From Holga to HigherEd

There are several causes for concern today regarding the American Higher Education system. Scholars and experts argue for financial aid reform, improvements in access, expanding diversity initiatives, and so on. I agree that these areas, amongst others, certainly require serious attention, but, at the moment, I believe that students, as well as the general public are beginning to lose trust in American higher education. This lack of trust manifests itself through college drop-outs and state budget cuts to public colleges.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the college drop out rate in America ranks dead last among 18 of the most developed nations in the world—only graduating 46% of the students who began their undergraduate studies. That’s worse than former Soviet bloc countries Slovakia (63%) and Poland (61%). Another interesting point is that 78% of students enrolled at American for-profit institutions fail to graduate within six years.

These college drop-outs aren’t only paying a bill on an education they haven’t fully completed, they’re backing out of investments in higher education made by the American taxpayer. A study performed by the American Institute for Research (AIR) concluded that $4.5 billion was lost in general income and state and federal income taxes because of college drop-outs.

“Taxpayers have paid billions of dollars in subsidies to support these students as they pursue degrees they will never earn, and as a nation, we incur billions in lost earnings and lost income taxes each year,” said Mark Schneider, Vice President at AIR.

With a 46% graduation rate and a loss of $4.5 billion in tax revenue, we’re left to wonder: How can we retain our college students? And how can we assure taxpayers will see a better return on their investments in American higher education?

The answer? Data. Data-mining. Quantitative/Qualitative analyses. Algorithms. Number-crunching. Whatever you want to call it. The community of prospective undergraduates, current undergraduates, University faculty and staff, parents, and taxpayers deserve more transparency, communication, and assistance in graduating students. Incoming freshmen should have the opportunity to sit down with an advisor and review his/her statistical chances on graduating based on competitive variables such as high school GPA, high school curriculum, SAT scores, but undiscussed variables like socio-economic status, high school alma mater success rate, on-campus student vs. off-campus student grades, intended major success rate, etc.

Being armed with statistical strengths and weaknesses can better prepare students for challenges unique to his/her own. Universities can strategize and assist those students in improving their standing (i.e. part-time job placement, focused tutoring sessions, faculty or upperclassmen mentoring, etc.).  But even more so, students can band together with other students who share the same obstacles—creating cohorts that provide academic, social, and emotional support. These cohorts, challenges, and support systems are evident in students who’ve partaken in the Posse Foundation.

Today the Posse Foundation selects about 600 students a year, from eight different cities. They are grouped into posses of 10 students from the same city and go together to an elite college; about 40 colleges now participate in the program.

The Posse Foundation groups 10 students with similar characteristics (urban students who possess creativity, intelligence, and resiliency, but may have sub-standard SAT scores) and place them at a liberal arts college. Participants in Posse boast a 90% graduation rate—significantly above the national average. While every member of Posse receives a scholarship covering the full cost of tuition—eliminating the barrier of economic hardship—these students serve to help each other in regards to their academic, social, and emotional challenges in college.

The same NY Times article, featuring Posse, furthers my point of student retention. Apparently DePauw University created small freshmen cohorts, pairing them with upperclassmen mentors. In this setting they discussed time management, the risks of drinking, and preparing for mid-terms. In addition, they delayed fraternity and sorority recruitment by one week in order for these freshman cohorts to create stronger rapport from within. In one year, DePauw saw an increase in freshman retention from 86, 87% to 91, 92%.

While the cost of higher education in America desperately needs to be reduced, those who are making the investment—the prospective and current students as well as the taxpayers—should be able to rely on tactical measures made by University practitioners in keeping more than half of our college students in the classroom! It would be prudent for University administrators to take heed to this advice because it’s becoming clear that—through the increase in college drop-outs and state budget cuts—investors are becoming disillusioned by the high price of a college education.

International admissions officers at American universities will have to augment their recruitment strategies in the upcoming years.

This week India celebrated a new benchmark: 20% of their citizens aged 18-24 are currently enrolled in university classes according to India’s University Grants Commission chairman, Ved Prakash. That is a 7.5% increase from 2007-08 and India hasn’t showed any sign of slowing down.

But why does this matter?

It matters because this is a hard metric of growth that we’re seeing from the third largest higher education system in the world, and India has plans to continue growing. India is building 374 universities in remote areas of their country, attempting to reach their goal of a 30% enrollment rate by 2017. Not only is India trying to improve access for rural students, they are trying to re-claim the 100,000 competitive students who annually leave to study in America.

This aggressive campaign to boost enrollment is focused on the now intense and soon-to-be incredibly intense demand for higher education in India. Today, nearly one third of India’s 1.2 billion citizens are under the age of fourteen. If, by the end of the decade, India meets its’ goal of 30% enrollment, they will nearly double the amount of American students attending university.

