrees to generate the revenue they need to maintain their relative positions. Revenue pressure has increased as international student demand remains inconsistent and government funding for domestic places does not maintain pace with university ambitions.

New competition is also entering the field. TAFEs and private providers don’t need to research and they get more money for degrees than they can get from vocational qualifications. Degrees are also normally longer, which provides a more secure revenue stream from each student recruited. New entrants make more money too, as they generally have a lower cost structure than universities.

Add to this the fact that some 87% of the workforce in Australia is employed in the services sector, where a bachelor degree is increasingly becoming a base requirement for a job. It is an attractive market in which to operate.

Universities have responded by partnering with TAFEs and private providers to access markets or improve their productivity in ways they cannot achieve on their own. It makes sense to provide curriculum, quality assurance and a degree for a fee, and let the TAFE or private provider focus on teaching students who might not otherwise have gone to university. The results are often as good or better for the student. It provides a new revenue stream for both parties.

Specialise to succeed

As growth in demand for universities slows, particularly outside Queensland and Western Australia, competition for students will heat up. The lowest tier of universities will have to focus on only highly specialist areas of research, simply for lack of funding.

All universities are likely to look to improve their productivity so that they have sufficient funds to maintain their world-leading research. Those who succeed will be those that get rid of unnecessary costs and drive new opportunities to increase their revenue.

How will competition develop? Increasingly, universities and higher education providers will follow the example of the scholars in a global market. They will specialise in what they do well and partner with anyone who is like-minded and can help them compete effectively in their race for achievement. For most universities their goal will remain excellence in teaching and learning and research for the betterment of humanity.

Competition will continue to transform universities. Some may lose the battle and fail, while others may partner to achieve higher rankings. The real winners are likely to be the students – and the elite scholars and teachers.

The Conversation is running a series on “What are universities for?” looking at the place of universities in Australia, why they exist, who they serve, and how this is changing over time. Read other articles in the series here.

The Conversation

Duncan Bentley, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Victoria 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

Fulfilling Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream: the role for higher education

Roland V. Anglin, Rutgers University Newark ; David D. Troutt, Rutgers University Newark ; Elise Boddie, Rutgers University Newark ; Nancy Cantor, Rutgers University Newark , and Peter Englot, Rutgers University Newark

Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote “Why We Can’t Wait” to dispel the notion that African Americans should be content to proceed on an incremental course toward full equality under the law and in the wider society. King observed,

Three hundred years of humiliation, abuse, and deprivation cannot be expected to find voice in a whisper.

Yet waiting and whispering, rather than raising their voices for genuine inclusion, is what many seem to expect of the children and grandchildren of King’s generation even today.

At stake is the perceived legitimacy of American institutions, not just educational but those that we educate for: the police, the courts, government, the media, cultural institutions, banks and so on. These institutions are under scrutiny over their failure to evoke trust and to show that they are visibly open to the public – especially those groups, who too often and for too long have been left out.

Arguably, we are not the “land of opportunity” for most first-generation, poor, black, brown, Native American, or immigrant children. Gaps in educational achievement persist, and at every level: from kindergarten through to the years after high school.

The label applied to so many immigrant youth, Dreamers, might well be adopted more broadly, capturing as it does both the aspiration and perhaps the unreality of educational opportunity for so many.

And the students are right to worry.

The question is: what role can our universities play so the dividing lines can be crossed?

‘Baked-in’ privilege

Consider some statistics from Essex County, New Jersey, where our city, Newark, a college town with over 50,000 students, is located:

  • 47.54 percent of black third graders attend schools that perform at the bottom 10 percent of schools in the state compared to 0.04 percent of white third graders.
  • About 4,000 high school students in the Newark Public Schools are “missing” during the school day, not in their seats; often labeled as “disconnected youth,” it would be better to consider them as youth connected to a pathway to prison.
  • Another 3,000 are off-course from graduating.
  • Only 36 percent of Newark residents have finished high school and only 17 percent hold any kind of post-secondary degree.

This story is not unique to Newark.

Economists such as Raj Chetty and his colleagues note that nationally “the consequences of the ‘birth lottery’ – the parents to whom a child is born – are larger today than in the past.”

We – the universities – are the ones sitting in the midst of these realities, facing the choice between being walled citadels that separate the privileged from the uninvited other or being welcoming hubs connecting young individuals with opportunity.

Universities’ responsibility

The uncomfortable truth is, that we, in some very real sense, have contributed to this winnowing of opportunity.

Chancellor Nancy Cantor speaking at the “Rally in Solidarity” organized by Rutgers Newark students in support of students at University of Missouri in November 2015.
Rutgers University Newark, Author provided

For too long, the traditional measures of student potential have relied on standardized – and therefore narrowly framed – merit selection processes, such as SAT and ACT scores.

These tests have been grossly inadequate, measuring only a narrow band of potential, while missing wide swaths of our talent pool whose excellence is not readily detected through the use of such “blunt” instruments.

They neglect whole communities whose students don’t have access to the test preparation industry, prompting legal theorist Lani Guinier to implore us to redefine the merit in meritocracy.

Intergenerational privilege is rooted in place – in the home values and tax base, the schools and transportation networks available to people because of where they are fortunate to live. Decades of white flight, suburbanization, the abandonment of urban centers and regressive housing policies have contributed to a pervasive disconnection across racial, ethnic and class lines.

