Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education December 16, 2016

How Colleges Can Maintain Diversity in a Trump-Led America

The shock of the Presidential election results is still sinking in across America, for both Trump supporters and anti-Trump voters. The thing that seemed outlandish and completely impossible just a year ago has now become the reality for Americans. The truth remains, however, that come January 20 the nation’s highest office will be helmed by Republican Donald Trump.

Based on his campaign rhetoric there is a lot of understandable fear regarding the state of diversity in the nation and what it all means for marginalized groups like minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and even women. What happens in the next four years remains to be seen but colleges, our nation’s hotbeds for diversity progress, can take some actions to ensure that they are just as inclusive and progressive in four years as they are today.

Here’s how to keep college and university campuses moving forward for diversity in a Trump-led America:

Talk about the issues.

Trump’s platform rose to popularity on issues like illegal immigration, tax-funded health insurance, and abortion rights. Facilitate conversations at the college-wide level about these issues, looking at the best outcomes for a more diverse America while truly examining the opposing views. This can take place in classrooms but should also happen at a college-wide level at forums or other university-hosted events. Don’t just dismiss xenophobia or white privilege as “bad” – talk about why people put their faith in those things and how to turn the tide from fear to understanding. Allow students to learn from each other in an organic way that doesn’t hand down a black-or-white decree on the issues. Colleges must lead the discussions on these issues so the next generation of educated graduates has a broader world view and deeper awareness.

Prepare for less student aid.

Under the Obama administration, plans for two years of free community college for all students who maintained the right course load and grade-point average were under way. It’s reasonable to assume that Secretary Clinton would have furthered that plan and also reasonable to assume that Mr. Trump will not. Things like Pell grants and federally-funded aid are likely to tank or at the very least, remain stagnant. Colleges and universities that want to keep increasing the diversity on their campuses must put actionable plans in place to make that happen. This includes more private scholarships, along with more reasonable costs for students and spending plans for attendance. Early high school recruiting will becomes more important than ever so colleges and universities can target a diverse population and get those students prepped for college costs and financial aid programs.

Prepare for funding cuts.

One of Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s claimed successes in his home state of Indiana was a fiscally stronger state (at least on paper). The reality of that was cuts to education, specifically public education, and the juvenile criminal justice system (among other areas). Public colleges and universities should expect to see less funding across the board in an attempt to “repair” national spending. Private colleges could feel the sting too when it comes to federal funds for student aid and other eligible campus spending. Every college campus has different needs but thinking ahead, right now, about ways to salvage diversity programs and support programs for disadvantaged students is vital to keeping those services afloat and thriving. How can your school continue to support the students that need diversity programs the most?

Tap alumni giving.

Most colleges and universities already have a robust alumni giving program in place but the urgency now for outside funds is greater than it was before this election. If there are programs that will see funding cuts, let alumni know the specifics. Share information about what funding is going down and how they can help boost it back up. If graduates know about the specific need they are more likely to give. Alumni who appreciate what a diverse campus and student support services did in their own lives will be more likely to give if they know a program is going to be cut or eliminated completely. Alumni are usually passionate about the place they earned their higher education, and will help to keep it successful if they can.

Fear is understandable – but preparation is smart. Trying to control what we can right now when it comes to protecting diversity on college campuses can make the difference in what we see regarding it when these four years are up.

Matthew Lynch published in International Education December 13, 2016

The case for a fixed 15% fee on all student loans

This article was written by Bruce Chapman

The Grattan Institute has proposed that a 15% surcharge should be added to the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debt of undergraduate and college students.

The surcharge is not an up front fee. It is a fee that is added to the existing debt and paid later, depending on a graduate’s future income. Repayments are only made if a graduate’s income exceeds about A$56,000 per annum.

This flat rate means that, while a graduate’s loan would initially increase by 15%, that figure would not get bigger over time.

Currently full-fee undergraduates pay a 25% fee on their loans, vocational education students a 20% fee, while postgraduate and government-supported students pay no loan fee. There is no obvious reason for these disparities and they seem to have evolved through a lack of policy attention by many governments.

So for administrative simplicity and coherence it would seem a good idea that all HELP loans are treated in the same way.

Not a radical idea

The 15% surcharge might seem like a radical reform idea, but the notion of a surcharge actually fits comfortably with the underlying economics of the HELP system, and was part of the original HECS design of 1989.

Benefits to low income earners

While an increase in the size of the loan may raise the ire of prospective students, it is important to remember that this does not leave those who go on to earn a lower income any worse off relative to their wealthier counterparts.

In fact they would be better off under this reform, because there would be no financial advantage to paying off the loan quickly. This is not currently the case.

The lower income earners who take longer to pay off their loans as the system is now are also penalised with having to pay back more interest over time.

In this sense, the change will act as a kind of subsidy on the loans of lower income earners, negating some of the cost and keeping loans from spiralling out of control.

Benefits to the government

A starting point is that the government already passes a considerable discount to students by indexing the loans by the CPI instead of the government’s own cost of borrowing.

While in the past the suggestion of imposing a real, and much higher rate of interest on the loans has been floated, it has been demonstrated that this is not the most equitable solution.

While a 15% spike in underlying cost may understandably attract headlines, this isn’t out of the blue. Having a surcharge on HELP debts for normal undergraduates was part of the original HECS design, but it took the form of a 20% discount for those who chose to pay up front.

This is just the other side of the coin of a surcharge, and was part of the original policy to cover the interest rate issue explained above.

Also, there are already surcharges on other HELP debts, and these are currently (and strangely) different depending on the nature of the tertiary education that people are undertaking.

Why 15% fee?

However, these points in favour of a surcharge should not be conflated with a judgement concerning what is the “correct” level of HELP charges in total.

This means that simply adding a 15% surcharge is an implicit recognition that the debts for graduates are too low at the moment, and should be increased.

The case for a surcharge should be made independently from the issue of what the correct overall level of a charge should be.

The economic case of the Grattan argument for a surcharge stands without reference to any budgetary concerns related to the level of HECS debts, which is a considerably more complicated (and ultimately political) judgement.

Bruce Chapman, Director, Policy Impact, Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University

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

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, International Education December 6, 2016

University transformation: the wrong research questions are being asked

This article was written by Anné H. Verhoef

“Transformation” is a word regularly in global higher education research. It normally implies deep change in knowledge and curriculum. It often entails questions about inclusion, identity, diversity, power, intellectual traditions and intellectual justice.

In South Africa, the word means something quite different in higher education. Its definition is rooted in the country’s apartheid history. The transition to democracy in 1994 gave impetus to transform the higher education system into one that was open, relevant and non-discriminatory.

The problem is that transformation is often loosely defined. There’s no clear consensus about its scope and aims. This lack of clarity means that research in South Africa about a wide variety of themes under the umbrella term of “transformation” may not actually be asking the right questions.

And asking the wrong questions means getting the wrong and irrelevant answers. It also sets back policy changes. Eventually this may discourage much needed transformation in higher education.

To understand what questions are and are not being asked, two of my colleagues and I analysed 1050 articles published in the South African Journal of Higher Education between 2005 and 2015.

We found four main patterns in how authors engaged with issues of transformation. We also identified a few shortcomings in their engagements. If these are addressed, it could help ensure that this crucial topic is properly understood. This can then be translated into solid, realistic policy and changes.

Research trends in South Africa

Only 30 of the 1050 articles we examined used the words “transformation”, “transformative” or “transforming” in their titles. We then analysed the 30 in more depth. Four quite distinct approaches to understanding transformation emerged.

These were transformation through curriculum; transformation through structures; transformation through redressing equity; and transformation through access.

1. Transformation through curriculum

Twelve articles positioned transformation in the higher education curriculum. They suggested that transformation takes place through what is taught and how it is taught, how results are measured and, for instance, how technology is integrated into teaching.

The articles in this pattern also presented a curriculum as something that’s flexible and constantly evolving. The authors explored the ways that professional development and student feedback could be used to test, critique and apply curricular reforms.

Some of the articles in this pattern presented teacher education as a space in which to start transforming the curriculum.

2. Transformation through structures

Nine articles related transformation to structures in higher education. There were three key aspects in these articles: ideas, practices and the role of structure in nation building; broader national trends such as higher education policy evaluation and reform; and the structures within institutions that influence transformation.

These structures include institutional culture underpinned by hegemonic forces that shape institutional transformation. That is: university education with whom, by whom and for whom. The research in this pattern explored how an institution’s leaders can emerge as sceptics or advocates for transformation. It also looked at transformation emanating from the institutional mergers of the mid 2000s.

3. Transformation through redressing equity

Six of the articles viewed transformation as redressing equity in higher education. In a post-apartheid South African context the expectation – as outlined in the Education White Paper of 1997 – is that

the higher education system must be transformed to redress past inequalities, to serve a new social order, to meet pressing national needs … to overcome the fragmentation, inequality and inefficiency which are the legacy of the past.

