By PETER SCHMIDT
Monday, November 10, 2008
http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/11/7010n.htm
Jacksonville, Fla.
The pursuit of institutional prestige has done little to improve the reputations of most colleges and, in fact, may be causing many of them to become less distinguishable from their competitors, according to research presented here on Saturday at the annual conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.
"Is the price of prestige worth pursuing?," asked Robert M. Hendrickson, a professor of education at Pennsylvania State University at University Park and moderator of a panel discussion of much of the research. Arguing that the quest for prestige "has time and again failed, and weakened institutions," he said colleges should focus on carrying out their basic missions and improving their academic offerings, and "let the chips fall where they may."
In one study presented here, Kyle V. Sweitzer, a data-resource analyst at Michigan State University's office of planning and budgets, and J. Fredericks Volkwein, a senior scientist at Penn State's Center for the Study of Higher Education, examined changes over nine annual issues in how colleges' undergraduate programs were rated by peer institutions in surveys administered by U.S. News & World Report. They found that only about two out of five institutions saw significant changes in their scores from 1999 to 2007, and the single biggest driver of such fluctuations was changes in colleges' admissions selectivity.
Moreover, the researchers found, master's-level universities and comprehensive colleges accounted for more than nine out of 10 of the 418 institutions with noteworthy changes in their peer-assessment scores. The nation's research universities and liberal-arts colleges "have been remarkably stable over time in their academic reputations," with just 14 of the former and 25 of the latter experiencing substantial changes in this area, according to a paper summarizing the researchers' findings. The study was limited to 1,095 colleges that remained in the same institutional category in U.S. News over the period covered.
All the efforts by colleges to improve their reputations did not appear to have bolstered how colleges over all were viewed by peers, the study concluded. The average score that colleges received in the U.S. News peer-assessment surveys remained unchanged over nine years, suggesting that college officials responding to the surveys viewed the ratings as a zero-sum game and—intentionally or subconsciously—tended to give only a certain number of colleges certain high or low scores each year.
"If one school goes up, another goes down, is really what it boils down to," Mr. Sweitzer said in presenting his and Mr. Volkwein's findings.
The best predictor of whether a college's reputation would rise was whether it increased the share of its entering freshmen who had been in the top quarter of their high-school class. An improvement in a college's graduation rate—an outcome closely related to selectivity—was the second best predictor of whether its reputation-based score would rise. Changes in the number of publications produced by each faculty member was correlated with changes in the reputation of comprehensive colleges in statistical but not practical terms because each faculty member would have to produce 10 additional publications a year for a college's rating to rise significantly, Mr. Sweitzer said.
More Prestige, More Sameness
In a second study presented by the panel, two doctoral students at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities—Thomas Sanford and Giljae Lee—looked at the variables that explained changes in colleges' U.S. News rankings over a two-year period, from 2006 to 2008. Comparing changes in the scores the magazine gave colleges with changes in the colleges' rankings, the researchers found that the lower ranked a college was, the more its ranking fluctuated in response to score changes. In other words, a low-ranked college could rise substantially based on only a slight increase in its point score, while a high-ranked college could have its score increase but see little or no rise in its ranking.
In a third study, J. Douglas Toma, an associate professor of higher education at the University of Georgia, closely examined efforts to gain prestige by four public colleges with very different missions: Georgia State University (a research institution), Georgia Southern University (a comprehensive institution), Georgia College & State University (a liberal-arts college), and Georgia Perimeter College (a community college).
Mr. Toma found that, despite differences in their missions, all four colleges shared "a common aspiration: reaching the next level in status hierarchy in American higher education." They also shared a "rather generic set of strategies" for attaining that goal, including attracting more accomplished students, improving campus amenities like housing and fitness facilities to aid in recruiting, and using intercollegiate athletics to better position themselves.
"Better facilities are bringing better students who are demanding better facilities," Mr. Toma said in presenting his findings. "The academic programs at these places are really changing only marginally."
Although all four colleges put substantial effort into "representing themselves as different," their strategies to gain prestige "are making them more similar to competitors or aspirational institutions," his paper says.
In the paper, Mr. Toma makes clear that he believes the pursuit of prestige poses risks. Georgia State, Georgia Southern, and Georgia College, he said, all could alienate traditional constituencies, like teaching-focused faculty members, part-time students, and "parents whose children can no longer get into an institution their tax dollars have supported." The colleges' need for private funds to finance their quest for prestige exposes them to pressure by lenders and donors, and efforts to raise admissions standards might lower access.
Mr. Toma's four-college analysis is part of a broader study of 41 colleges serving the Atlanta market. He said that he considered the four colleges representative of their types among all of the institutions he examined, and that the basic conclusions reached in his broader study, to be published in a book, "are identical" to those in his four-college survey.
Competing With Honors Colleges
In a fourth paper, presented separately at the conference, Elena V. Galinova, a senior undergraduate-studies adviser at Penn State's main campus, conducted case studies of how honors programs are run by three types of public institutions: a large research university, a master's university, and a community college. (She assigned the three fictitious names for reasons of confidentiality, and they cooperated extensively with her.)
Ms. Galinova focused on the question of whether honors programs produce social stratification at their host institutions. She concluded that they did not because they were open to large populations. Even the very selective programs at the research university had policies of reaching out to nonhonors students.