This segregation has reinforced the corrosive effects of historical prejudice and biases that already divide society and make Americans, in effect, strangers to each other.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the social landscapes of university communities are just as divided.

Crossing boundaries

Diversity is growing explosively and redefining American society before our eyes.

Yet lines of class, gender, ethnicity and race continue to redraw themselves in dorm life, lunch tables and indeed the classroom.

Indeed, it is hard to erase them.

How do you cultivate connection to another person’s future and commitment to their success when you don’t live together in the same neighborhood, reside near each other in the same city or at least share some similar daily experiences such as rush hour on a crowded subway?

As higher educational institutions, we should be the place where dividing lines can be crossed. And that includes crossing the boundaries of our communities.

Our work in the city of Newark is just one illustration of crossing these boundaries.

Newark’s story

In this postindustrial city of 280,000 people, 29 percent of residents have incomes below the poverty line.

Newark’s social and economic challenges are common among cities that have lost their tax base and whose residents have fled to the suburbs since the 1960s. The resulting economic and racial segregation has produced structural inequalities in health, education and other public services.

Today, Newark, a proud, resilient city, is coming back from years of disinvestment. As an engaged “anchor institution”, we are partnering with the community on many fronts.

The future home of Express Newark – the historic Hahne Building
Rutgers University Newark, Author provided

We are investing in spaces for local artists and the community to collaborate, as we develop nearly 50,000 square feet in the iconic former Hahne & Company department story as an arts “collaboratory” – dubbed “Express Newark.”

We are working with small and midsized entrepreneurs and firms and taking an active role in helping Newark’s police address crime hotspots through data collection and analysis.

Organizations – public and private – have banded together in the Newark City of Learning Collaborative (NCLC) to raise the post-secondary attainment rate of residents of Newark to 25 percent by 2025.

For the higher education partners in NCLC like us, this means working with Newark Public Schools to help their students continue their education past high school, beginning in community colleges, the institutions where the vast majority of first generation students will have their first taste of higher education.

At Rutgers University – Newark, for example, we are providing tuition support to low-income residents of Newark and to any New Jersey community college transfer with an associate degree as of fall 2016.

We are recruiting these students based on assessments of leadership, grit and entrepreneurial skills – not just grades – into a residential Honors Living Learning Community (HLLC). In addition to gleaning information about applicants from the standard application form, the HLLC team engages with applicants in person and in groups to see how they collaborate with one another to solve problems. Their on-the-ground knowledge of urban life has much to contribute, as we see it, to the HLLC’s curriculum focus of “local citizenship in a global world.”

The first cohort of HLLC students
Rutgers University Newark, Author provided

Ashlee is one of the inaugural class. Born and raised in Newark, she speaks openly of “being a product of my environment…exposed to so much just by walking outside of
my house…[including] murder at the age of 12.” Her options, she says, were two: “conform to what’s going on in society or try to make a difference.” She is now a criminal justice major keenly interested in issues of social equality and inequality.

Academic ‘farm teams’

Rutgers-Newark is not alone in looking to build on the assets of this fresh talent pool for America.

There is an increasing number of so-called collective impact initiatives across the higher education landscape, including STRIVE, a nonprofit started in Cincinnati, and three large city-wide initiatives in Syracuse, Buffalo and Guilford County, North Carolina mounted by Say Yes to Education.

Collective impact projects like these can be taxing and messy, but by bringing so many different partners together – from education institutions to businesses and faith-based centers – to focus on enabling the talented next generation to thrive from school to college and beyond, we put a stake in the ground together for social justice. It’s admittedly still one step at a time, but one step in many places.

When higher education bands together to support and recruit talent from these regional hubs, it gives a new meaning to the notion of “farm teams.”. After all, if major league baseball can do it, why can’t higher education?

The impatient students protesting a sense of exclusion today have undeniable facts to support their argument. Our institutions, we believe, can help them overcome the barriers they, and others, face in their search for economic opportunity and a sense that they are valued.

How could anyone continue to “wait and whisper” while witnessing the enormous and cumulative effect of disparity unfold for another generation, with so many children never even getting to first base and some starting out on third?

The Conversation

Roland V. Anglin, Director, The Joseph C. Cornwall Center for Metropolitan Studies, Rutgers University Newark ; David D. Troutt, Professor of Law and Justice John J Francis Scholar, Rutgers University Newark ; Elise Boddie, Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University Newark ; Nancy Cantor, Chancellor, Rutgers University Newark , and Peter Englot, Senior Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs, Rutgers University Newark

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

4 considerations before applying to schools abroad

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Brooke Chaplan

Attending school overseas is an exciting idea for any prospective student. But when push comes to shove, there are numerous practical decisions you have to think about before applying abroad. From the travel, cost, and even just the application itself, going overseas can mean a lot of time and work put in from you. Considering every detail is important to getting the best deal and finding the perfect program for you. Of these numerous considerations, the four most important are listed below.