These articles viewed equity redress as being embedded in race, gender and class. They took the view that once universities open up access across class, race and gender – for students and staff – they’re on the road to transformation. These researchers referred specifically to the inclusion and exclusion of academic staff within institutions, including through recruitment policies.

So transformation was viewed as occurring through employment equity, the reconfiguration of power structures and alternative ways of conceptualising an institution’s staff diversity profiles.

4. Transformation through access

Three of the articles argued that access is a prerequisite for successful transformation in higher education. These articles contended that access was shaped by contextual and personal forces. In these arguments, specific reference was made to the access of black women academics. The articles also discussed the access to tertiary education of underprepared students.

These students struggled with language barriers or literacy challenges. They often battled to read and write in the language of instruction.

Shortcomings in research

These national research trends give close attention to the structural and ideological dimensions that shape transformation. This focus echoes the issues articulated in national policy.

The research trends we uncovered address some crucial aspects of transformation. But they fall short in three critical ways: internationalisation, interdisciplinary contributions and embracing transformation’s inherent complexity.

In higher education, internationalisation refers to universities crossing borders to attain certain academic, economic, political and cultural aims. It is the process of integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the core activities of higher education – teaching, learning, research and community engagement.

Internationalisation is necessary to broaden the discourse around transformation.

It’s also crucial that research in higher education should look beyond the education discipline alone. It needs to include input from other disciplines. The value of interdisciplinary research and education is that it increases competitiveness: knowledge creation and innovation frequently occur at the interface of disciplines. It also helps to ensure better educational programmes, which then improves students’ ability to work in a problem-oriented way.

Finally, embracing the complexity of transformation – understanding it as as a fluid open-ended construct rather than a static notion that is only focused on demographic changes – would help to bring about profound changes in the higher education domain.

If these approaches are given more attention in future research, South Africa’s policies can be greatly improved. This could make transformation in higher education tangible rather than just a pipe dream.

Anné H. Verhoef, Associate Professor in Philosophy, North-West University

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

Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education December 6, 2016

Expansion is no longer the answer to improving the Australian education system

This article was written by Dean Ashenden, University of Melbourne

For 50 years, Australia’s policymakers have been persuaded that growth at every level of the education system would be a good thing in itself – and would drive economic growth and social progress.

That faith is now under unprecedented pressure.

While massive expansion has brought the benefits of education to millions, it has also created new problems, and left old ones unresolved.

Human capital theory

Belief in the power of education to lift lives and societies is hardly new. But “human capital theory” gave it a new form.

Developed by a small group of US economists in the late 1950s, human capital theory arrived in Australia via the OECD in 1964, when L. H. Martin became the first in a long line of Australian policymakers to argue that education was not a necessary expense but an investment.

Investment in education would make individuals and economies more productive, triggering a virtuous circle of economic growth, more equal opportunity, higher levels of health and civic-mindedness, and cultural enrichment. The economic rain would follow the educational plough.

It followed (as one Australian human capital theorist argued) that,

“education spending should be expanded up to the point where the rate of return to additional spending is equal to the general rate of return on capital”.

Anything less will reduce the rate of economic growth and result in “a culturally impoverished and less cohesive society”.

In the meantime, education pays for itself (as another theorist put it) “many times over”.

Promise and performance

Governments have certainly done as advised.

In just two generations they have tripled the proportion of students completing 12 years of schooling, expanded numbers in vocational education and training (VET) from a few tens of thousands to around 1.5 million, and multiplied higher education numbers by thirteen.

But 50 years on it is clear the benefits of vastly expanded access to education are heavily offset in ways scarcely anticipated by the human capital argument:

Despite claims that education pays for itself, the chronic problem of funding it has recently become acute, pushing minister Pyne from his portfolio, and his government toward a near-death electoral experience.
Even the OECD, the leading apostle of human capital theory, concedes that “over-education” is relatively pronounced in Australia. Employment and salary returns to degree and diploma programs have fallen steadily, while at the lowest qualification levels returns are negligible or even negative. On the other side of the transaction, employers continue to complain about the employability and “job readiness” of graduates
Despite more years of schooling by many more people, a persistently large minority of students is “disengaged”, and an even larger proportion of adults lacks the skills “to meet the demands of everyday life and work”.
Research dominates the universities and they dominate the system as a whole. The universities have been allowed to pursue their own interests at the expense of teaching, and to undertake increasing amounts of educational work for which neither they nor their students are well equipped. Their dominance extends to the purposes and curriculum of schooling, and contributes to the perception of VET – under-funded and beset by scandal – as an educational last resort.
There have been few or no gains in the social distribution of opportunity in and through education. It seems likely that structural inequality – the distance between the best and worst educated, and the distribution of the population across that spectrum – has increased.
Growth has been in time served as well as numbers enrolled, causing costs for young people to rise as returns fall. They spend a steadily increasing proportion of their lives in a limbo between childhood and fully adult circumstances and responsibilities in pursuit of employment which may or may not materialise.

Growth still the solution?

There are those who argue or assume that growth should still be the first objective of policy.

The most recent substantial review of higher education, for example, relied on human capital theory to argue for a much-expanded, demand-driven system.

Deloitte Access Economics prosecutes the same case, claiming not just a long list of social, health and other benefits for expansion, but an 8.5% increase in GDP “because of the impact that a university education has had on the productivity”.

Australia’s most successful federal minister of education, John Dawkins, recently called for a comprehensive rethink, but with funding for further growth as the central question, a view apparently shared by the Grattan Institute.

The guns of policy are pointing in the wrong direction. We need a re-orientation for the next 50 years as substantial as that introduced by Martin 50 years ago.

A different orientation for public policy

The first question for policy should not be the size of the system or its funding but its disposition, character, and consequences:

Policy has concentrated on the supply of skills and knowledge; it should now concentrate on their use and development in the workplace.
The effort to load up individuals with economically useful skills and knowledge via front-end, formal education should give way to expanding career and training paths and work-based learning across the broadest possible range of industries and occupations, including most of the professions.
The focus on the social distribution of education should be widened to tackle structural inequality. Policy must be directed less toward opportunity to get the best, and more toward providing the highest possible proportion of the population with the best possible educational experience and attainment.
The priority currently given to the top half of the system and to those who do well at school and go on to higher education should be given to those for whom education is a bad experience with bad consequences.
Policy should above all stop equating human capital with the consumption of formal education. That conflation has allowed occupational groups, including particularly the professions and those aspiring to professional status, to combine with education providers to use credentials to drive up amounts of education consumed. Educational provision should be seen within the larger frame of learning and its recognition, irrespective of where, when or how undertaken, but particularly learning and its use in workplaces.

It is possible to detect the beginnings of such a re-orientation in some of the areas discussed; in others, it is not.

Learning the lessons of experience

Although human capital theory has gone largely unchallenged in policy debates, among economists it has been as much criticised and rejected as accepted.

Even those who work within the human capital framework often distance themselves from the growth argument appealed to by governments and others.

The rise of human capital theory from one among several accounts of the education-economy relationship to conventional wisdom owes as much to its political usefulness to governments and to the education industry as to its merits.

There is much more to the complex interaction of education and learning (on the one hand) and economic activity (on the other) than human capital theory comprehends, including particularly competition for economic advantage through education by occupational groups and by families and individuals.

There is also much more to education than its contribution to economic activity.

Martin depended upon a theory. Now we have experience. If the lessons of the past 50 years are to be learned, policymakers will need a much broader course of instruction than can be provided by human capital theory.

Dean Ashenden, Honorary Senior Fellow, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne

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

Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's, Higher Education December 5, 2016

Diversity in Higher Education: How to Get American Colleges to Catch Up to the 21st Century

As we become more fully entrenched in the 21^st century, the American workplace becomes more diverse. But American colleges and universities still have a way to come before they can fully serve the changing demographics of the American labor market. How do we increase diversity in higher education. Stick around and find out:

Which schools reflect the diversity of our country and workforce
What colleges and universities can do to attract talent from all backgrounds
The shocking truth about diversity on the faculty level in most American colleges

The world we live in now

For many Americans, a shift is well underway.

HBCUs, for example, have served the purpose of adding greater diversity to the workforce by graduating more students of color. Yet, even today, inequalities exist in the workforce, and HBCUs need to prepare their students for this reality. Let’s look into this a little deeper.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities have always been places that encourage greater diversity when it comes to higher education, both on their campuses and in the greater college landscape. From their origins as being the only places people of color could go for a college education to their role today as welcoming all students and instilling cultural awareness, HBCUs stand as models of multicultural learning at its best.

Are HBCUs doing enough to prepare their students for the real workplace, though?