In fact, in terms of prestige, Ms. Galinova concluded that such programs "help decrease the degree of overall stratification between colleges and universities." The large research university she examined "may be dozens of places below Princeton or Penn on the U.S. News & World Report rankings list, but its honors college comes very close, is in fact almost equal, to them," she said.
Even inclusive honors programs, like the one at the master's university she examined, "might indirectly play a role in raising the perceived quality of their universities by helping them improve important institutional characteristics such as retention and graduation rates."
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
Showing posts with label higher education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label higher education. Show all posts
Monday, November 10, 2008
Students, Key to Obama's Win, May Not Be First on His Agenda
By PAUL BASKEN
Monday, November 10, 2008
http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/11/7030n.htm
Washington
College students are taking a lot of the credit for helping to elect Barack Obama as president. They're being warned by their political advocates, however, not to expect immediate action on their agenda.
Leaders of several student-advocacy groups, outlining their expectations for the Obama administration and Democrat-dominated Congress, said on Friday that they don't expect quick action on any higher-education issues, including President-elect Barack Obama's oft-repeated campaign pledge to enact a $4,000 tuition tax credit.
"Do I think it's doable? Absolutely," said Erica L. Williams, policy and advocacy manager at Campus Progress Action, a Washington-based advocacy group. "I think the question is the timing of it. How soon can that happen, given the priorities of the administration?"
The student-advocacy leaders helped coordinate a record turnout of some 24 million voters under the age of 30 for Tuesday's elections, with their support running 2-to-1 in favor of Mr. Obama (The Chronicle, November 6). Yet the leaders are now calling for patience, saying they recognize the new president will take office at a time of tough economic conditions with many competing priorities. The advocates spoke in a conference call on Friday just hours after the Labor Department announced that the unemployment rate had shot up to 6.5 percent, with 240,000 jobs lost in October alone, as clear a sign as any that the country is now in recession.
"We are hoping to definitely see it within the first few months, but that may or may not be a realistic expectation," Ms. Williams said of the tax break. "The good news, however, about young voters is that they are well aware of the time frame in which we're working."
Stimulating the Campus Economy
The first post-election action by Congress to help higher education might turn out to be funds for public colleges, as part of efforts to help states cope with tighter budgets, said Robert M. Brandon, coordinator of the Campaign for College Affordability, a coalition of advocacy groups.
Such funds for states, possibly in the form of money to help rebuild elementary and secondary schools, could be included in an economic-stimulus package that Congress passes either before Mr. Obama takes office or shortly afterward, Mr. Brandon said.
The Obama administration and Congress "are going to be looking at ways to stimulate the economy, so they're going to be spending money" after January 20, he said. "That's clear." The main question is whether the advocates can convince lawmakers and the administration that devoting more funds to higher education fits into "the priorities of putting money into the economy," he said.
The House of Representatives, as part of an economic-stimulus plan it approved earlier this year, proposed spending money to repair public elementary and secondary schools. That bill did not pass the Senate. A new attempt could expand the idea to finance repairs at public colleges, said Jennifer T. Poulakidas, vice president for Congressional and governmental affairs at the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
But others weren't sure such repairs should be the new administration's highest priority for higher education. For needy students struggling to afford college, federal money for campus-infrastructure projects might not be as beneficial as increasing grant aid, said Edward M. Elmendorf, senior vice president for government relations at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
But, Ms. Poulakidas said, federal spending on infrastructure could be attractive as a jobs-producing initiative that has the added benefit of improving public education.
Continuing Resolve
Either way, students recognize that their days of political organizing did not end with Mr. Obama's victory, said Heather Smith, executive director of Rock the Vote, which promotes voter participation among young Americans.
Rock the Vote moved its headquarters to Washington from Los Angeles primarily to play a greater role in the debates on Capitol Hill and inside the White House, Ms. Smith said on the conference call.
One of Mr. Obama's campaign promises was to establish the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which would provide $4,000 a year to college students who complete 100 hours of public service during the academic year.
The amount would be an improvement for students over existing programs, including the Hope credit, which is worth up to $1,650 for the first two years of college, and the Lifetime Learning credit, which is worth up to $2,000 a year. Both would be replaced by the American Opportunity Tax Credit.
"We are going to hold people accountable—our lawmakers who ran on these platforms and on these positions," said Shilpa Reddy, a lobbyist with the National Education Association and its "Got Tuition?" campaign, which organized the conference call.
"This is an ongoing process. This was the first step," Ms. Reddy said of the election of Mr. Obama and a larger Democratic majority in Congress. "They'll get our support, but we'll also make sure that their feet are going to be held to the fire."
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
Monday, November 10, 2008
http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/11/7030n.htm
Washington
College students are taking a lot of the credit for helping to elect Barack Obama as president. They're being warned by their political advocates, however, not to expect immediate action on their agenda.
Leaders of several student-advocacy groups, outlining their expectations for the Obama administration and Democrat-dominated Congress, said on Friday that they don't expect quick action on any higher-education issues, including President-elect Barack Obama's oft-repeated campaign pledge to enact a $4,000 tuition tax credit.
"Do I think it's doable? Absolutely," said Erica L. Williams, policy and advocacy manager at Campus Progress Action, a Washington-based advocacy group. "I think the question is the timing of it. How soon can that happen, given the priorities of the administration?"