Consider the Cost
Analyze the marketability of the degree you’re thinking about, the chosen school’s prestige, the availability of student loans for foreign students, and the exchange rate between the local currency and the currency used in the country where the school is located. If you fail to factor in the financial burdens associated with going to school abroad, you may be financially crippled for life. Keep in mind that many foreign locales have excellent programs for a fraction of what a degree would cost elsewhere, you just have to be sure. If your degree program isn’t going to guarantee you a job or internship back home, the cost of going to school may not be worth the reward. Look at students who have succeeded in the past and talk to faculty who can help you find out where you can use the degree to your advantage.

 

Consider the Housing
Specifically, does the university provide housing for foreign students, what is the cost of living on campus vs. off campus, is it safe to live off campus, and what type of public transit is available to ride to the school? If you find an economical apartment in a nice neighborhood but with no access to public transportation, then living there may be impractical. If they do provide student housing is it included in tuition costs? Are there any ways you can save money or get financial aid here as a foreign student. Look at all your options and find out what you can live with.

Consider the Travel
A U.S. citizen will need a passport to leave the U.S. and vaccinations for local diseases may be needed before you can safely enter a foreign locale. Certain students may need a student visa in order to enter a foreign country as well. For example, if you wanted to attend medical school in an exotic location like the Caribbean, a visa would be required for those staying in the country more than 90 days. Schools like St. Martinus University often offer a lot of student financial aid for travel and visas as well. If you are going to a more exotic country you might need to think about language barriers. If you will have a lot of fellow foreign students to help you around and if you are familiar with the culture it may not be such a shock.

Consider the Local Government
Utilize websites such as the CIA World Fact Book to evaluate the governmental stability of the country in which the school is located and research how locals are reputed to treat students of your own nationality. It would not be ideal to attend a school in an area where you don’t feel safe or welcomed. Look at reviews of the school from alumni and past foreign students. They can help you navigate your way in how life is after graduation and during the school semesters.

Wherever your educational goals take you, the most important thing to remember is to work hard and enjoy the country you’ve chosen to visit. Immersion into a foreign culture exponentially broadens your horizons and will provide you with a completely different perspective on life.

_______________________________

Brooke Chaplan is a freelance writer and blogger. She lives and works out of her home in Los Lunas, New Mexico. She loves the outdoors and spends most her time hiking, biking and gardening. For more information contact Brooke via Twitter @BrookeChaplan.

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

Grading Obama on Higher Education: Part I

By Matthew Lynch

Several weeks ago, I discussed President Obama’s education record in my introduction to education class. In particular, we talked about P-20 education, which begins in preschool and ends with graduate school. Predictably, the debate became quite contentious. Most of us had to agree to disagree on the most central points of educational politics. Partly in response to this debate, though, I decided to write an assessment of Obama’s education record in several areas of P-20 education issuing a letter grade (A-F) to make my position on his record abundantly clear.

To start things off, let’s take a look at the president’s major postsecondary education initiatives.

Expansion of Community Colleges. In July, 2012, President Obama proposed the American Graduation Initiative, intended to put more money and planning into community colleges, helping to promote more affordable options and high levels of training for all prospective college students. As part of this initiative, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act will pour $2 billion over the course of four years into an expansion of career training at community colleges, focusing on the high-demand health care field.

According to the White House website, the goals of the Obama community college program include:

• Teaching basic skills through remedial and adult education.
• Further developing online courses for more student flexibility and accelerated programs.
• Creating educational partnerships to give students more course options.
• Building partnerships with businesses that would allow worksite education that has current labor market emphasis.

Enforcement of the DREAM Act. The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM, Act will an estimated 2.1 million young people in the U.S. with access to an education and amnesty from deportation. While Obama’s administration has stressed the ethical points of this act, rightfully so, it offers may economic benefits for America as well.

The Center for American Progress estimates that the DREAM Act will create 1.4 million new jobs by the year 2030 and that it will infuse some $329 billion into the U.S. economy.

Pell Grant Increases. The President has also pledged to double the amount of funding available in the form of Pell Grants over the next three years. Unlike student loans, Pell Grants do not need to be repaid. For the 2011–2012 school year, the maximum award amount was $5,550.
While a Pell Grant cannot cover all of the college costs, it goes a long way towards covering in-state tuition or community college courses. All students can apply for the program, too, and students receive aid awards based on financial need andcost of attendance.

By 2017, the maximum amount awarded to students is expected to rise to $5,975. By 2021, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 820,000 more Pell Grant awards will also be available. The money will come, in part, from restructuring to the distribution of federal student loans. By implementing a direct student loan program, instead of a bank-subsidized one, $68 billion will also be saved by the year 2020.

Higher College Tax Credits. The Obama-Biden administration plans to triple the current tax credits available to students and parents of students paying college expenses, too. The American Opportunity Tax Credit gives a $2,500 tax credit maximum per student and students can claim it for four years.

According to the IRS, up to 40 percent of the credit is refundable, up to $1,000, to people that file even if no taxes are owed. In addition to courses and fees, the new tax credit also covers related costs like books, supplies and required class materials.

Income-Based Loan Repayment. President Obama has often said that he believes that paying for college should not overwhelm graduates. As a reflection of this, he has pledged to expand income-based repayment options to keep the bills from college from becoming unmanageable. Around two-thirds of college students have debt of over $23,000 upon graduation. This can be especially difficult for students that want to enter public service jobs and those who face unexpected financial hardships like unemployment or serious illness.