The reason so many college administrators, myself included, stand firmly by the necessity of HBCUs in contemporary college education is this: HBCUs provide a heightened diversity-centric environment that is not able to be duplicated in other settings. This is why these schools are so fantastic. But is all that idealism blindsiding our students later on? Do HBCUS give students a false sense of what to expect in the real workplace? There has to be a blending of what is actually happening in the workplace with what the ideal CAN be with the right people who work for it.

So how can HBCUs promote diversity while still preparing their students for the reality of the American workplace today?

Tell the truth.

Start with the facts of the workplace reality right now, today, this moment. This is so vital to students’ understanding of what they are going to face in the workplace. Yes, diversity is increasing in most fields (thanks in part to better college recruiting and minority programs) but things like the wage gap between minorities (including women) and white men have to be addressed. It’s okay to present these facts and not have a concrete solution in place. It is the responsibility of HBCUs to let their students know what they are up against – and inspire these students to make changes when given the opportunity.

Promote leadership.

Instead of teaching our students how to work for someone else, we should be training them to be leaders. This is true in every field and in every classroom. Have a group of education students? Encourage them to take that next step and become administrators. Students in health care? Set them up to be accepted to medical school. If you have a class of students who are interested in computer science, suggest pairing it with a business or entrepreneurship double major or minor. We should show our students the path to the next level, one step above what they are hoping to achieve, so that they can become the diverse decision-makers of tomorrow’s workplace.

Teach legal rights.

Our students should know what the boundaries are in workplaces when it comes to discrimination and how to recognize unfair treatment. We need to tell them how to report it, file lawsuits and hold their employers (or potential employers) accountable. At the same time, we should be sure our students aren’t wasting too much time in their careers looking for problems. It is important to know when something is unfair, but to put energy into building up careers for their benefit too.

Empower them with knowledge.

As cheesy as it may sound, an education is everything when it comes to breaking through workplace barriers. Minorities and women have to work twice or three times as hard as their peers to earn as much respect and money in the same roles. It’s not fair, but it is a fact – at least at this point in our country’s history as an economic powerhouse. What is learned in classrooms can’t be taken away, or denied. We have to encourage our students to be lifelong learners and love knowledge for the sake of it. That excitement about learning is what will keep them ahead in their fields and help them impart that empowerment to the next generation of students.

There is no way to completely change diversity in the workplace overnight but I truly believe that HBCU graduates have the best shot at improving it significantly. As instructors and administrators, we need to make sure our students are taking the best of diversity practices with them when they leave our campuses, but not entering the American workforce completely blind to its realities. It is our responsibility to teach our students what they can expect, but also how to be the change that they want to see.

But tomorrow will be different…

…And “tomorrow” is happening right before our eyes. The truth is that, while minorities will need to be prepared for a challenging workforce, the American workforce also needs to be prepared for increasing diversity. And that attention to diversity should begin in college, where many students train for their future careers.

Every college or university holds a diverse student population as a value and goal, at least on paper. Institutions of higher education have written ideology that seeks the best and brightest from all backgrounds to attend their classes. Here’s the thing though. Achieving diversity is hard. A balanced campus, either physically or remotely, takes more than words on paper. It takes the conscious, aggressive effort by the decision makers at a college or university to even stand a chance of reaching reality status.

I was recently looking over a list compiled by College Factual of the most diverse college campuses in the U.S. Factors like ethnic, geographic and gender diversity were taken into account to come up with an overall diversity score and ranking. I skimmed through the top 10 overall schools and noticed something interesting: three of them are located in Hawaii. More specifically, all three are located in Honolulu.

Hawaii Pacific University, ranked #1. This private school has an overall diversity score of 91.4 percent, with ethnic diversity at 92.1.
Chaminade University of Honolulu, ranked #2. This school has a ranking of 86.3 for overall diversity, with 100 percent ethnic diversity.
University of Hawaii at Manoa, ranked #4. This public university has an overall diversity ranking of 78.6 percent, with a 93.2 percent male to female ratio (higher by several points over the other two schools on this list).

Now what’s especially important to note on this list is that geographic diversity plays a role in overall score. So this means that the variation of these students does not simply stem from people of Hawaiian descent who go to these schools. There are diverse people from all over the nation and world who grace these campuses. Of course there is a geographic advantage – Hawaii is one of the most beautiful places in the world – but aside from that obvious point, what are these schools doing right to bring in diverse students?

Strong International Programs

Hawaii Pacific University has students from 80 nations that attend, landing it on U.S. News and World Report’s list for universities with the most international students. This is not accidental. The school, and the others on this list, work hard to bring in students from all corners of the world. Strong international programs ensure that an inclusive culture is part of the college experience and the schools with the highest levels of diversity know this and implement it.

Strong Master’s Programs

Another area where these Hawaiian schools excel is in education programs that go beyond basic undergraduate programs. Hawaii Pacific University, for example, is recognized by the Institute for International Education as one of the top thirty most diverse master’s programs in the world.

Strong Connections with the World Economy

These Honolulu-based schools are all located in the Pacific Rim – one of the fastest growing economic regions of the world. These schools do an excellent job of tapping into that through expert faculty, job placement and partnerships with businesses in the region. The University of Hawaii at Manoa’s Shidler College of Business consistently lands on “top” lists, mainly for its connections with other universities and businesses in Asia. The students can also participate in immersive study abroad programs. An understand of what is happening in economies outside the immediate needs of a university not only attracts a more diverse student body, but leads to a wider scope of graduates.

So what can every other college learn from these diverse campuses in Honolulu? The first thing is that diversity should never be limited to the swath of people who live in the geographic area of that school. Yes, colleges (particularly public ones) have a responsibility to educate their immediate populations, but the search for diverse students should always be looked at from a global perspective.

The second takeaway is that more and more students are looking for a higher level of education than an undergraduate degree. There are also many non-traditional students who return to graduate school and need the welcoming atmosphere of a diverse, inclusive campus to feel comfortable.

Finally, if institutions of higher education really want to make a mark on diversity, it’s imperative to find ways to connect all students with the diverse workforce. For some schools, this may mean international connections and for others, it may mean just contacting local businesses and looking for a variety of partnerships. Making the connection between a diverse campus and a diverse workforce is imperative to creating students bodies that are varied, and represent many different cultures, socioeconomic backgrounds, and ethnicities.

More strategies colleges can use to welcome students of diverse backgrounds.

Improving campus diversity is a multi-level effort, and the solutions for doing so are as creative as they are targeted and highly structured. Here are just a few of them:

Full-ride scholarships

The cost of going to college can be a deal-breaker. Even with Pell grants, scholarships, and some student loans, the overwhelming ticket price of higher education is a major deterrent. This is especially true for minorities, first generation college students, and those coming from low socio-economic backgrounds. There is both a legitimate concern over what that college degree will cost, as well as a cultural barrier that often tells these students a college education is just not for them (both within their circles, and outside them).

But what if colleges were to take away cost as a factor – completely? Throughout the country there are schools that are combatting low diversity numbers with a novel idea: full-ride scholarships for those who qualify.

Now full-ride scholarships are certainly nothing new. They’ve been given out to promising students, and those in financial need, and athletes for decades. What’s so different about this new slew of full-ride initiatives is that they acknowledge a lack of diversity and are targeting minorities, women and underserved students.

The University of Michigan recently rolled out a full-ride scholarship program that targets students as young as 7^th grade. The Wolverine Pathways initiative seeks to find students of academic promise from racial and socioeconomic disadvantage and give them a chance to earn a full ride to the university by the time they graduate from high school. Students will be paired with tutors and mentors in three academic sessions per year. If they complete the sessions successfully, and are then accepted to the university, they will be given a scholarship for four years.

It’s certainly needed at Michigan, where only 12.8 percent of the 2015 freshman class are minorities. The school saw a dip from the height of its minority representation (which was only 13.8 in 2015) after affirmative action was struck down for college admissions. Since then, the university claims it has looked for ways to boost its diversity – and the Wolverine Pathways program could finally do just that.

Arizona State University also announced a full-ride program for new MBA students in the fall of 2016 that is designed to improve diversity. Based on the student’s residency, the scholarship could be valued as high as $94,000.

But will these and other full-ride programs actually work?

Finances are certainly an obstacle when it comes to creating diverse college campuses but it is not the only issue. College freshman from homes with no college graduates are at a higher risk of dropping out that first year. Students who have never learned basic life skills, including how to budget and pay bills, often get overwhelmed at college and drop out to start earning immediate money instead.