The student-advocacy leaders helped coordinate a record turnout of some 24 million voters under the age of 30 for Tuesday's elections, with their support running 2-to-1 in favor of Mr. Obama (The Chronicle, November 6). Yet the leaders are now calling for patience, saying they recognize the new president will take office at a time of tough economic conditions with many competing priorities. The advocates spoke in a conference call on Friday just hours after the Labor Department announced that the unemployment rate had shot up to 6.5 percent, with 240,000 jobs lost in October alone, as clear a sign as any that the country is now in recession.
"We are hoping to definitely see it within the first few months, but that may or may not be a realistic expectation," Ms. Williams said of the tax break. "The good news, however, about young voters is that they are well aware of the time frame in which we're working."
Stimulating the Campus Economy
The first post-election action by Congress to help higher education might turn out to be funds for public colleges, as part of efforts to help states cope with tighter budgets, said Robert M. Brandon, coordinator of the Campaign for College Affordability, a coalition of advocacy groups.
Such funds for states, possibly in the form of money to help rebuild elementary and secondary schools, could be included in an economic-stimulus package that Congress passes either before Mr. Obama takes office or shortly afterward, Mr. Brandon said.
The Obama administration and Congress "are going to be looking at ways to stimulate the economy, so they're going to be spending money" after January 20, he said. "That's clear." The main question is whether the advocates can convince lawmakers and the administration that devoting more funds to higher education fits into "the priorities of putting money into the economy," he said.
The House of Representatives, as part of an economic-stimulus plan it approved earlier this year, proposed spending money to repair public elementary and secondary schools. That bill did not pass the Senate. A new attempt could expand the idea to finance repairs at public colleges, said Jennifer T. Poulakidas, vice president for Congressional and governmental affairs at the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
But others weren't sure such repairs should be the new administration's highest priority for higher education. For needy students struggling to afford college, federal money for campus-infrastructure projects might not be as beneficial as increasing grant aid, said Edward M. Elmendorf, senior vice president for government relations at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
But, Ms. Poulakidas said, federal spending on infrastructure could be attractive as a jobs-producing initiative that has the added benefit of improving public education.
Continuing Resolve
Either way, students recognize that their days of political organizing did not end with Mr. Obama's victory, said Heather Smith, executive director of Rock the Vote, which promotes voter participation among young Americans.
Rock the Vote moved its headquarters to Washington from Los Angeles primarily to play a greater role in the debates on Capitol Hill and inside the White House, Ms. Smith said on the conference call.
One of Mr. Obama's campaign promises was to establish the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which would provide $4,000 a year to college students who complete 100 hours of public service during the academic year.
The amount would be an improvement for students over existing programs, including the Hope credit, which is worth up to $1,650 for the first two years of college, and the Lifetime Learning credit, which is worth up to $2,000 a year. Both would be replaced by the American Opportunity Tax Credit.
"We are going to hold people accountable—our lawmakers who ran on these platforms and on these positions," said Shilpa Reddy, a lobbyist with the National Education Association and its "Got Tuition?" campaign, which organized the conference call.
"This is an ongoing process. This was the first step," Ms. Reddy said of the election of Mr. Obama and a larger Democratic majority in Congress. "They'll get our support, but we'll also make sure that their feet are going to be held to the fire."
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
Friday, November 7, 2008
Adjunct Exploitation Hurts Students
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Studies Link Use of Part-Time Instructors to Lower Student Success
By PETER SCHMIDT
At a time when colleges are under increasing financial pressure to rely more on part-time faculty, three new studies suggest that doing so erodes the quality of education many students receive.
Part-timers’ inability or unwillingness to devote more time to students outside the classroom, the research suggests, results in the denial of important support services to many students—including, often, those who need the most help.
And in a finding that breaks new ground, one of the studies concludes that heavy reliance on part-timers can actually hurt the performance of full-time, tenure-track faculty members. One possible explanation: Full-timers feel less secure at institutions that might replace them with part-time instructors and lecturers, said that study’s author, Paul D. Umbach, an associate professor of adult and higher education at North Carolina State University.
Part-timers are not the ones to blame, Mr. Umbach said: “We are not treating these faculties in a way that they are feeling valued.”
Faculty members who work part time—who are usually given adjunct-faculty status—are divided on the accuracy of the studies’ portrayal of their dedication and the obstacles they face.
Nancy McMahon, who works as a part-time English instructor at Madison Area Technical College, in Wisconsin, said she feels very much under the gun.
“You find it very hard to put in the kind of time you would like to because you have to do other things to make a living,” she said.
When she takes into account all of the time her college expects her to spend preparing for class, grading papers, and meeting with students in an office space she shares with other professors, the money she gets per course “comes out to minimum wage.”
But Barbara Houchen, a former college administrator and full-time professor of business who now works as a part-time instructor at several Maryland colleges, said she regularly interacts with students outside of class because doing so is expected and makes her effective. “You understand that it is part of your teaching obligation,” she said. “If you accept teaching for X number of dollars, then you accept that.”
Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said, “We have had our heads in the sand about this problem for many years, and the problem is getting worse.”
Most part-time faculty members are deeply committed to their work, Mr. Nelson said, but many are “just frazzled” as a result of the pressures placed on them, and “the students are paying a price for it.”
Vulnerable Populations
About 46 percent of the nation’s college faculty members are part time, up from 22 percent back in 1970, according to the most recent Education Department data on them, from 2003. Part-timers are especially prevalent at community colleges, accounting for about 67 percent of their teaching staffs, up about 40 percentage points from 1970 levels.