Beginning in 2014, students can limit payments to 10 percent of income – a reduction from 15 percent in the previous law – which means a reduction of $110 per month for unmarried borrowers that owe $20,000 and make $30,000 per year. An estimated 1 million borrowers will be positively impacted by this change in repayment options. In addition, borrowers that make monthly payments will be allowed debt forgiveness after 20 years. Public service workers like nurses, teachers, and military employees will receive debt forgiveness after just 10 years.

This concludes Part I of “Grading Obama on Higher Education.” In Part II, I will continue to assesses President Obama’s performance in the area of higher education..

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

Girls are kept out of science jobs by unhelpful stereotypes

Anna Zecharia, Imperial College London

The number of girls taking A-level physics has remained stagnant for the past 20 years or more, and the UK has the lowest proportion of female engineers in the EU. Progress on gender equality in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) is frustratingly slow.

And what’s even more worrying is that when questioned, Brits can’t think of current women scientists as role models. A recent YouGov poll of 3,000 people done for ScienceGrrl, a not-for-profit of which I am a director that advocates for more women in science careers, found one in ten named Isambard Kingdom Brunel – a male engineer – when asked to think of a famous women scientist. Only about half could actually name a female scientist and of those that did, 68% named Marie Curie, who died in 1934.

In a new report called Through Both Eyes also by ScienceGrrl, we set out the case for looking at the issue in light of the society we live in, and the legacy of inequalities between men and women.

Anyone more recent than Marie Curie?
Wikimedia Commons

Lack of progress isn’t due to a lack of attention or awareness. The Institute of Physics has compiled a series of comprehensive reports since 2004 and government frequently makes the economic case for diversity in science, technology, maths and engineering (STEM).

Deeply embedded cultural messages about women, attitudes, structures and norms manifest themselves as invisible hurdles that undermine girls’ participation and women’s progression in the workplace. These hurdles are invisible precisely because none of us knows what it looks like to live in an equal world.

Science capital in the family

We’ve explored what is known to propel somebody to choose a career in science. The literature is clear that there are three key factors. Liking STEM isn’t enough, it has to be relevant to a person’s interests and goals. They also need to feel confident they can succeed, and have access to “science capital” – the opportunity to gain knowledge and experience of STEM through personal networks.

People receive messages about themselves and the opportunities available to them from wider society, family and friends, the classroom and the workplace. We are all exposed to these messages and their balance is crucial to informing the choices we make.

Professor Louise Archer says her research shows it is: “harder for girls to balance or reconcile their interest in science with femininity” because STEM is seen to be for those who are “white, middle class, brainy and male”. A 2011 Ofsted report showed that by around 7-8 years old, girls and boys spoke about jobs as being “for men” or “for women”. Cordelia Fine, in her book Delusions of Gender suggests that children act as “gender detectives” from a much earlier age.

The “girls’ toys” that value physical perfection over adventure or intelligence, and the objectification of women in the media are just two examples of how the roles and capabilities of women are diminished in wider society.

Casual reliance on stereotypes leads to unconscious bias undermining all areas of girls’ lives. In STEM subjects, this is particularly true for confidence: girls perform worse in maths tests when their gender is made salient. This is known as “stereotype threat” – the phenomenon that performance can be impaired by awareness of lower expectations for your particular social group.

Stereotypes also affect expectations of those with influence in girls’ lives. Students get most of their careers advice from family members. But polling data from Engineers Week in 2013 showed that parents are steering their daughters away from careers in engineering, with 3% encouraging it as a career, compared to 12% for their sons.

Inspiring teachers

Progress will require a whole community approach. Schools also play an important role. Evidence from the Institute of Physics suggests that gender stereotypes undermine girls in the classroom.

But as Dr Vanessa Odgen, headteacher at Mulberry School for Girls, summarises: “girls’ uptake of science, technology and maths increases significantly when these subjects are taught by women who care passionately about STEM and when curriculum content promotes the achievements of women”. In short, when a whole school ethos means it is normal and expected for girls to succeed.

It is missing the point to say that girls aren’t “choosing” to study STEM. Many girls do not have real choice because of the low expectations placed on them and the lack of genuine opportunity. Girls are being kept out of rewarding careers.

We don’t need to change girls, we must place the responsibility on those with influence in our society. Showing the variety of directions STEM can lead, that it is creative and has social relevance it will appeal to a broader based talent pool, not just to more girls.

The Conversation

Anna Zecharia, Postdoctoral neuroscientist, Imperial College London

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

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

College grads still earn a premium — if they can find a good job

Robert Reich, University of California, Berkeley

The early admissions deadlines for universities across the country have come and gone, and acceptance letters are on their way. But with the cost of a four-year college education rising an average of 5% a year, many students and parents are likely wondering whether the cost of a degree is worth it.

The simple answer is yes because people with degrees continue to earn far more than those without them. Last year, Americans with four-year college degrees earned on average 98% more per hour than people without them, according to the Economic Policy Institute. In the early 1980s, they earned 64% more.

But that’s only if the graduate can find a good job, which is no longer guaranteed.

Instead, almost half of new college graduates will likely end up spending at least a few years in jobs for which they are overqualified. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 46% of recent college graduates are now working in jobs that don’t require college degrees. That figure is about a third for all college graduates.