Then there is the whole idea of young people being handed something they don’t truly understand the value of – and squandering it. It’s usually a decade or more later when college dropouts of all races and backgrounds look back and realize that they probably should’ve stayed in school. That’s around the time their college-educated peers are finally paying off those student loans, advancing in their careers, and finally cashing in on the quality of life that a college education provides. It’s very difficult to explain to an 18 or 19-year-old student the total value of a college education, both in the immediate and over the long term. Not having to pay for that value could translate into students who do not respect that education the way they should. This is not a point specific to minorities, but to young people in general.

So how can colleges and universities bring in diverse students, retain them, and graduate them debt-free?

It starts with the teaching and mentorship structure, like the one Michigan has in place, but needs to continue to college campuses. Students who we know are statistically more likely to drop out need hands-on guidance counselors, and mentors, and professors who work hard to keep them engaged and learning. There needs to be retention programs in place that actively check in on progress and don’t simply offer an open-door policy. All of this is vital if colleges are serious about having a diverse student population that succeeds on its grounds.

For programs like the one at Arizona State, it also means more targeted recruitment. If you say you are lowering financial barriers in order to bring in a more diverse student group, then you must find that student group and offer them spots. That takes a lot of dedication but is well worth it.

The bottom line is this: Simply giving students free access to a college degree is not enough for those students to succeed. Colleges and universities offering these types of programs need to recognize how the financial constraints of college are simply one issue on the road to attaining a degree. Academic support, mentorship, cultural inclusion and so many other factors must also play a role in these incentives for them to truly be successful at boosting campus and workplace diversity.

With athletes

And not in the way you might think, either.

This isn’t about getting more athletes on college campuses, though.

Think of what having strong minority role models can do for students. Successful people who look like the students a particular college or university is trying to graduate, and who come from a similar background, can leave a lasting impression and inspire students to similar heights.

One particular group of minority mentors that I feel should be getting even more involved in the minority recruiting and mentorship process is student athletes. Whether still athletes at the school, or alumni, this particular subset of minority mentors should play an important role in graduating other traditionally disadvantaged students.

Maurice Clarett as mentor

Maurice Clarett, an Ohio State University alum, is a college-athlete-turned-minority-mentor. The former college running back has taken on a new role as both a cautionary tale, and inspiration, to other young people. If his name sounds familiar, it is because his claim to fame was not just on the football field or as a national champion in the sport. Clarett served four years in prison for aggravated robbery and carrying a concealed weapon. It was behind bars that he started reading up on personal development and ways to grow beyond a delinquent and even ways to rise above his association with being a football star.

Today he talks with other college athletes about things like personal responsibility and being accountable for actions, no matter what their upbringing. Clarett has visited athletes at Alabama, Notre dame, Tennessee and Mississippi State. He recently spoke with the national champion Florida State football team and acknowledged that many minority college athletes come from home environments that leave them “undeveloped” and without the skills needed to function successfully in life. Taking advantage of the resources available on college campuses and determining to be better than life’s circumstances are two lessons that Clarett tries to pass along to the people he mentors.

A story like Clarett’s is so much more powerful than the seemingly-empty warnings from adults on college campuses, many of whom look nothing like the students they are trying to influence and have no shared life experiences. By finding ways to tap into the stories of athletes, colleges can give their students a more impactful way of committing to success.

Mirroring smart mentorship

Traditionally getting into college on an athletic scholarship has been a way that minorities have been able to break onto college campuses, particularly if they came from educational environments that simply did not offer the same resources as advantaged peers. I’d argue that getting these athletes to graduation day is simply not enough; a whole other realm of life skills is needed to ensure that they are successful long after their athletic playing days have passed. When the cheers die down and the attention turns to the more practical things in life, these student athletes need ground to stand on. Pairing them up with mentors, or at the very least bringing in former athletes to share their after-college success stories, is a great way to inspire greatness that lasts a lifetime.

Leadership. Teamwork. Hard work. Earning a “win.” Losing gracefully. All of these are lessons that college athletes know in the context of their respective sports. Translating that to life beyond college can be challenging but can be made much easier with the help of mentors that have a common understanding with the students they address. Schools should make this as much a priority as recruiting minority students to sports and academic programs. Colleges and universities have a responsibility to their students to prepare them for all aspects of life and proper mentorship can be a necessary building block in that process.

Without athletes

We’ve all heard the fairytale stories before: a minority kid from a tough neighborhood gets a shot at a college career because he or she is recruited for a particular sport. Not only do these athletes get to show off their physical talent, but they get a college degree and a more promising future in the process.

Listen, I’m all for athletes landing athletic scholarships if it means that more minority students earn a college degree. But I also know that stories like these, while intentionally heartwarming and media friendly, do not represent the vast majority of minorities with college aspirations. Athletes get a lot of the attention, but if colleges and universities are truly committed to diverse populations of students then they need to put the steps in place to make it easier for all minorities to earn a college degree.

A few of the areas where I think universities could improve on minority programs and recruitment include:

Arts recruiting.

Just as scouts go out and recruit the best basketball or football players for teams, the same should happen with minority students who show promise in the arts. Theater, musical performance, sculpting, painting, film studies and even creative writing – minority students who have talent in these areas should be given attention and invited to college programs. Why arts programs over more practical careers in STEM or healthcare? Minority students with arts passions often feel forced to abandon them in favor of immediate jobs or things that are simply not their passions. Arts careers are considered “silly” for white peers, but almost irresponsible for minority students. This should change and colleges should take the lead on it.

Mentorship programs.

There are some minority students who come from a home where one or both parents are college graduates but those odds are lower than their white peers. All first-generation college students face different challenges and expectations than those for whom college acceptance, success and graduation has always been expected. During the recruiting process, colleges should tout their mentorships programs and make sure minority and first-generation students are aware of the support they will receive when they decide to attend. As much as possible, these mentorship programs should work on matching students based on race, gender and career industry – though aligning all of that is admittedly difficult. Using the same mentor for several students is an option. Particularly in the case of minority students, mentors are generally overjoyed to be able to help a young person succeed. Colleges just need to be asking for that help and then expressing that it exists to their potential minority students.

Creative financial aid.

College is expensive and for students who have to pay for it on their own while supporting themselves, it can be overwhelming. There are no shortage of loans that students can take out to help finance their college careers, but saddling them with debt before they even set foot in the work world can be a recipe for disaster. Colleges that truly want a diverse population of students who succeed after graduation should look into adding more minority scholarships. The “pay it forward” college payment system that is implemented in certain states like Oregon should be considered for wider adoption, especially when it comes to attracting minority and first-generation students to college campuses. College does not need to be completely free in order for more minorities to attend and graduate. It does need to be affordable, though, and that takes some thinking out the normal financial aid box.

Athletes who earn college degrees are certainly inspirational but they are only a small portion of the minorities who want the type of education a college or university can provide. If we really want equality on our college campuses then it will take more than touting the success of our minority football, basketball and track stars. We need to find ways to translate that same success across interests and disciplines, and to give those students the support they need to truly succeed. Part of that process is to make college more affordable for all students. Another piece of that puzzle is targeting areas that are often overshadowed by athletics, like the arts. By understanding the true picture of what potential minority college students are like, colleges and universities can get more of them on campus or enrolling online.

With heavy-duty recruitment efforts

Recruitment strategies have become more important than ever.

Why? Recently, Michigan banned affirmative action for admittance to public universities and the U.S. Supreme Court may rule on it on a federal level soon. The process that was created during the height of the Civil Rights movement in America may soon be officially considered outdated, and even unfair, by the higher judicial powers.

With affirmative action on its way out, what can colleges do to ensure their campuses still have enough variety in race, ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic backgrounds?

Targeted high school recruiting.
The demographics of high schools are readily available, along with the socioeconomic status of them. Colleges that are serious about recruiting a diverse population should target schools with students in the particular demographic they would like to see more of on their campuses. This will not automatically translate into more of those students, but it will mean more consideration from these high schoolers of the colleges that seem to want to help them succeed the most.

Non-traditional student programs.
Many young people who cannot afford college tuition directly after high school end up in the workforce, often in a job that is not their passion or one that does not highlight their talents. By the time these students consider going to college, life has usually taken over in the form of rent, medical and other family expenses. Though colleges are starting to warm up to these adult, “non-traditional” students, there is still much more room for improvement. Launching full-fledged college recruiting programs for non-traditional students will bring in more talent to the college, and will also bring in more diversity in the students who take courses and graduate from there.

Legacy entry.
By giving preference or priority spots to legacy students, colleges can ensure spots for minority students without the use of affirmative action. Of course no student should be allowed entry to a particular college or university without putting in the actual time and work required of other students. But if all things are considered equal when it comes to academic records, using legacy priority could give minority students the leg up to land that college entry spot.

Targeted marketing campaigns.
If a college knows that it needs to improve the number of Latino students on campus, then a marketing campaign that appeals to those students needs to be developed. This includes visuals that show students like the ones being recruited, along with other cultural and language specifications. Traditional brochures and mailers should be secondary to social media campaigns that target students where they are already consuming content.