The National Education Association estimates, based on federal data, that part-time faculty members with teaching duties spend 91 percent of their time delivering instruction, compared with about 61 percent for full-time faculty members. Across all institutions of higher education, such part-time faculty members generally spend six to nine hours per week teaching for-credit classes and are paid just over a fourth as much, per course, as their full-time counterparts.
Of particular concern to some education researchers is the tendency of colleges to use part-timers to teach lower-level courses, as well as courses offered at night, when part-time students are most likely to be coming to their campuses.
“The reality is that both part-time faculty and part-time students are less engaged with the college,” said Kay M. McClenney, director of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin.
In night classes, she said, “those realities collide,” undermining students’ chances of succeeding. She expects the situation to get worse in the current economic downturn, as people who cannot find jobs enroll at public colleges to learn new skills, and the colleges, facing tight budgets, turn to part-time instructors to meet rising demand.
Considering that students from low-income backgrounds are most likely to attend community colleges, and that low-income students and college freshmen are the most likely to need advising and other support outside the classroom, Ernst Benjamin, a former director of research at the AAUP, said the recent results reinforce his concern that “the students who need help the most are not getting it.”
“A lot of this is budget driven,” acknowledged Mr. Benjamin, who is now the association’s general secretary. But, he said, “it is all contrary to the whole movement toward wanting to have better teaching and learning.”
Hurt Prospects
The findings of the three new studies on part-time faculty members are scheduled to be presented this week at the annual conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Two of the studies, focusing on the academic success of community-college students with part-time instructors, were jointly conducted by Audrey J. Jaeger, an associate professor of higher education at North Carolina State University, and M. Kevin Eagan Jr., a graduate student at the University of California at Los Angeles.
In a previous study, presented at a conference last spring (The Chronicle, April 4), Ms. Jaeger and Mr. Eagan examined the transcripts of 30,000 students at four public four-year universities in a Southeastern state and concluded that those students who were taught “gatekeeper” courses by part-time adjuncts, lecturers, or postdoctoral fellows were less likely to return for their sophomore years.
For their latest studies, the researchers analyzed data from California’s community-college system to try to determine whether being taught by part-timers influenced students’ prospects of reaching certain academic goals. In one of the studies, the findings of which were published last month in Research in Higher Education, Ms. Jaeger and Mr. Eagan examined the transcripts of about 25,000 first-time students whose course-taking behavior suggested they intended to transfer to four-year institutions.
The two researchers found that the likelihood of students continuing on to four-year institutions dropped by 2 percent for every increase of 10 percentage points in their credits earned with part-time faculty members. That remained true even after accounting for differences in the community colleges and in students’ backgrounds.
For the average student, the trend translates into an 8-percent drop in the likelihood of transferring. That is because the average student in the study earned almost 40 percent of credits from part-time faculty members.
In their other study, the researchers used similar methodology to examine the transcripts of about 179,000 students who, when enrolling, had stated a desire to earn an associate degree and then demonstrated their seriousness by completing at least nine credit hours by the end of their first year. The researchers found that each increase of 10 percentage points in overall exposure to part-time faculty members was correlated with a reduction of 1 percentage point in such students’ likelihood of earning associate degrees.
The researchers said both studies have important limitations, such as their inability to account for differences in students’ remedial class-taking behavior or out-of-class experiences.
Nancy B. Shulock, executive director of the Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy at California State University at Sacramento, said the study examining student transfers may have understated students’ success by tracking them over just five years. But, she said, “there is no disputing that having students be able connect on a personal and sustained basis with faculty is important.”
Commitment Gap
In Mr. Umbach’s study of the effects of part-timers on full-time faculty members, he analyzed 2001 survey data gathered by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles from about 21,000 faculty members at 148 two- and four-year colleges. He found that, compared with full-time faculty members, part-timers advised students less frequently, used active teaching techniques less often, spent less time preparing for class, and were less likely to participate in teaching workshops.
The most striking finding, Mr. Umbach said, is that when part-timers accounted for a substantial share of the instructors on a campus, its full-timers devoted substantially fewer hours than full-timers elsewhere to preparing for class or advising students.
Mr. Umbach speculated that full-time faculty members at colleges that employ large numbers of contingent faculty members feel they could be easily replaced, and are thus less committed to their institutions.
But other experts on labor in higher education have a different explanation for the effect. They note that, as the ranks of full-time faculty members dwindle, those remaining find themselves shouldering an ever-larger share of the burden for outreach, curriculum development, and student assessment and advising.
John S. Levin, director of the California Community College Collaborative, a policy-research center based at the University of California at Riverside, said that at colleges heavily staffed by part-timers, “it is difficult to have a coherent academic culture” where people within academic departments work together.
Making Do
Keith Hoeller, chairman of the adjunct-faculty committee of the Washington State affiliate of the AAUP, took issue with any suggestion that part-time faculty members were inferior to their full-time counterparts. What Mr. Umbach’s study is measuring, he said, “is not really part-timers versus full-timers, but institutional support.”
Mr. Umbach said he was sympathetic to part-timers, who, he said, are “treated like crap” and then faulted for not being more effective. “From an economist’s perspective, we are not giving them the rewards or incentives to do a good job,” he said.
A similar assessment was offered by Gwendolyn Bradley, who specializes in contingent-faculty issues as a senior program officer at the AAUP. She complained that, along with not being adequately compensated for time spent with students outside the classroom, many part-time faculty members are recruited by colleges at the last minute, hired with little scrutiny, and not permitted to select their own books.