And the main reason a degree still demands a premium salary is that wages for non-grads are dropping. Employees choose college grads over non-grads on the assumption that more education is better, but as a result more of the latter are being pushed into ever more menial work, if they can find a job at all.

For years, I along with others argued that globalization and technological advances lift demand for well educated workers. But in 2000, the outsourcing of skilled jobs and advanced software reversed this trend.

First, millions of people in developing nations became far better educated, while the internet gave them an easy way to sell their abilities in advanced countries like the US, leading to ever more skilled work being outsourced to them.

Second, advanced software is taking over many tasks that had been done by well educated professionals – including data analysis, accounting, legal and engineering work, even some medical diagnoses.

As a result, the demand for well educated employees in the US seems to have peaked around 2000 and fallen since, even as the supply of such workers globally continues to grow.

That increase in supply even as demand drops is why the incomes of people who graduated after 2000 have barely risen. Indeed, the starting wages for graduates have dropped since then, 8.1% for women and 6.7% for men.

And that’s why a record number of well educated young adults are living at home with their parents.

The deeper problem is that while a college education is necessary to join the middle class, its share of the total economic pie continues to shrink, while that of the very top keeps growing.

An education is still worth the cost because without a degree young people can easily be left behind. But even with one, it’s hard to do much more than tread water. Some will make it into the top 1%, but the path keeps getting narrower and often requires the right connections.

Of course, going to college is not only about making a lot of money. An education gives our youth tools to lead full and purposeful lives.

It’s still worth paying for, but in such a perilous economy, young people and their parents should know the economics before they make such a large investment.

This is an adaptation of a post that appeared in November on Robert Reich’s blog.

The Conversation

Robert Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley

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

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

What kind of university can help reduce poverty?

Tristan McCowan, UCL Institute of Education

For decades, development agencies have encouraged low and middle-income countries to focus their education spending on primary schools and basic vocational skills. They have considered that universities provide lower rates of return on public investment and benefit elites at the expense of the poor.

That is changing and it’s now acknowledged that strong higher education systems are also a vital piece in the puzzle of poverty reduction. Countries need well-trained professionals to staff public services, as well as technological innovators and researchers to tackle local and national development challenges. The debates on what the priorities should be after the Millennium Development Goals end in 2015 have shown a stronger endorsement for the role of universities.

However, higher education won’t have a real impact on countries’ development unless three key things take place. First, universities have to function together as part of a coherent system in the public interest. Second, access to higher education must be equitable and allow admission for talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Third, teaching, research and community engagement must address key local and national development needs.

But none of these three elements can be taken for granted given universities’ current direction of travel.

Two major global trends in higher education are challenging these assumptions: commercialisation and “unbundling” – the gradual breaking up of the traditional campus university. Commercialisation has affected all aspects of universities’ operations, from “cost-sharing” or the introduction of tuition fees, to providing consultancy for the private sector and commercial outsourcing of campus services. Given the squeeze on public funds for universities across the world, there are few places in which institutions are not being strongly encouraged to commercialise their activities.

“Unbundling” refers to the process through which the combination of functions of the traditional university are separated out, potentially leading to the disintegration of the institution as we know it, according to Pearson’s chief education advisor Michael Barber in the report An Avalanche is Coming.

The unity of teaching, research and public service – with its roots in Humboldt’s University of Berlin in 1810 and developed through the US Land Grant universities – is slowly being unravelled. Teaching-only institutions, employer-based degree programmes, the movement of research to private laboratories and consultancy firms, and particularly the emergence of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are contributing to this trend.

The huge growth of distance education providers, such as the Indira Gandhi National Open University in India, has also contributed to challenging the notion of university as a physical location. There are also moves towards separating out the teaching and accreditation functions of the university, with skills “badges” now awarded by external agencies.

Proceed with caution

The implications of these trends for addressing development needs in the resource-constrained countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America need careful assessment. Evidence from the process of commercialisation has been mixed to say the least.

Liberalisation of higher education in Brazil from the 1990s led to an exponential growth in the private sector, now accounting for three quarters of enrolments, with nearly half of these in for-profit institutions. While undoubtedly having a positive impact on the expansion of access to university beyond just the most well-off in society, fees still put them out of the reach of many and there are widespread concerns about the quality of provision of these institutions. Profit incentives lead to a driving down of investment in academic staff and learning resources, and attempts at regulating the sector have had limited success.

Kenya, with a much smaller enrolment base and weaker public and private financial capacity than middle-income Brazil, has also witnessed its own form of commercialisation. Since the mid-1990s, state universities have introduced a parallel stream – admitting fee-paying students alongside the government-subsidised ones. In some institutions these parallel streams have spiralled out of control, reaching well over half of enrolments.

A tight squeeze at Kenyatta University library.
Book Aid International/flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

While for Kenyan universities these are a welcome source of revenue in the context of scarcity of public funds, they have led to an intolerable strain on quality. Recruitment of new lecturers has lagged way behind the expansion of enrolments and institutional infrastructure cannot support the influx of students.

Don’t push efficiency too far

In contrast to commercialisation, which has been developing for decades, unbundling is still in its infancy and we have no clear examples of systems in which the process is fully under way – so to a large extent we are reliant on extrapolation from initial signals.