Since its inception, affirmative action as it relates to college admittance and graduation numbers for minorities and women has had a strong showing. If that tool is taken away from the college entry process, schools should modify the same concepts to other programs taking place in order to continue recruiting the most diverse college population possible. Without some forethought when it comes to what sorts of students need to be represented, colleges risk a student body that is not actually representative of the greater community. If that happens, all of the triumphs of affirmative action will be lost.

By reaching future students when they’re still young

Colleges are realizing that if minorities, first-generation students, and other pupils who are considered at-risk are target demographics for their upcoming graduating classes, then recruitment needs to start early. Think middle school, or even earlier. Waiting until junior or senior year of high school presents the risk that the students have already ruled out the possibility of college. Guiding younger students through what it takes to get into college, from grade expectations to community service requirements, ensures that more of the students who give up on college before they have even tried get a real shot at going, and graduating.

Recently 80 colleges and universities announced a new way to accept future students that strays from more mainstream admittance policies of the last few decades. Public schools like Purdue University and the University of Michigan, private schools like University of Chicago and Amherst College, and every Ivy League school are the founding members of the Coalition for Access, Affordability and Success. This group plans to allow portfolio systems for admittance to their schools.

The basic premise is this: Starting freshman year, high school students can upload work and answer other prompts to prepare them for college admittance later on. Students could opt to share information, like completed projects or grades on report cards, with the colleges and gain some feedback during the high school process that will help them land a spot at a university after graduation.

Instead of using the Common Application, a watered-down non-customized but widely used process form, these 80 schools would also allow this comprehensive approach. It’s expected that many more schools will also want to join this coalition, but they must meet specific criteria.

Public colleges can join the coalition if they “provide sufficient financial aid” to those who need it within their respective states. Private colleges can join if they can prove their commitment to providing adequate financial aid to every domestic student. Colleges that have “gapping” problems (where they admit students that cannot afford the school, and give them no path for financial aid) will not be permitted to join the coalition. All schools, public or private, must have a six-year federal graduation rate of 70 percent.

How the new system benefits minorities

Perhaps the best part of this new approach to college admittance is the opportunity for college preparation long before senior year. For students from middle class and upper class families, thinking about colleges usually begins a few years early and happens in the way of picking classes and activities intended to pad a future application. Students from these families often go on college visits as well and meet with university guidance counselors – all coordinated by parents.

In homes where both parents work a lot to earn a living wage, or one parent is absent, it is a challenge just to get kids out the door and on the way to high school. Meticulously looking over next-semester class selections and carving out the time and money to make college visits is simply not an option for these families. In best case scenarios, an involved high school guidance counselor can step up to fill this gap – but too many bright students do not get the chance to go to college because they simply don’t know how to get there (or afford it). This coalition system adds in an extra support “staff” that not only gets kids interested in college early on, but guides them in the right steps to take to get into a program that makes the most sense for them.

This system for college admittance also follows a customized approach to developing student populations. An example given in a Business Insider article on the coalition said that instead of submitting the standard 500-word essay, students could submit something from their portfolio. This speaks more to the person submitting the application, and less to the formulaic ways that schools say “yes” or “no” to the people who want to attend them.

For minorities this means an admittance advantage, even if a particular student is not a strong writer or does not have someone looking over his or her shoulder and offering help with the application. The work that a student is most proud of, or that best represents the field he or she wants to go into, can shine on the application.

The needs-based component of this system will also benefit minority students, who traditionally have had a harder time paying for college. The schools who commit to help all students afford and pay for college, and who succeed in helping them graduate, can be part of this coalition. Predatory college programs that do not take the socioeconomic status of their students into account will be excluded – and therefore be required to offer the basic admittance application that has been in existence for the past few decades.

By supporting students

For all of the strides college recruiting programs have made, there is still an overarching theme that recruiting new students is an isolated process. Get the kids on campus, then move on to the next batch. In reality, recruiting should be a very small part of a larger strategy that not only brings students of varied backgrounds to campus, but sustains them until graduation. Some schools are improving in this regard, but there’s still a lot of work needed to flip this mentality from one of solitude to solidarity with other student help groups.

Some schools are working on this. The University of Connecticut and Ithaca College made headlines in 2015 when they added a new position to their executive suite: Chief Diversity Officer. While universities have long had diversity task forces and even full-time staff members who work to improve diversity on campus, the move to add such a prominent position is promising.

As more colleges follow suit, the position needs to be more than a figurehead. An editorial for UConn’s The Daily Campus sums it up by saying:

“The hope is that these recommendations hit their mark and help increase diversity in both the student body and faculty. The effort the administration is employing is seen and appreciated. The expectation now is that these efforts are fruitful, and bring meaningful change.”

Another example of an initiative that serves students and promotes diversity is the idea of the Hispanic Serving Institutions.

Before I explain what those are, consider this. Hispanic Americans with dreams of a college degree face different challenges than their white, and even black, peers. For those who hold English as a second language, there are some inherent communication obstacles. For those who are first-generation Americans (or first-generation college students, or both), extra guidance is needed to keep them from feeling overwhelmed by the college journey. Every college student faces obstacles but the challenges in front of Hispanic ones are unique, and growing in importance.

Some colleges and universities have recognized these specific struggles of Hispanic students and found ways to address them. These Hispanic Serving Institutions (or HSIs) don’t just have the rhetoric in place; to qualify for this distinction, a college must consistently have a 25 percent Hispanic student population. These schools must also be non-profit and offer at least two-year degree programs. In other words, HSIs must actually work to serve the Hispanic students they recruit, and not prey upon them.

As HSIs grow in number (in 2013, there were 431), it’s important for all college educators to realize the effect these schools will have on everyone else and why we should embrace Hispanic-friendly college policies.

Hispanic higher education impacts us all.
The U.S. Census reports that by 2060, the number of Hispanic Americans will reach 31 percent of the general population. That’s nearly a third of Americans who will work, study, spend money and live within our borders. Earning a college education for Hispanic students will in turn raise the quality of life for the rest of us, too. On a global scale, America could take a big hit in advancements and innovations if one-third of its population was not educated on a higher level (or even one-tenth of it). The colleges and universities that will succeed in recruiting and graduating large numbers of Hispanic students are the ones that recognize the extreme importance of doing such a thing. This is a not a charity case or a trend in college education. Creating pathways for Hispanic students to go to college and earn their degrees is SMART for the country as a whole.

We can learn, too.
When approaching the best ways to serve and educate Hispanic college students, it’s important to avoid an assimilation stance. Yes, there is a lot these students can learn from our traditional college canon, but there is so much we can learn from them too. This is true for Hispanic students as well as faculty members. As a greater college community, we should recognize that from an educational standpoint, increasing the number of Hispanic students who study on our campuses and graduate with our degrees will expand our own knowledge base too. We shouldn’t only accept Hispanic students but should encourage their viewpoints and allow those to influence our policies and the things we teach.

Change starts on college campuses.
Traditionally, colleges have been recognized as progressive places. Even if the administration of a particular school isn’t forward-thinking, the students usually are. I write a lot about the progressive changes that need to be made on college campuses but not because I think they are failing. I think college campuses hold the most potential of any type of entity to stimulate positive change. That potential is what pushes me to speak out when I think we could be doing more – as administrators, as faculty members, as students.

That is especially true when it comes to turning our campuses into Hispanic Serving Institutions. Critics can argue all they want for assimilation and shout for Hispanic children to “learn English” but the truth is that we all lose a little with that mentality. Colleges are the jumping off points. The policies we put in place and the students who we graduate matter to the rest of the country. We are being watched, if subconsciously, to see how situations ideally should be approached. If we truly want to embrace Hispanic culture as a major part of our American story, present and future, it needs to start in our colleges and universities.

Now, here are a couple of other things to think about when it comes to student body retention.

Many are turning to technology to anticipate problems and reach out to students at risk for dropping out long before they do. Virginia Commonwealth University is one example of a school reaching out to a tech consulting firm to learn more about its students and help struggling students before they withdraw.

Data is used for so many aspects of college life – expect to see more schools tapping it to recruit and maintain diverse student bodies.

Finally, the need for an affordable college education is mentioned so often that it seems that we are all becoming desensitized to it. The reality is that having affordable college, not just providing loans to students, will go a long way towards helping close the achievement gap. Initiatives like providing the first two years of community college for free to qualifying students, and even student loan forgiveness programs for high-demand jobs, are a few ways that the dream of a college degree can become more accessible to minority, first-generation and other at-risk students.