Most of the faculty experts interviewed for this article said that because colleges are not likely to stop relying on part-time faculty members anytime soon, the key question raised by the latest research is how to make the best of the situation.
Several said the solution is offering part-timers contracts that reward them for giving more time to their jobs outside the classroom. They pointed to contracts in place at the City University of New York, the University of Michigan’s campuses, and Vancouver Community College, in British Columbia, as models of how to provide part-timers with incentives to improve the educational outcomes of their students (see a related article).
Ms. Jaeger, co-author of two of the studies focusing on community-college students, said part of the solution may be rethinking what classes part-timers are assigned to teach, and having them work with populations, such as full-time and upper-level students, who are least likely to need help outside the classroom.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
Studies Link Use of Part-Time Instructors to Lower Student Success
By PETER SCHMIDT
At a time when colleges are under increasing financial pressure to rely more on part-time faculty, three new studies suggest that doing so erodes the quality of education many students receive.
Part-timers’ inability or unwillingness to devote more time to students outside the classroom, the research suggests, results in the denial of important support services to many students—including, often, those who need the most help.
And in a finding that breaks new ground, one of the studies concludes that heavy reliance on part-timers can actually hurt the performance of full-time, tenure-track faculty members. One possible explanation: Full-timers feel less secure at institutions that might replace them with part-time instructors and lecturers, said that study’s author, Paul D. Umbach, an associate professor of adult and higher education at North Carolina State University.
Part-timers are not the ones to blame, Mr. Umbach said: “We are not treating these faculties in a way that they are feeling valued.”
Faculty members who work part time—who are usually given adjunct-faculty status—are divided on the accuracy of the studies’ portrayal of their dedication and the obstacles they face.
Nancy McMahon, who works as a part-time English instructor at Madison Area Technical College, in Wisconsin, said she feels very much under the gun.
“You find it very hard to put in the kind of time you would like to because you have to do other things to make a living,” she said.
When she takes into account all of the time her college expects her to spend preparing for class, grading papers, and meeting with students in an office space she shares with other professors, the money she gets per course “comes out to minimum wage.”
But Barbara Houchen, a former college administrator and full-time professor of business who now works as a part-time instructor at several Maryland colleges, said she regularly interacts with students outside of class because doing so is expected and makes her effective. “You understand that it is part of your teaching obligation,” she said. “If you accept teaching for X number of dollars, then you accept that.”
Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said, “We have had our heads in the sand about this problem for many years, and the problem is getting worse.”
Most part-time faculty members are deeply committed to their work, Mr. Nelson said, but many are “just frazzled” as a result of the pressures placed on them, and “the students are paying a price for it.”
Vulnerable Populations
About 46 percent of the nation’s college faculty members are part time, up from 22 percent back in 1970, according to the most recent Education Department data on them, from 2003. Part-timers are especially prevalent at community colleges, accounting for about 67 percent of their teaching staffs, up about 40 percentage points from 1970 levels.
The National Education Association estimates, based on federal data, that part-time faculty members with teaching duties spend 91 percent of their time delivering instruction, compared with about 61 percent for full-time faculty members. Across all institutions of higher education, such part-time faculty members generally spend six to nine hours per week teaching for-credit classes and are paid just over a fourth as much, per course, as their full-time counterparts.
Of particular concern to some education researchers is the tendency of colleges to use part-timers to teach lower-level courses, as well as courses offered at night, when part-time students are most likely to be coming to their campuses.
“The reality is that both part-time faculty and part-time students are less engaged with the college,” said Kay M. McClenney, director of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin.
In night classes, she said, “those realities collide,” undermining students’ chances of succeeding. She expects the situation to get worse in the current economic downturn, as people who cannot find jobs enroll at public colleges to learn new skills, and the colleges, facing tight budgets, turn to part-time instructors to meet rising demand.
Considering that students from low-income backgrounds are most likely to attend community colleges, and that low-income students and college freshmen are the most likely to need advising and other support outside the classroom, Ernst Benjamin, a former director of research at the AAUP, said the recent results reinforce his concern that “the students who need help the most are not getting it.”
“A lot of this is budget driven,” acknowledged Mr. Benjamin, who is now the association’s general secretary. But, he said, “it is all contrary to the whole movement toward wanting to have better teaching and learning.”
Hurt Prospects
The findings of the three new studies on part-time faculty members are scheduled to be presented this week at the annual conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Two of the studies, focusing on the academic success of community-college students with part-time instructors, were jointly conducted by Audrey J. Jaeger, an associate professor of higher education at North Carolina State University, and M. Kevin Eagan Jr., a graduate student at the University of California at Los Angeles.
In a previous study, presented at a conference last spring (The Chronicle, April 4), Ms. Jaeger and Mr. Eagan examined the transcripts of 30,000 students at four public four-year universities in a Southeastern state and concluded that those students who were taught “gatekeeper” courses by part-time adjuncts, lecturers, or postdoctoral fellows were less likely to return for their sophomore years.
For their latest studies, the researchers analyzed data from California’s community-college system to try to determine whether being taught by part-timers influenced students’ prospects of reaching certain academic goals. In one of the studies, the findings of which were published last month in Research in Higher Education, Ms. Jaeger and Mr. Eagan examined the transcripts of about 25,000 first-time students whose course-taking behavior suggested they intended to transfer to four-year institutions.