Investments made into the Indian higher education system could re-define the course of the country, if not Asia as a whole. In fact, China, too, has devised and implemented ambitious higher education goals with Projects 211 and 985. However, China’s higher education system—under the censoring, anti-western regime of president Hu Jintao—has strict boundaries. This is one of many reasons why Chinese students continue to attend American universities in droves. Moreover, they are taking advantage of under-funded schools, such as those in the UC system. Some of the highest excelling Californian students have been denied admittance by their state universities, who instead have opted to accept foreign-born Chinese students. 

According to a Zinch survey, 53% of Chinese respondents can afford $40,000 a year for tuition. As America’s seventh largest export, higher education only continues to grow. The Institute of International Education’s Open Doors reports that university enrollment of Chinese students in America has increased by 23% from 2010 to 2011, while that of Vietnamese students grew by over 13% during the same time period.

South Korean students, on the other hand, had increased enrollment by 3.7%. Unlike India, there is no impending population boom, and, as a result, nothing to fear for the west. However, when examined more closely, South Korean students should be heavily recruited. 

South Koreans have the highest education costs borne by households and one of the lowest government spending rates in the sector; it has the third-highest tuition fees and the second-lowest level of government investment in scholarships, loans and grants; it has the highest transition rates from secondary into tertiary education of any country and the lowest happiness rates for students.

Much like the Chinese, South Koreans can also afford hefty tuition prices. With students in India expected to stay home and study in the near future, where will American universities find the extra revenue?

While I wasn’t selected for the program associate position with the Council for Aid to Education (CAE), I did receive an e-mail from their Director of Business Development. I was asked to come in on Friday for an interview and to discuss my views on two particular points:

• The publication of Academically Adrift
• The possible by-products of the recent Atlanta cheating scandal

The CAE compiled the data used in the now, famous book, Academically Adrift. While I’ve read about Academically Adrift in the NY Times, the Chronicle and other media outlets, I haven’t read the book itself. I plan on purchasing it tomorrow morning and ripping it to shreds before Friday—don’t expect to see me anywhere else but my room until then!

As for the scandal in Atlanta, this is an interesting topic to discuss with the CAE—a standardized testing non-profit group. Clearly, the reason for increasing the test scores was money. No one wanted to lose funding and someone—the chancellor, administrators, principals and/or teachers—made a conscious effort to alter those scores. 

So am I to convey my insight on how to prevent a mass-cheating scandal like that again? Ideas to re-tool the NCLB test? Bring in a third party testing group? Should I give reason to the behavior of who is at fault or put that person to blame for sabotaging the analysis of the students? or both? Should I be more concerned about the reasoning of standardized testing or the policy workings that create classrooms to become absolute win-or-lose environments? Is taking a page out of Diane Ravitch’s book the right or wrong thing to do here?

I’m not entirely sure. I have a bit more reading to do before I can ascertain how I truly feel about the entire issue. But what I can say is that opportunity rises from tragedy and we shouldn’t waste a chance to do it better the next time.

Friday afternoon is going to be exciting, that’s for sure!

Welcome everyone to my blog, From Holga to HigherEd. I graduated from the University of North Carolina-Wilmington in the Fall of 2008 with a degree in Creative Writing armed with loads of experience in Student Affairs. Since then I have taught English in South Korea and soon thereafter, served New York City students as an AmeriCorps volunteer. 

As an AmeriCorps volunteer, I was placed with Common Cents, a service-learning initiative operating in over 725 schools in New York City and 1,000 schools nationwide. During this year’s Penny Harvest campaign our schools in New York City raised over $518,000. As a result, these students decided how best to allocate their school’s share of the funds during intense eight-week roundtable discussions. 

During my time at Common Cents, I had the pleasure of training and managing 139 faculty volunteers that implemented the Penny Harvest in their schools. There are a plethora of stories that express the passionate, creative and philanthropic ideas that students have come up with. I hope to share them with you throughout the next year as I lead the charge towards my very own campaign: applying to grad school for Higher Education Administration.

Sadly, my contract with Common Cents expires in exactly one week!

So it’s fitting that I begin my first entry the day after my big interview with the Council for Aid to Education.

Outside of actually working for a university, this organization accomplishes something that is a HigherEd geeks’ dream—at least for one that’s interested in the trends and analytics (not so much the late-night games of banana-grams in the dormitories). 

I went into the interview with the knowledge that the CAE supplied most of the data used in the controversial book Academically Adrift.

How cool?!

I recall that book making a huge stir, not just in the Chronicle, but across the mainstream media as well. Parlaying what I learned from reading up on the book helped generate a lively discussion with their Program Director. 

The demands of the prospective Program Associate are freakishly similar to that of my current position as an AmeriCorps volunteer at Common Cents. Instead of managing a large portfolio of public schools taking part in the Penny Harvest, I would potentially manage a large portfolio of institutions taking part in their assessment exam, the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA).

I really have my eyes set on this position and if I don’t get it, I’m afraid I’ll be totally bummed out. The idea of having a chance to learn more about the progress of students, in the undergrad setting—without taking formal graduate level classes—is a rare opportunity. I just feel as though working at CAE would be a tremendous opportunity for me to grow. And that’s truly rare to find in the workplace.

So, fingers crossed?