Beware of those schools trying to capitalize on a trend

Turn on your television to any local station during daytime hours, and you’re sure to see a handful of commercials touting the amazing benefits of enrolling in for-profit colleges. These idyllic spots highlight flexible classes, accelerated programs, online classes available from the comfort of home, and more. Usually the information about the particular college is delivered by a once-uneducated person turned career success – often a working dad, or single mom, whose kids are clearly proud of what the parent has accomplished. Obtaining a college education, particularly from the school mentioned, looks so easy to do.

While the description above may seem like the stuff of marketing clichés, it’s a tactic that has worked for many for-profit colleges. Targeting minorities and other non-traditional college students through commercials like these has been the bread-and-butter of for-profit schools for at least the past two decades and those tactics are just now starting to see some legal pushback.

To be clear, not all for-profit colleges are created equal. There are some that boast high graduation rates and seem to have student success at the heart of their endeavors. The very fact that these colleges exist have actually progressed the entire university system in the U.S. by pushing innovative programs, like online degrees, and showing that there truly is a large market for non-traditional college students.

Let’s not kid ourselves though. The non-profit college push is a very thinly-veiled attempt to enroll a volatile market – often the most eligible for federal loan and grant assistance.

The financial facts speak for themselves:

As of 2014, for-profit colleges served just 13 percent of total higher education students but received 31 percent of federal student loans due to the minority, at-risk and low-income statuses of their students. Former veterans cashing in GI Bills also attend for-profit schools at higher rates than traditional colleges.
The same report from the U.S. Department of Education reports that half of all students who default on their loans attend a for-profit college.

Which leads to the unavoidable question: Have non-profit colleges preyed upon at-risk students for the sake of making a quick buck?

One of the reasons for-profit schools have seen such a surge in enrollment in the past two decades can really be pinned on the smart marketing of two words: flexibility and acceleration. For students who simply did not have the funds, nor desire to incur college debt, right after high school, for-profit schools have stepped up as a second chance, of sorts. These colleges are places where non-traditional students can continue to work and take flexible courses, many or all of which are online. Most for-profit schools also offer a faster route to degree attainment, which peaks the interest of students who don’t want to dedicate years of their lives to college aspirations but are looking for a way to advance their careers. The University of Phoenix, perhaps the most recognizable name in for-profit online colleges, recently announced a new initiative to count other course work and work experience towards degree attainment. This initiative, and others like it, is designed to recruit students who don’t want to start from square one and don’t have the time to commit to a traditional college experience.

So what is wrong with either of these options? Nothing, in theory. Flexibility and accelerated degrees are a good fit for many students who otherwise could not chase any sort of college degree. Where many non-profits fail their students, however, is in charging astronomical rates and not offering enough support to keep students enrolled until graduation. In essence, these schools market well enough to get the students enrolled in courses but don’t do enough to guide them to their degrees. All the flexibility in the world can’t help a student understand a difficult concept, or learn better time/study management skills. Accelerated programs without mentorship options run the risk of burning students out, especially if they have no inspiration or focus.

It’s clear that the recent outcry for accountability for non-profit colleges is long overdue. Students deserve better than what they’ve been served by these institutions, and quite frankly, so does the entire American population. It’s time for these schools to deliver on their promise of career success for those who enroll – and that starts with student support that extends beyond recruitment.

Don’t forget about diversity at the faculty level, too

Each year, colleges and universities pay professional search firms millions of dollars to find qualified candidates for vacant positions. Having the best and brightest on their staffs is important for student recruitment, growth and accolades. Recruiting the strongest faculty team possible is a vital goal of every college and university, as it should be.

Where these colleges and search firms miss the mark, however, is finding viable candidates from diverse populations. Need proof of this? Take a look at these stats:

The breakdown of racial representation at U.S. colleges according to the National Center for Education Statistics paints a bleak picture. There are 1 million white faculty members, less than 100,000 black faculty members, 86,000 Asian faculty members, and less than 60,000 Hispanic faculty members at institutions of higher education in America.
That same report finds that just 12 percent of full-time faculty members at U.S. colleges are minorities and only one-third of full-time professors are women.
In fields like mathematics, physics and computer science, minorities represent barely 2 percent of total faculty.

Furthermore, the lack of diversity in college faculty is not merely because all the professors are white and of European descent (though that number is high). A recent report from Mother Jones found that:

At some schools, like Harvard, Stanford, the University of Michigan, and Princeton, there are more foreign teachers than Hispanic and black teachers combined.

So we are hiring diverse faculty members on a global stage, but not a national one. There are an estimated 41.7 Black Americans, and an estimated 54 million Hispanic ones, according to the 2010 U.S. Census numbers. That comes out to about 13.2 percent and 17 percent of the total U.S. population, respectively. To put this in perspective, there are student protests going on at Michigan public universities, demanding that 10 percent of faculty members be African American. When you take urban areas like Detroit (where 84.3 percent of the population is Black) into account, asking for 10 percent is a drop in the bucket – yet students are rallying to get the support to make it happen.

When you look at numbers like this, it’s tough to get all warm and fuzzy inside about diverse faculty at U.S. colleges and universities. Are schools even serious about hiring diverse individuals? Or is all this talk of having various populations just a horse and pony show?

I’ve written before about how truly instrumental a diverse faculty is to creating a diverse student population. It takes focus and hard work, though. That starts with the decision-makers and search committees on college campuses.

So what can universities do to take the ideology of diverse faculty and make it a reality?

Money Talks

Anyone who has worked on a college campus knows that it takes a lot of money to make things happen. It takes money to conduct research, to run departments, to have the right resources in the classroom, and to do anything, really. The same is true of developing a truly diverse faculty body. Instead of throwing money at outside hiring firms, some universities like Vanderbilt University are giving it to their departments. Financial incentives make it more attractive for departments to look for diverse faculty members to fill positions. Adding a financial component makes hiring diverse faculty members actionable. Is this the best way to attract diverse candidates? Probably not. But it is certainly effective.

Vanderbilt isn’t the only university throwing money at this problem either. Brown University, for example, has announced that it is dedicating $100 million to look into diversity and race issues on its campus in the next decade. The faculty at the Providence campus is overwhelmingly white and male.

Targeting with Purpose

The University of Virginia approaches diverse faculty hiring from a few angles. The first is by establishing associate deans assigned to diversity within schools and programs. It is quite literally the job of these decision makers to recruit and hire diverse employees for the university. UVA also requires any members of faculty search committees to attend diversity training sessions. There are other universities like Westchester and Harvard that have established similar procedures that empower school employees to expand and maintain diversity in the ranks. A college should never assume that every hiring manager understands what is expected in the way of diversity; it must be expressly outlined and then decision makers must be trained.

Lewis & Clark College in Oregon planned a diversity forum after a Rwandan student reported being assaulted because of his skin color. The school’s president Barry Glasner has also said an action plan is being put in place to improve diversity in faculty and students, as well as race relations at the school.

The University of Connecticut hired a Chief Diversity Officer who works towards improving the diversity of the student population AND of faculty and staff. UConn’s president Susan Herbst has said publicly that she was disappointed in the lack of diverse faculty members when she first arrived on campus four years ago and that UConn is severely lacking in an area where it really should shine. The trend of hiring Chief Diversity Officers is a positive one, as long as these executives are really empowered to make changes.

Recruiting Smartly

It is not enough for a college or university to be located in a diverse area; these schools must also aggressively recruit their target population, within and outside the community. This includes students, of course, and long before they are filling out college applications. When it comes to faculty, universities should have a targeted message for candidates who are minorities. This should include the reasons why that particular school is a good fit for minority faculty members – and if that school is still working to balance its diversity, that should be mentioned. If a college or university is located in a multi-cultural or urban area, that should be part of the pitch. If not, colleges should find other ways to make themselves attractive to minority candidates.

Mentoring to Tenure

After the initial hire, minorities should be encouraged to stay on campus through tenure goals. Minorities need mentorship to make this happen though, and colleges need to have minority and women tenure-track programs. By immediately letting those goals be known to the new minority hires, there is a higher chance for retention and for those diverse faculty members to end up mentoring some new hires of their own.

In the end, more minorities on college faculty only serves the benefit of everyone. It gives minority students realistic role models and gives non-minority students the chance to work with professors who may not look like them. Even the colleges themselves benefit from the added life experiences these minority faculty members bring to the table. In order to tap into the potential of a truly diverse, truly experience-rich college experience, we need to pay just as much attention to the variety in our faculty as we do to our students.

Overall, it’s becoming clear to just about everyone how important it is to prepare our workforce for the diversity of our country, and to support ALL Americans in becoming prepared for the ever-increasing demands of the workforce. It’s time to make some changes to our colleges and universities, and turn them into training hubs that benefit everyone. Once we figure out how to serve our population, we can see the kind of prosperity that even this wealthy country has never seen before.

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education December 3, 2016

My College Is Being Blackmailed

**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 column by Professor Bryan W. Van Norden

My college is being blackmailed.

