Higher Ed Watch

A Blog from New America's Higher Education Initiative

Great News! Reports of College Completion Crisis Grossly Overstated

  • By
  • Amy Laitinen
September 26, 2012
Publication Image

Great news for those who have been worrying about the college completion crisis – we are focusing on the wrong measures of success. At least that's what Tracy Fitzsimmons, president of Shenandoah University and representative for the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, seems to think. If you listen to Fitzsimmons' testimony at last week’s House Education and Workforce Committee hearing on college data, you might be surprised to learn that students don’t drop out because they lack financial or academic support from their colleges or universities. They drop out because they have opportunities that are better than college. Opportunities like becoming members of Congress or joining the national touring company of Beauty and the Beast.

Helping Students Choose Their Own Adventure in Higher Ed

  • By
  • Rachel Fishman
September 25, 2012
Publication Image

What information do students and families most want to know about a prospective college or university? Is it the same as what policymakers and institutions think they need to know? The truth is, we know shockingly little about how students decide where to go to college, making it difficult to figure out how to help students choose colleges that will be the best “fit.”

As someone who has worked with students and in policy, I understand how powerful contextual and trustworthy information about colleges can be. But information only helps students and families if it gets into their hands and they know how to use it. That’s why over the next few months at Higher Ed Watch, I will be sifting through and reviewing free online resources about the college process that students, families, guidance counselors, college access professionals, and others can use to meet their unique needs.

The idea for this project came about last week when Kevin Fudge from American Student Assistance and I presented "Helping Students and Families Choose Their Own Adventure Successfully" at the National College Access Network’s annual conference. We realized through our work with students at the federal TRIO program’s Educational Opportunity Centers in Boston (we were co-workers before I transitioned to policy) that the decision about where to go to college can seem like a Choose Your Own Adventure book where each decision is fraught with unpredictable outcomes. Choose wrongly and you might walk into the proverbial dragon’s lair. Choose correctly and you will be able to get to that light at the end of the tunnel.

A Bipartisan Approach to Holding Higher Education Accountable

  • By
  • Clara Hogan
September 21, 2012

When Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., graduated from law school, he faced the reality of $125,000 in student debt. The now junior U.S. senator said he never regretted making such an investment in his education, but wishes he had more information before enrolling in school about the job and salary prospects after graduation.
 
Now Rubio and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., are making a bipartisan push to create a centralized resource for prospective students and families to find the type of information Rubio said would have benefited him as a young adult. The senators spoke about their bill, The Student Right to Know Before You Go Act, and transparency in higher education in general at an event this week co-hosted by the New America Foundation’s Education Policy Program and the American Enterprise Institute.
 
The bill, if passed, would bring data — most of which currently exist at the state level but are inaccessible to the public — together in a comprehensive and comparable way. The information would be at the institution and program level and include factors such as the chances of students graduating in four years, the average amount of debt accumulated, the number of students employed after graduation, and their average salary.

Forging a New Morrill Act for the 21st Century

  • By
  • Kevin Carey
September 19, 2012

[This article ran first at Zócalo Public Square]

To understand how public universities reached their present state of decline and near-crisis, you might look back a century and a half to July of 1862, when Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Land Grant Act into law. The act, to which we can credit many of the higher-education triumphs of the United States, did not, as is sometimes believed, give states acreage upon which to build huge public universities. Instead, each state was granted rights to federal land in the western territories, the income from which would be used to create:

at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.

To implement the law, the federal government gave states scrip redeemable for land. Flooding the market with newly printed currency caused inflation, and many states sold their land rights quickly for 30 cents an acre. In New York, by contrast, Ezra Cornell convinced state leaders to wait for the market to rebound and eventually directed the purchase of a half million acres of valuable pine forest in Wisconsin, returning nearly $10 an acre to the university bearing his name.

Thus, the Morrill Act helped establish bedrock features of America’s public universities that persist to this day. Tension between mechanic arts and classical studies—between the practical and the sublime—would be built into their character. They would serve industrial and other classes who had seldom if ever before been seen as worthy of higher education. The states would be given free rein to run public universities in such manner as their legislatures prescribed. And some states, in matters financial and otherwise, would prove much wiser than others.

Why Congress Should Not Revive the Higher Education Tax Deduction

  • By
  • Stephen Burd
September 18, 2012

The Higher Education Tax Deduction, the most regressive of all the government’s tuition tax break programs, expired in December. But unfortunately, we may not have seen the last of it.

As our sister blog Ed Money Watch reported last month, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee has approved legislation that would revive the tuition tax deduction program, which allows students and their families to subtract from their taxable income up to $4,000 a year in tuition and fees. Under the measure, filers would be able to continue claiming the benefit in tax years 2012 and 2013.

Congress created the tuition tax deduction as part of President George W. Bush’s broader tax cut legislation in 2001. Private college leaders championed the deduction, saying it would be more helpful to students attending their high-priced schools than the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits that the Clinton administration and Congress created in the late 1990s to make college more affordable for the middle class. Powerful lawmakers from Northeastern states, where these institutions are heavily represented, took up the cause and convinced their colleagues to include the deduction in the larger tax cut package.