The two researchers found that the likelihood of students continuing on to four-year institutions dropped by 2 percent for every increase of 10 percentage points in their credits earned with part-time faculty members. That remained true even after accounting for differences in the community colleges and in students’ backgrounds.
For the average student, the trend translates into an 8-percent drop in the likelihood of transferring. That is because the average student in the study earned almost 40 percent of credits from part-time faculty members.
In their other study, the researchers used similar methodology to examine the transcripts of about 179,000 students who, when enrolling, had stated a desire to earn an associate degree and then demonstrated their seriousness by completing at least nine credit hours by the end of their first year. The researchers found that each increase of 10 percentage points in overall exposure to part-time faculty members was correlated with a reduction of 1 percentage point in such students’ likelihood of earning associate degrees.
The researchers said both studies have important limitations, such as their inability to account for differences in students’ remedial class-taking behavior or out-of-class experiences.
Nancy B. Shulock, executive director of the Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy at California State University at Sacramento, said the study examining student transfers may have understated students’ success by tracking them over just five years. But, she said, “there is no disputing that having students be able connect on a personal and sustained basis with faculty is important.”
Commitment Gap
In Mr. Umbach’s study of the effects of part-timers on full-time faculty members, he analyzed 2001 survey data gathered by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles from about 21,000 faculty members at 148 two- and four-year colleges. He found that, compared with full-time faculty members, part-timers advised students less frequently, used active teaching techniques less often, spent less time preparing for class, and were less likely to participate in teaching workshops.
The most striking finding, Mr. Umbach said, is that when part-timers accounted for a substantial share of the instructors on a campus, its full-timers devoted substantially fewer hours than full-timers elsewhere to preparing for class or advising students.
Mr. Umbach speculated that full-time faculty members at colleges that employ large numbers of contingent faculty members feel they could be easily replaced, and are thus less committed to their institutions.
But other experts on labor in higher education have a different explanation for the effect. They note that, as the ranks of full-time faculty members dwindle, those remaining find themselves shouldering an ever-larger share of the burden for outreach, curriculum development, and student assessment and advising.
John S. Levin, director of the California Community College Collaborative, a policy-research center based at the University of California at Riverside, said that at colleges heavily staffed by part-timers, “it is difficult to have a coherent academic culture” where people within academic departments work together.
Making Do
Keith Hoeller, chairman of the adjunct-faculty committee of the Washington State affiliate of the AAUP, took issue with any suggestion that part-time faculty members were inferior to their full-time counterparts. What Mr. Umbach’s study is measuring, he said, “is not really part-timers versus full-timers, but institutional support.”
Mr. Umbach said he was sympathetic to part-timers, who, he said, are “treated like crap” and then faulted for not being more effective. “From an economist’s perspective, we are not giving them the rewards or incentives to do a good job,” he said.
A similar assessment was offered by Gwendolyn Bradley, who specializes in contingent-faculty issues as a senior program officer at the AAUP. She complained that, along with not being adequately compensated for time spent with students outside the classroom, many part-time faculty members are recruited by colleges at the last minute, hired with little scrutiny, and not permitted to select their own books.
Most of the faculty experts interviewed for this article said that because colleges are not likely to stop relying on part-time faculty members anytime soon, the key question raised by the latest research is how to make the best of the situation.
Several said the solution is offering part-timers contracts that reward them for giving more time to their jobs outside the classroom. They pointed to contracts in place at the City University of New York, the University of Michigan’s campuses, and Vancouver Community College, in British Columbia, as models of how to provide part-timers with incentives to improve the educational outcomes of their students (see a related article).
Ms. Jaeger, co-author of two of the studies focusing on community-college students, said part of the solution may be rethinking what classes part-timers are assigned to teach, and having them work with populations, such as full-time and upper-level students, who are least likely to need help outside the classroom.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
Monday, May 26, 2008
Tax Myths Debunked
Readers add their 2 cents to California tax and spend debate
George Skelton
Capitol Journal, Los Angeles Times
May 26, 2008
SACRAMENTO — This seems like a nice, quiet day to answer e-mail -- at least some of the civil comments that have been rolling in about state taxes and deficit spending.
Readers have been reacting to columns I've written contending that until Capitol politicians summon the courage to raise taxes to pay for services the public demands, the state will continue to wallow in red ink.
Sure, programs should be prioritized and some pared or even eliminated. But this addiction to borrowing to meet daily expenses keeps digging the state into a deeper hole.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the all-time state borrowing champ, recently projected a $15.2-billion deficit for the next fiscal year -- roughly 15% of the general fund -- even after he and lawmakers already narrowed the gap by $8 billion.
Here's a representative sample of printable reader e-mail:
"Balancing the budget for California is very easy. Eliminate all handouts for illegal immigrants. Capture, convict, then deport those here illegally. . . . Saves us oodles of money."
--
Jeff
Jeff, illegal immigrants don't get many government handouts: no welfare, no food stamps, no Medi-Cal healthcare. Federal law does require that they be cared for in medical emergencies, including baby delivery, and be educated in public schools.
They're a drain on the state treasury, but not as huge as many believe.
Besides, there's very little Sacramento can do about illegal immigration. That's the feds' responsibility. State and local governments just get stuck with the bill.
"We have way too many government employees making way too much money. Cut salaries to match the private sector."