The story of the blackmail goes back to Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education under Bush the Younger. Spellings (who has no classroom teaching experience, and no degree that would even qualify her to teach at the college or university level) has three claims to fame. First, Spellings is the only sitting member of a Presidential Cabinet to be on Celebrity Jeopardy. She came in a distant second to actor Michael McKean (best known as “Lenny” on the sitcom Laverne and Shirley). Second, she is responsible for the No Child Left Behind program. Nicknamed “No Child Left Awake,” this initiative forces educators to teach students how to pass standardized tests, rather than helping students to actually learn. Apparently concerned that she had not done enough damage to US education, Spellings also convened a Commission on the Future of Higher Education. One of the recommendations of the Commission was that colleges and universities institute a “robust culture of accountability” emphasizing “learning outcomes.”

So what is wrong with that? The basic format for teaching humanities goes back at least as far as the Roman Empire in the West and the contemporaneous Han dynasty in China. Students read challenging works. Students discuss those works. Students write about those works. The instructors lecture, guide the discussions, and give feedback on the writing. Thomas Aquinas was doing this in 13th-century Europe and Zhu Xi was doing this in 12th-century China. This basic framework has been unchanged for over two millennia for a simple reason: it is the only one that has ever worked.

However, the preceding is not good enough for advocates of “learning outcomes” and the related shibboleth “outcomes assessment.” They want outcomes that can be “measured” and “tested.” They are quick to explain that assessment need not be quantitative in the humanities. But we already have a qualitative vision of what outcome we want (that is what the major and general education requirements are about) and we already have qualitative measures for assessing outcomes (these are known by the arcane technical terms “comments on your essay,” “grades,” and “letters of recommendation”).

Since I am fortunate to be at a private liberal arts college with a long history of being a leader in higher education, why should I care about what some failed Celebrity Jeopardy contestant said about outcomes assessment? Here is where the blackmail is occurring. Every college and university that hopes to maintain its prestige and be eligible for certain kinds of funding must be “accredited.” Accreditation is done through NGOs that wield immense amounts of power, despite not being answerable to anyone. The NGO responsible for accrediting our school has been taken over by devout apostles of outcomes assessment, and they insist that we must institute a “culture of assessment” – or else.

Here is my assessment of the outcome (pardon the expression) of this situation: either our school’s educational practices will be perverted, or we will institute a purely formal version of outcomes assessment, lacking in any actual content. I am hoping for the latter. In a meeting with a representative of our accrediting body, I asked whether the philosophy department could develop a checklist based on our stated goals, and have instructors certify that essays written by senior majors met these goals. (“Good grammar? Check. Independent thought? Check. Take the best that has been thought and said and transmute it into wisdom in the smithy of your soul? Check.”) Incredibly, she said that sounded fine. It is not the worst result if we can find some bureaucratic trick that allows us to continue to teach in what is transparently the best way. (Apparently some other schools are also trying the “just write something to get them off our backs” approach. The following is from an actual outcomes statement at another college that we were given as a paradigm: “The goal of the political science department is to transmit the knowledge of the discipline by providing courses and instruction that are characterized by excellence.”) However, whatever approach we employ, we incur what economists refer to as a significant “opportunity cost.” In their incisive essay, “Is Outcomes Assessment Hurting Higher Education?” James Pontuso and Saranna Thornton note that “Ongoing assessment diverts teachers from teaching. Instead of preparing their courses, meeting with students, or grading papers – in short, executing their teaching duties – instructors must spend a substantial amount of time worrying about how to assess what they teach.”

I am not suggesting that higher education is perfectly fine just the way it is, either at my school or at other institutions. For example, I chaired a committee that recommended that my college work for greater clarity and consistency in its quantitative, writing, and foreign language requirements. But this will not result in “measurable” or “testable” outcomes. I say all of the preceding as a dedicated teacher. I can show you letters from students telling me that my classes changed their lives, three textbooks that I wrote specifically to meet the needs of my students, mountains of essays with my carefully written comments, and sheaves of handouts I painstakingly prepared to address confusions my students had. That is what teaching is about, not about pseudo-rational “outcomes.” As Pontuso and Thornton wrote: “Many people’s lives have been affected by good teachers, but no one’s soul has ever been touched by a committee of test writers.”

____________________

Bryan W. Van Norden is a professor at Vassar College. He is the author, most recently, of Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy. The views expressed in this editorial are his own, and do not represent those of his department, the Vassar administration, or other faculty

Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education December 3, 2016

New partnerships are needed to arrest economic malaise in South Africa

This article was written by Steve Koch

South Africa’s Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan presented his 2016 mid-term budget on the back of a crisis in higher education funding characterised by widespread national student protests. The Conversation Africa’s business and economy editor Sibonelo Radebe asked Steve Koch to weigh the minister’s speech.

What is your reaction to the minister’s statements on funding higher education? Could he have done better?

The minister’s statements were well calculated, measured, and responsible in the current climate. The additional increase in National Student Aid Financial Scheme funds should go quite some way towards improving access to post-school education.

Assuming “better” means finding money to fund “free education for all, immediately”, the answer is no. Despite what student activists would like to believe, free education for all is pro-rich. This is because, disproportionately, students who qualify for post-school education come from richer households.

The answer is a more nuanced “maybe” if “better” means finding more money to help poor students fund their tertiary education. There are options, not necessarily palatable to all, such as privatisation of state-owned enterprises, which might raise revenue and reduce pressure on the fiscus. But changes of that nature would not be made in a medium-term budget. They would more likely feature in the State of the Union Address.

What should be done to address the higher education crisis in the long term?

There appear to be two components to this crisis. The one that appears to have driven the initial #FeesMustFall movement is that post-school education is relatively expensive and, even though funding for post-school education is one of the fastest rising budget items, student numbers have risen faster.

The bigger problem is that the economy has not grown fast enough to absorb workers for far too long. Students or their parents are left with potentially crippling debt and yet limited prospects to repay. Dealing with this will require some creativity, and a willingness to experiment to engender positive change in the economy. In my view, positive change requires opening up space and creating funding opportunities for entrepreneurs and businesspeople, while working to limit “rent-seeking”. Corruption, bribery and collusion are common forms of rent-seeking, which is the use of a position of power (political, economic or otherwise) to further your one’s own interests.

But one of the undercurrents of the current crisis is political, not economic. There is a desire for change, period. Thus, we see the rejection of democratically elected student council representatives, the rejection of current curricula and the rejection of socially accepted rules of engagement, among other things. Dealing with this will have to go far beyond the structures of a medium term budget.

What do you think credit rating agencies are taking out of this budget?

The medium term budget did not signal any big changes in policy associated with either large increases in budget deficits or long-term debt. And the minister was adamant that South Africa was able to control its own destiny.

These were important pronouncements because they underscored a commitment to budget sustainability.

The credit rating agencies are likely to take solace from this. But the minister is not capable of changing the economy overnight. And there are international risks, as well as local economic and political risks, beyond his control that remain important factors in credit rating decisions. Politically, uncertainty surrounding the minister’s continued appointment, as well as any potential replacement’s commitment to sound fiscal management, remains. Similarly, uncertainty surrounding the US Presidential elections, and the US’s continuing commitment to either free trade or Africa cannot be discounted. Economically, Brexit and the resultant relationship between Europe, the UK and Africa create further uncertainties about South Africa’s growth potential.

Given the prevailing political environment do you think the finance minister will achieve what he has set out to do?

One way to define the minister’s job description is that he has the responsibility to pay – sustainably – for activities that government would like to fund. He spoke about the realities of the local and international economic situation. He also restated the importance of creating a South Africa that was different (and far better) than the one inherited in 1994.

The reality is that government’s ability to directly fund new activities has decreased. But if business and civil society become more involved, government’s need to directly fund new activities will decrease.

For me one of the key takeaways was the message that the country’s full potential requires not just the government, but also the efforts of the private sector and civil society. If I’m reading this correctly it could herald the beginning of positive change in the economy and society.

It remains to be seen whether this theme permeates future government policy actions, or whether business and civil society begin to work with government and each other to achieve positive change. But the minister’s efforts are likely to open fiscal space, and, therefore, could help achieve what is required.

Steve Koch, Professor of Economics, University of Pretoria

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

Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Higher Education, Matthew Lynch November 30, 2016

Diverse Conversations: The Globalization of Higher Education

Visit the website of your favorite college or university, find the search box and type in the words “international programs,” “study abroad,” or something to this effect. What you will find out is that odds are, your favorite institution has a department that serves as the international arm of the university, developing partnerships with countries and organizations around the world. They are part of one of the biggest trends to hit today’s modern university. The trend that I speak of is commonly referred to as the “globalization of higher education.” For this week’s installment of “Diverse Conversations,” I interviewed Dr. George B. Forsythe, President of Westminster College, concerning the “globalization of higher education.” During his presidency, this private undergraduate liberal arts college has been transformed into a global leadership community nationally ranked for its diversity.