One implication of the unravelling of higher education systems is decreasing state leverage, with an obvious impact on the ability to regulate for equality of opportunity in admissions. The importance of cross-fertilisation between teaching and research – benefiting both students and staff – is widely recognised. MOOCs, often touted as a potential saviour for impoverished regions of the globe, have limited potential in contexts in which poor primary and secondary schooling has hampered young people’s ability to learn on their own.

One of the best-known contemporary initiatives in this area, the non-profit university Kepler in Rwanda, in fact shows a trend of what might be called “re-bundling”, providing face-to-face tuition and dormitory facilities to support students undertaking MOOCs.

So there is a worrying disjuncture between the hopeful vision of the potential of higher education held by development agencies, and the current trends for delivery endorsed by many of them. Bilateral and multilateral donors have shown strong support for new private sector providers and online distance education under the emblem of innovation.

Efficiency and affordability when pushed too far can undermine the raison d’être of the whole venture. If universities are to succeed in fostering both poverty reduction and development for the benefit of society, they must provide high-quality teaching and research in the public interest, and engage with local communities. Ultimately, it’s not just any higher education that will do.

The Conversation

Tristan McCowan, Reader in Education and International Development, UCL Institute of Education

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

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

Diverse Conversations: Being Transparent

Many higher education professionals often complain that the higher ups at their institutions are not transparent in their dealings. This can have a negative impact on faculty morale and thus a devastating effect on the functioning of an institution. To talk about how institutions can actually ensure transparency and counteract the problem of lacking transparency, I recently sat down with Laurie M. Joyner, president of Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio.

Transparency is, of course, a vital component of just about any professional enterprise, but it is particularly important in higher education for maintaining positive relationships within the organization structure – between higher education and those that I am referring to here as “the higher ups”, which include administrators and so forth. Why do you think transparency is so important in this context?

Transparency in communication and action builds trust, which is essential to effective shared governance. The strategic challenges facing higher education today, including remaining mission-driven within the context of a sustainable financial model, touch upon deeply held beliefs about institutional direction. Our academic values and tradition recognize that such critical decisions are best informed by the perspectives of faculty, staff, students, alumni and board members. A lack of transparency with any constituent group compromises our ability to form effective partnerships necessary for creating a shared vision required to move our institutional agenda forward.

Q: In your experience, what are some of the most common problems when transparency is not maintained? What does that look like in terms of organizational function and relationships between higher education professionals and the administrators, the leaders?

A: The most common problem is that a perception of mistrust is likely to develop making it more difficult to align priorities and efforts designed to strengthen the institution. When priorities are not aligned between faculty, administrators, and the governing board, organizational functioning may be negatively impacted. This often appears as tensions surrounding the rights and responsibilities of various groups for certain types of decisions. The challenge, of course, is that more attention and energy can become focused on who has prime responsibility for what decisions versus figuring out how to collaborate in a collegial manner to address the most pressing issues facing the institution. In some cases, relationships become strained, decision making can stall, and ultimately, organizational effectiveness is compromised.

It’s also important to note that while transparency is a healthy aspect of organizational culture, it is not necessarily sufficient for effective governance. Effective governance requires ongoing education regarding the strategic issues impacting the organization (e.g., shifting demographics, improving educational outcomes, exploiting competitive strengths, etc.) Insisting on transparency regarding key institutional metrics can build support for difficult decisions, facilitate continuous improvement, and meet the growing demand for quantitative outcome data.

Q: Drawing from these first two questions, what would you say are the most important areas for maintaining transparency; where is it particularly important in higher education institutions?

A: A commitment to transparency should be pervasive for the benefit of all internal and external stakeholders. This transparency can be exceedingly helpful in facilitating data-driven decisions, supporting continuous improvement, and fostering a culture of accountability regarding institutional performance at all levels. From a faculty perspective, transparency is of special importance in the following areas: institutional planning and budgeting; curricular requirements; academic integrity; academic freedom; and the selection, evaluation and promotion of faculty colleagues.

In my experience, there are two areas that present special challenges to administrative leaders who value transparency. These areas relate to personnel and legal issues where one is not at liberty to discuss the circumstances surrounding particular decisions. It is frustrating to face community resistance that is not based on complete information and not be in a position to respond.

Q: What are the key benefits for maintaining transparency in higher education, from an administrative and leadership standpoint?

A: The main benefit is that it builds a culture of open communication and trust, both of which are necessary to create a sense of partnership for effectively accomplishing the important work of the institution. Given the challenges facing higher education today, it is critical to do everything possible to align our collective efforts around shared priorities as we work toward achieving our common purpose.

An additional benefit of transparency is that it also supports the development of increasingly refined performance metrics that are useful in supporting a culture of continuous improvement across the organization while also responding to calls for greater accountability for student and institutional outcomes.

Q: How, then, do you go about establishing and ultimately maintaining transparency in higher education institutions?

A: I think this is best accomplished by respecting the systems of shared governance involving the Board, the President and senior administrators, and the faculty. In many cases, this is easier said than done because different constituent groups have varying levels of understanding as it relates to effective governance practices (e.g., who has more or less responsibility and authority for making certain types of decisions). Given this, I believe ongoing professional development is required at every level of the organization to ensure that all key constituent groups are being supported as they adopt best practices to enhance shared governance.