--
DW
Let's put it this way, DW: You could eliminate the pay of every state worker under the governor's control -- nearly 200,000 -- and still not erase the deficit. If you also fired every legislator and legislative staffer, you'd still fall short. You'd have to additionally ax all the personnel on state university campuses.
Why is that? Because roughly 75% of the state general fund flows out to local governments and schools. It's one of the unintended consequences of Proposition 13 that dramatically cut the property tax 30 years ago. Schools used to rely on the property tax. Now they rely on Sacramento.
As for matching state pay to private sector compensation: There aren't a lot of CHP officers and prison guards to compare with in the private sector. I doubt we want to emulate private companies and offer salary bonuses to civil servants -- say, for recruiting more welfare recipients. And multimillion-dollar severance packages for fired executives isn't anything government should copy.
"Get rid of commissions that have no use."
--
Jeff
OK, Jeff. Former Gov. Pete Wilson once suggested that and was told facetiously by his finance director: "The state will save thousands and thousands of dollars."
Fact is, non-salaried advisory commissions operate on shoestrings and are politically popular. Regulatory boards are funded by the industries they regulate, are self-sustaining and don't affect the deficit.
From a lot of people, in summary: When "the governator" came to office he had a $78-billion general fund budget. Currently, it's around $102 billion. That's roughly a 30% increase. Where'd the spending go?
People, one place it went was for Schwarzenegger's car tax cut. Yes, that tax cut counts as spending -- about $6 billion annually. It's because revenue from the car tax -- the vehicle license fee -- had gone to local governments, not the state. The governor generously agreed to replace the locals' lost revenue with money from the state general fund. But he never replaced the tax he grandiosely whacked. Big hole. Big mistake.
Another reason spending has climbed is because of aggressive borrowing. In Schwarzenegger's first year as governor, the state paid out $2.5 billion on general fund bonds. Soon that will be up to around $6 billion -- on bonds approved by voters.
Also, prisons have been gobbling up tax dollars because of tough sentencing, court-ordered healthcare reforms and big pre-Schwarzenegger raises for guards.
"The people of California are overtaxed already."
--
Kevin
Actually, Kevin, we're paying only slightly above the national average. Based on Census Bureau data, California ranks 17th in state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income. New York is third, Oregon 16th, Arizona 43rd. We're high in income and sales taxes, low in property taxes.
"Nothing could be simpler than balancing the California budget. Just raise the marginal rate on individual and corporate income taxes. It's the fairest possible way."
--
Michael
Michael, you should run for the Legislature.
"The political thinking in this state lacks any imagination. A sales tax [hike] will just send business out of state. A [new] fuel tax would accomplish our CO2 reduction goals and shift most of the negative impact out of state. We don't produce Hummers and SUVs."
--
Dallas
Right, Dallas, that's just what we want to do: Slap on another gas tax when motorists already are paying $4 per gallon, including around 70 cents in taxes. Pity the politician who tries that.
"I know personally of four families in the last two months who have decided to move to Oregon. They say California is just not a very good place to live anymore."
--
Raul
Raul, then they should head on up the road. That'll leave more room on the freeways for the rest of us and reduce property demand, making homes more affordable. I'll send them a road map.
"I do not live in California, but I am fed up with every politician who says that she/he will not raise taxes. I take this as a direct insult to my intelligence. . . . I have vowed to not vote for anyone who says taxes will not be raised."
--
June, in Illinois
June, you should move out here. A road map is on the way.
Thanks for reading and writing.
george.skelton@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap26-2008may26,0,17046.column
George Skelton
Capitol Journal, Los Angeles Times
May 26, 2008
SACRAMENTO — This seems like a nice, quiet day to answer e-mail -- at least some of the civil comments that have been rolling in about state taxes and deficit spending.
Readers have been reacting to columns I've written contending that until Capitol politicians summon the courage to raise taxes to pay for services the public demands, the state will continue to wallow in red ink.
Sure, programs should be prioritized and some pared or even eliminated. But this addiction to borrowing to meet daily expenses keeps digging the state into a deeper hole.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the all-time state borrowing champ, recently projected a $15.2-billion deficit for the next fiscal year -- roughly 15% of the general fund -- even after he and lawmakers already narrowed the gap by $8 billion.
Here's a representative sample of printable reader e-mail:
"Balancing the budget for California is very easy. Eliminate all handouts for illegal immigrants. Capture, convict, then deport those here illegally. . . . Saves us oodles of money."
--
Jeff
Jeff, illegal immigrants don't get many government handouts: no welfare, no food stamps, no Medi-Cal healthcare. Federal law does require that they be cared for in medical emergencies, including baby delivery, and be educated in public schools.
They're a drain on the state treasury, but not as huge as many believe.
Besides, there's very little Sacramento can do about illegal immigration. That's the feds' responsibility. State and local governments just get stuck with the bill.
"We have way too many government employees making way too much money. Cut salaries to match the private sector."
--
DW
Let's put it this way, DW: You could eliminate the pay of every state worker under the governor's control -- nearly 200,000 -- and still not erase the deficit. If you also fired every legislator and legislative staffer, you'd still fall short. You'd have to additionally ax all the personnel on state university campuses.
Why is that? Because roughly 75% of the state general fund flows out to local governments and schools. It's one of the unintended consequences of Proposition 13 that dramatically cut the property tax 30 years ago. Schools used to rely on the property tax. Now they rely on Sacramento.