Q: What do scholars mean when they speak of the “globalization of higher education?”

A: There are several ways to look at globalization of higher education. (1) Academic Content—students need to know about and understand the world and American’s place in the global community. Colleges and universities respond by adding “global awareness” to their curricular outcome goals, including “global perspectives” across the curriculum, or adding specific programs in global studies, international studies, or transnational studies. (2) Educational Process—Colleges and universities provide a rich array of study abroad or study away experiences to students which are designed to immerse them in another culture. (3) Community Building—Colleges and universities recruit students from around the world in order to build the global community on campus where students live and learn together as global citizens. (4) Global Reach—Colleges and universities establish a physical and/or virtual presence in the international market. At Westminster, we are aggressively pursuing the first three, with major emphasis on creating a global community in America’s heartland, with 16% of our undergraduates coming from 75 different countries.

Q: What exactly is a global university?

A: I suspect when people use this term, they mean what I am suggesting in number 4 above. A global university is one that has a global presence, with physical campuses throughout the world and/or a virtual presence through distance learning. I also suspect it means the faculty and students are drawn from around the world.

Q: How can a U. S. college or university become a global institution while also staying true to its mission?

A: Westminster College was founded in Fulton, Missouri, to prepare citizens for useful service to the community through a high quality liberal arts education. We remain true to that mission, 162 years later, but our understanding of “the community” has expanded beyond the city, county, and state to the wider world. We have stayed true to our mission, but our sense of citizenship and community have become much broader, and for good reason.
The world is increasingly interconnected technologically and economically, and educated citizens today must understand the implications of these interconnections and must be able to respond effectively to this reality. Americans must be globally engaged if we are to preserve our democratic values and maintain the standards of living that continue to attract people of every nationality to our shores. Higher education, if it is truly “higher,” must help students develop a global understanding about current tensions and possible solutions. Staying true to our mission means we must help students look beyond the campus and see the world.

Q: What do students gain from being part of a global institution?

A: A college or university that is a global community opens students to new points of view, challenges their thinking about themselves and their world, and sets the stage for personal and professional growth. Exposure to people from different cultures helps students gain an appreciation for their own culture and equips them with the skills to succeed in a global economy. It also makes life more interesting and meaningful. It’s fun. I think Former Yale President, Kingman Brewster’s, comment about the value of a liberal education applies equally to the value of global learning communities: ”Perhaps the most fundamental value of a liberal education is that it makes life more interesting. It allows you to think things which do not occur to the less learned, it makes it less likely that you will be bored with life.”

At Westminster College, we have found that the global community we have assembled has enriched our learning environment in so many ways. International students and U.S. students work together in every area of campus life—academics, research, student government, Greek life, leadership and service, and athletics. Our students form friendships on campus that lead to many local and international service activities. In many ways, the community is the curriculum, as students from around the country and throughout the world live and learn together.

To illustrate our approach, in addition to traditional study abroad and international travel courses, which we offer in abundance, we also have created a program called Take-a-Friend-Home, which is designed to foster deep friendships between international and U.S. students and provide for significant cultural immersion. This program provides the funding for international and U.S. students to travel to each other’s homes during summer and winter breaks. Participation is limited, and students compete for this program by writing a curriculum that outlines what each will learn from the experience. Before they travel, they take a for-credit course that prepares them for cultural immersion; when they return, they write a reflection paper and share their experiences with the College community.

Q: What do you think other institutions can learn from what’s happening with the globalization of higher education?

A: In the 21st Century, “global education” is redundant—if it isn’t global, it isn’t an education. Both in terms of content and process, students will be better prepared for the challenges they will face after college if their education is global. College graduates must possess the knowledge, skills, and habits of mind that will allow them to thrive in a global community.

Well, that concludes my interview with President George B. Forsythe. I would like to thank him for taking time out of his busy schedule to speak with us.

Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Higher Education November 25, 2016

How Hollywood’s Lack of Diversity Impacts Higher Education

The 88^th Oscars certainly stirred the pot on diversity in Hollywood, and how it impacts the rest of society.

Whether you are a fan of Hollywood, or Chris Rock, or none of the above, it’s important to understand the impact of what we see on-screen – and what it means for our next generation of P-20 students.

A recent report from Media, Diversity and Social Change Initiative at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism highlights the “whitewashing” of Hollywood films. In essence, the report found that even when there are roles available for minorities, they are given to white actors who then “dress the part” to pull it off. The roles the report mentions go above and beyond the old-school blackface that white actors used to throw on in film’s earliest days. Some are simply characters that were historically of color, but were changed to have Caucasian characteristics in the films.

If you’ve been paying any attention to Hollywood over the past decade, none of these findings are shocking. In one of the most purportedly progressive industries in the world, women and minorities get much less screen time, talking time, and pay than their white, male peers.

So what does all of this mean when it comes to our college students? How does something as seemingly insignificant as Hollywood affect diversity in higher education?

Not enough role models

We already know that there are just not enough roles for black actors in movies or on television but let’s break that down a little further. Think about some of the most popular movies that showcased college students in the past decade – Neighbors, Old School, Van Wilder. In the spirit of classics like Animal House, these movies represented the fun side of earning a college degree in a constant state of inebriation but most of the students were white. You can probably spot a token minority character in each, but the lead roles all went to white males who, despite their often ridiculous antics, were still awarded degrees in the end. If they weren’t awarded degrees, they still landed on their feet with some other sort of job (unrealistic for all college students). The problem with leaving black students out of this college conversation on film is that it subtly sends a message that a higher education is something reserved for white, privileged men (and some women, too).

The scenario doesn’t improve when movies graduate to the adult world. When you think of a black man in a movie that is set in contemporary times, what role comes to mind? A police officer or detective? A drug dealer or pimp? How about a black woman? With the exception of breakthrough roles like Viola Davis’ lead in the hit TV series “How to Get Away with Murder,” there are not a lot of women in professional roles on-screen. As already mentioned, even roles that could feasibly be played by people of color are given to white people who are then praised for their outstanding performances acting like a person totally different from who they actually are. In truth, minorities are a vibrant, important part of the American workforce. They are professionals (who aren’t always in law enforcement), teachers, CEOs and small business owners. Where are these characters on screen?

The problem with slave movies

Even historical films have their issues when it comes to the way diversity is portrayed. Hollywood likes to pat itself on the back for films like Twelve Years a Slave but do they really represent progress? These movies certainly tell important stories but they provide roles that show black actors in a stereotypical light. Why have the only black-led films to win Best Picture awards centered on slavery? It’s almost as if Hollywood has decided that to fix this problem of diversity on screen, movies that have “black” roles need to be made.

That’s not the entire solution though. How about making that lead fictional character who is a teacher a black actor? Or writing in stage directions that all crowd scenes be half minority and half women? Putting black actors in a ready-made film category is part of the problem; it further distances them from the mainstream movie industry. It essentially sends the message that only explicitly black roles go to black actors – and that hurts the overall portrayal of diversity everywhere, including on college campuses.

Solving the Hollywood diversity problem won’t directly improve inclusion on college campuses, but it certainly can’t hurt. As higher education professionals, we should support the push to change what we see on screen – and point out the problem whenever possible to our students of all races and ethnicities.

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education November 17, 2016

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.

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.

How Colleges Can Maintain Diversity in a Trump-Led America

The case for a fixed 15% fee on all student loans

Not a radical idea

Benefits to low income earners

Benefits to the government

Why 15% fee?

University transformation: the wrong research questions are being asked

Research trends in South Africa

Shortcomings in research

Expansion is no longer the answer to improving the Australian education system

Human capital theory

Promise and performance

Growth still the solution?

A different orientation for public policy

Learning the lessons of experience

Diversity in Higher Education: How to Get American Colleges to Catch Up to the 21st Century

My College Is Being Blackmailed

New partnerships are needed to arrest economic malaise in South Africa

Diverse Conversations: The Globalization of Higher Education

How Hollywood’s Lack of Diversity Impacts Higher Education

Not enough role models

The problem with slave movies

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

Just a popular political strategy?

More selective and lower standards

Implications for policy

Main Links

Blog

Pedagogue

My Profile

Higher Education

Not a radical idea

Benefits to low income earners

Benefits to the government

Why 15% fee?

Research trends in South Africa

Shortcomings in research

Human capital theory

Promise and performance

Growth still the solution?

A different orientation for public policy

Learning the lessons of experience

Not enough role models

The problem with slave movies

Just a popular political strategy?

More selective and lower standards

Implications for policy

Main Links

Blog

Pedagogue

My Profile

Are you sure you want to delete post?