A deep commitment to transparency also supports continuous improvement across the organization and contributes to a culture of assessment and accountability. Once these elements are structured into organizational policies and practices, they strengthen and reinforce one another, ultimately improving shared governance and educational quality.

Q: At Wittenberg University, transparency is something that you emphasize at these various levels. Beyond these basic methods and strategies for establishing and maintaining transparency, what strategies have you found to be most effective for maintaining transparency?

A: We have worked hard to try to educate our campus on some of the core challenges facing Wittenberg. This is a critical point. There must be general agreement on the challenges if there is any chance of aligning the efforts of the campus community and Board. We have also worked very hard to communicate early and often using a range of strategies. For example, I host community dialogue sessions to discuss areas of concern and to respond to any community questions. I also distribute Board agendas to the faculty, report the actions taken at each Board meeting to all faculty and staff, and distribute an electronic newsletter to faculty, staff, and retirees every two weeks. I also provide similar monthly updates to Board and Emeriti Board members. In addition, we are working to develop more refined outcome metrics to assess progress toward key institutional goals. The intent is to eventually have all these metrics readily available to anyone interested in tracking institutional performance over time.

Q: In your experience, when there are transparency issues and they are proving problematic, how have you proceeded to address the issues and restore transparency?

A: In my experience, proceeding in an honest, open and authentic way is always the preferred approach with all constituencies. Further, ensuring that all elements of the governance system are working as effectively as possible and then routinely consulting with appropriate groups is essential. If there are not effective structures or systems in place, then creating meaningful structures to bring various groups together to focus on important issues can help foster understanding, enhance transparency, increase collaboration, and improve results.

Q: Inevitably there are some instances in which administrators inherit transparency issues and that’s what I’d like to focus on in this question. What advice would you give to a higher education administrator who is facing problems with transparency? What advice would you give in terms of establishing transparency and, if you like, dealing with the fallout of the initial transparency issue?

A: Communicating about the issues in a forthright manner and establishing structures to help address difficult questions are important. I also think recognizing that shared governance is challenging and requires ongoing attention is critical. At Wittenberg, we have initiated an effort to strengthen Board governance with support from the Association of Governing Boards (AGB). From my perspective, there are few issues more strategic than ensuring that our governing Board understands its rights and responsibilities as it relates to our institution.

My hope is to initiate a similar process internally to enhance the working relationships between our faculty committees, senior administrators, and Board. Through these parallel efforts to strengthen governance, I believe Wittenberg will be better served because our systems will become more closely aligned as we work toward shared priorities within the context of clearer expectations regarding our respective responsibilities. Ultimately, I believe this work will result in greater satisfaction for our faculty leaders, administrators, and Board members and will also foster improved institutional outcomes.

Thank you for your time, President Joyner. This concludes our interview.

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

How can HBCUs raise more alumni dollars?

Anyone following Historically Black Colleges and Universities knows that it has been a tumultuous few years. Saint Paul’s College closing its doors to new students and placing current students at other schools. Morris Brown College filing for federal bankruptcy protection. Most recently, the nation’s oldest HBCU, 119-year-old South Carolina State University, declared financial exigency.

Between schools being shuttered or declaring bankruptcy, it’s a distressing time for HBCUs and anyone attending or working at them. Online colleges, robust diversity programs at predominantly white institutions and more affordable community college offerings are all competing for the students who once could really only find a quality education at a HBCU.

Finding ways to keep these institutions relevant is more important than ever and that includes one part of financial responsibility that I believe is being overlooked: alumni giving.

HBCU graduates are some of the proudest in the country, often with a stronger sense of social responsibility than their PWI-graduate peers. Yet HBCUs aren’t doing a strong enough job tying that pride back into alumni giving programs. Case in point: Harvard raised a record-breaking $752 million in alumni and other gifts in the fiscal year 2013. At HBCU “black Ivy League” Spelman College saw just $157.8 million ($20 million from alumni) during its Every Woman Every Campaign in 2013 that was a special, targeted campaign beyond normal annual endeavors.

Perhaps comparing Harvard’s financial gifts to any other school isn’t completely fair, but it does give an idea of what HBCUs are up against in the non-elite college market. If Spelman, considered the “best” HBCU, can only bring in one-fifth of the giving of Harvard in a year when Spelman aggressively went after donations, what does that say for every other HBCU?

An even better question is this: What can HBCU alumni giving campaigns improve upon to bring in more dollars to benefit their current crop of students?

Make college affordable.

Even the best college education will come with resentment attached once a student has to start paying back those burdensome loans. HBCUs have a better shot at alumni giving back once a college education is paid off, so why not make that debt burden lighter? HBCUs have some of the best statistics when it comes to financial aid in the form of Pell grants and scholarships and these institutions should continue to push for the funding to make obtaining a degree affordable – particularly for minority and first-generation college students. More money in these graduates’ pockets will translate into more alumni giving in the early years following graduation.

Personalize giving.