Getting What We Pay for: Using Financial Aid to Pay for Learning, Rather than Time

  • By
  • Amy Laitinen
September 13, 2012

Our entire massive multibillion-dollar federal financial aid system runs on credit hours. Credit hours are used to determine a student’s full- or part-time status, which changes the amount of aid an individual can receive. But as we note in our report Cracking the Credit Hour, credit hours simply measure time, not learning. Despite the trillions of dollars spent by students and taxpayers on higher education, we don’t know whether students are learning or not (and there is increasing evidence to suggest that students aren’t learning much at all). As higher education becomes increasingly necessary and increasingly expensive, measuring time, rather than learning, is a luxury that students, taxpayers, and the nation can no longer afford.

The U.S. Department of Education should use the three financial aid tools it currently has at its disposal to pay for learning, rather than time. This could go a long way in helping institutions think differently about how they do or do not think about learning.

The Credit Hour: A Poor Proxy for Student Learning

  • By
  • Amy Laitinen
September 11, 2012

While policy makers of all stripes are waking up to the college completion crisis, very little attention has been paid to the college quality crisis (that we have one, why we have one, or what we can do about it). Last week I wrote about the release of our new report, Cracking the Credit Hour, which reveals the credit hour’s curious origins and the fact that credit hours were never meant to measure, or be a proxy for, learning. In the absence of better, more consistent, and more transparent ways of measuring learning, however, credit hours have become the de facto measure. Over-reliance on time, rather than learning, is a key contributor to our quality crisis.

Study after study shows that our country’s college students are not measuring up. The National Center for Education Statistics has found that nearly 70 percent of college graduates could not correctly perform basic tasks like comparing opposing editorials. The ground-breaking Academically Adrift found shockingly low gains in students’ critical thinking, complex reasoning, and communication skills over two and four years in college. These findings are echoed by employers, who say that college graduates aren't well-prepared to succeed on the job.

The Curious Birth of the Credit Hour

  • By
  • Amy Laitinen
September 5, 2012

As anyone who has ever attended college probably realizes, the currency of degrees and credentials are credit hours.  But few people know where the credit hour comes from. Today the New America Foundation and Education Sector have released Cracking the Credit Hour, a report that covers the credit hour’s history from the days of Andrew Carnegie to the latest “credit hour” regulation. This new policy paper argues that measuring time, rather than learning, is a luxury that students, taxpayers, and the nation can no longer afford. Throughout the week, I will be blogging about Cracking the Credit Hour, beginning with the origins of the credit hour.

Surprisingly, credit hours  came about largely because of professor pensions, and not as a way to measure learning. As a trustee of Cornell University, Andrew Carnegie was bothered by low compensation that didn’t allow faculty to save for retirement. Through the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, he created a free pension system for professors (the legacy lives on today as the not-free TIAA-CREF).  Colleges and universities were of course eager to participate in a system that offered free pensions for their faculty. The Foundation decided to leverage this excitement to promote high school reform by requiring that any college wanting to participate in the pension program had to use the “standard unit,” developed earlier to standardize high school courses, for college admission purposes. Colleges had nothing to lose and free pensions to gain, so the time-based standard unit (forever after known as the “Carnegie Unit”) became the de facto standard for determining high school graduation and college admission requirements.

The Siege of Academe, Updated

  • By
  • Kevin Carey
August 30, 2012

Over the past few years, every new day has seemed to bring news of another higher education technology startup company promising to change the world. According to the National Venture Capital Association, investment in education technology jumped from $100 million in 2007 to nearly $400 million last year. Clearly, something is going on. So, on Easter weekend earlier this year, I flew to Silicon Valley to find out what, and why. The result was a long article in Washington Monthly, called “The Siege of Academe.” It was published earlier this week and you can read it here.

Some of the reasons I knew, or had guessed, beforehand. The world has changed since the first wave of ed tech startups went belly-up after the late-‘90s / early 00’s dot-com boom and bust. Educational tools have become more sophisticated and computing power cheaper as broadband access and mobile technology have spread. What I didn’t really understand until I got there was how the economics of technology startups have changed, too.

Getting Rid of the Student Loan Repo Man

  • By
  • Stephen Burd
August 29, 2012

Over the past 25 years, federal officials have put in place a punitive student loan collection system that is designed to stop “deadbeat” borrowers from ripping off the government by failing to repay their debt.

Among other things, policymakers have made it virtually impossible for student loan borrowers to discharge their debt in bankruptcy, and have removed any statute of limitations on the collection of these loans – allowing the government to unleash an army of student loan collection companies to pursue these borrowers to the grave. They have also empowered the government to garnishee the wages of defaulters without a court order, and seize tax refunds and other federal benefits, such as Social Security payments from elderly and disabled borrowers.

It is certainly unacceptable for students to take out federal loans without having any intention of paying them back. The reality, however, is that many, if not most, people who default on their federal loans do not choose to do because they want a “free ride.” They do so because they simply don’t have the money to make their payments.

Yet, as I wrote in a Washington Monthly article entitled “Getting Rid of the College Loan Repo Man,” our system for collecting on defaulted federal student loans does not recognize that distinction. Borrowers who deliberately skip out on their loans and those who are too financially distressed to repay them are subject to the same harsh treatment.

Syndicate content