I don’t know about you, but getting a standard alumni giving form in the mail with a return envelope does not usually inspire me to pull out my checkbook. The same is true of emails without much personality. Instead of just asking for the money, HBCUs need to put faces and causes along with the requests. What are some of the upcoming projects that this money could go towards? Who will receive scholarships from this giving? Even non-glamorous giving campaigns that go towards basic infrastructure have a better shot of meeting goals if alumni are informed of what money is being solicited to do. HBCU alumni who can associate their own positive memories with money-making campaigns are more likely to want to be a part of making those things happen.

Get alumni involved before they leave campus.

Don’t wait until students are off campus to solicit them for help facilitating the college experience of the classes who follow them. Cash in on the good feelings that accompany graduation time from both the students earning degrees and their families. Even those who don’t have much may be willing to give a little to keeping the college dream alive for other students who are still trying to accomplish their academic goals. Set up a table outside commencement with giving forms and other alumni information. Have literature that explains to students how alumni giving dollars have facilitated what they’ve enjoyed while on campus. Send out an email blast to soon-to-be graduates that invites them to visit the alumni website, like its Facebook page, and join its official club. Don’t wait to chase alumni down after they’ve left; rope them in before they leave and keep them active in the coming years.

Just as HBCUs have a responsibility to get their students workforce-ready, alumni have a responsibility to give back to their institutions. HBCUs need to do a better job of conveying that though and encouraging former students to step up to the plate.

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here.

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

Diverse Conversations: Leading a Small Liberal Arts University

For those who aspire to become a college/university president, one of the biggest decisions that you will make is whether a large or small college/university presidency is the right choice. For this installment of “Diverse Conversations,” I decided to interview Dr. Debra Townsley, president of Williams Peace University, to find out what it’s like to lead a small liberal arts university. Inaugurated as the 10th president of William Peace University in August 2010, Dr. Townsley oversees a student body of nearly 800 full and part-time students enrolled in WPU’s undergraduate day, evening, online and Saturday programs, and an alumni body of more than 9,000.

Q: What attracted you to a small liberal arts university?

A: Small, private institutions are connected learning communities. Faculty directly teach all students. Co-curricular programming is intentional and an integral part of the learning. Students make life-long friends and are part of a connected alumni network. I appreciate these connections and believe they lead to strong learning opportunities for everyone in the community.

Q: What do you like most about leading a liberal arts university?

A: We do make a difference in the lives of our students. I have the good fortune of hearing this when I meet alumni, who have had a chance to experience what their education has afforded them and meant to them.

Q: Has your impression of William Peace University changed since the first time you were on campus?

A: I have learned more about Peace since my first visit, but my view of WPU has not changed since my first visit. On my first visit, Peace seemed like a community with dedicated faculty and staff who cared about students’ success and a community with students and alumni who had a love for the school. These first impressions have been and continue to be true.

Q: You’ve been president of William Peace University for three years. During that time, you have been able to witness, study, and assess the trends in higher education. What trends do you see emerging in higher education?

A: Higher education is changing because of multiple external forces, such as the economy, demographics, student learning needs, technology and regulations, just to name a few. Current trends indicate that students (and families) want to know there are job opportunities upon graduation, have limited resources for higher education, and learn through new methods like hands-on learning, experiential learning, use of technology, cases, discussion and/or multiple evaluative tools, to name a few.

One trend getting much attention is the massive open online course (MOOC). There is a debate over MOOCs – their usefulness in student learning, their replacement of the classroom, their long-term costs, etc. However, this was a similar conversation several decades ago when distance or online learning options were developing. I remember a faculty member telling me 15 years ago that it was a waste to invest in online education because it would not last. Now, we know that online is here to stay and that online learning can be very successful. MOOCs are likely to further develop and take learning in new directions that we may or may not be able to imagine today.

There will likely always be a place for classroom learning, but other ways of teaching and learning have emerged and will continue to emerge. This is what makes the industry challenging, but rewarding, as we seek the best way for students to reach their potentials.

Q: What are some of the challenges facing you and William Peace University in this upcoming year?

A: Small privates are similar in our challenges. We provide a quality education with limited resources, and we are always seeking new ways to do this. We complete the matriculation of a class, while starting the process all over again. We are finalizing our admission for Fall 2013 with the largest-ever incoming class and total enrollment, but have also started receiving students for tours, inquiries and applications for the Fall of 2014. It is a continuous cycle. I do believe higher education and the expectation for higher education is continual improvement, thus continual change; and change is hard for some people. This is an increasing challenge to resolve in higher education – the conflict between status quo and change.

Q: What are you most looking forward to at William Peace University in this upcoming year?

A: I am most looking forward to the students being back on campus. The students at WPU are engaged and fun to be with. At the same time, I always look forward to graduation. It is my favorite day of the year – not because the students are leaving, but because it is gratifying to see students arrive on campus and graduate four years later with confidence and hope for their futures. Graduation is a proud day for students and families, but it is also a proud day for us as educators to believe that we made a difference in each student’s life in some small way.

Q: Do you have any parting messages for our readers, many of whom are our current and future college/university presidents?

A: I believe the presidency of a college or university is the best job. We are in a challenging, changing industry. We work with students of all ages, which keeps us young in thought. We can feel a sense of accomplishment in our daily and strategic initiatives but, more importantly, in knowing that we have truly made a difference in some way – small or large – in an individual’s life. How many jobs give you this chance?

Well, that concludes my interview with Dr. Townsley. I would like to thank her for consenting to this interview.

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share