As for matching state pay to private sector compensation: There aren't a lot of CHP officers and prison guards to compare with in the private sector. I doubt we want to emulate private companies and offer salary bonuses to civil servants -- say, for recruiting more welfare recipients. And multimillion-dollar severance packages for fired executives isn't anything government should copy.
"Get rid of commissions that have no use."
--
Jeff
OK, Jeff. Former Gov. Pete Wilson once suggested that and was told facetiously by his finance director: "The state will save thousands and thousands of dollars."
Fact is, non-salaried advisory commissions operate on shoestrings and are politically popular. Regulatory boards are funded by the industries they regulate, are self-sustaining and don't affect the deficit.
From a lot of people, in summary: When "the governator" came to office he had a $78-billion general fund budget. Currently, it's around $102 billion. That's roughly a 30% increase. Where'd the spending go?
People, one place it went was for Schwarzenegger's car tax cut. Yes, that tax cut counts as spending -- about $6 billion annually. It's because revenue from the car tax -- the vehicle license fee -- had gone to local governments, not the state. The governor generously agreed to replace the locals' lost revenue with money from the state general fund. But he never replaced the tax he grandiosely whacked. Big hole. Big mistake.
Another reason spending has climbed is because of aggressive borrowing. In Schwarzenegger's first year as governor, the state paid out $2.5 billion on general fund bonds. Soon that will be up to around $6 billion -- on bonds approved by voters.
Also, prisons have been gobbling up tax dollars because of tough sentencing, court-ordered healthcare reforms and big pre-Schwarzenegger raises for guards.
"The people of California are overtaxed already."
--
Kevin
Actually, Kevin, we're paying only slightly above the national average. Based on Census Bureau data, California ranks 17th in state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income. New York is third, Oregon 16th, Arizona 43rd. We're high in income and sales taxes, low in property taxes.
"Nothing could be simpler than balancing the California budget. Just raise the marginal rate on individual and corporate income taxes. It's the fairest possible way."
--
Michael
Michael, you should run for the Legislature.
"The political thinking in this state lacks any imagination. A sales tax [hike] will just send business out of state. A [new] fuel tax would accomplish our CO2 reduction goals and shift most of the negative impact out of state. We don't produce Hummers and SUVs."
--
Dallas
Right, Dallas, that's just what we want to do: Slap on another gas tax when motorists already are paying $4 per gallon, including around 70 cents in taxes. Pity the politician who tries that.
"I know personally of four families in the last two months who have decided to move to Oregon. They say California is just not a very good place to live anymore."
--
Raul
Raul, then they should head on up the road. That'll leave more room on the freeways for the rest of us and reduce property demand, making homes more affordable. I'll send them a road map.
"I do not live in California, but I am fed up with every politician who says that she/he will not raise taxes. I take this as a direct insult to my intelligence. . . . I have vowed to not vote for anyone who says taxes will not be raised."
--
June, in Illinois
June, you should move out here. A road map is on the way.
Thanks for reading and writing.
george.skelton@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap26-2008may26,0,17046.column
Friday, March 21, 2008
Are University Systems a Good Idea?
By MARK G. YUDOF
From the issue dated February 15, 2008 (Chronicle of Higher Education
Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems.
— Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper
Physicians and biologists speak of "systems biology" and engineers of "systems engineering." The idea is integration. If you manipulate a patient's potassium level, you had better worry about the impact on other organs and bodily functions. If you want a more powerful heater in your car, you should think about the whole electrical system.
In higher education, the term obfuscates as much as it enlightens. There are many different types of college and university systems in our country — sometimes even within the same state.
The system-level office of academic affairs in California, for example, plays a greater role in faculty appointments, promotions, and compensation than that office does in other systems. Some systems centralize legal services, facilities construction, and budget preparation, while others do not. Meanwhile, research on the subject is anemic, largely consisting of factoids organized by state. Few, if any, studies have evaluated whether our systems as they operate today are actually a good idea.
We know that higher-education systems are phenomena of roughly the last 50 years. There were state boards of regents as early as the 18th century and branch campuses of state universities by the late 19th century, but the idea of a "rational system" for higher education emerged after World War I. Frustrated state policy makers thought that public universities were not taking advantage of coordinated planning opportunities and economies of scale, and that they spoke to legislators with too many voices. After World War II, the movement toward organized systems gained further momentum as states established campuses in underserved areas to meet the growing demand for higher education.
The turning point was the creation of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education in California, with its tiering of graduate, undergraduate, and community-college educational opportunities. Following the success of the University of California, a movement toward systems washed across the country. Every legislator and chamber of commerce leader, so it seemed, wanted to create a Berkeley in his backyard. Sometimes campuses were planned and created to populate the system. At other times, as in my home state of Texas, pre-existing institutions were cobbled together with new campuses to create systems that were more a result of happenstance and politics than the orderly integration of complementary institutions.
Part of the effort involved what has become known as "branding." Bringing institutions into the fold identified them with flagship universities that had built splendid reputations. Systems were also supposed to help colleges share resources and increase coordination. In addition, they had the potential to improve quality across a range of institutions and to strengthen political support.
In some cases, the systems resulted in better-coordinated degree programs and improved educational standards. But usually California was emulated in form, not substance. For example, California gave its central system office extensive authority over facilities, faculty hiring and promotion, budgets, and more. Many other states adopted similar structures but continued the old patterns, such as making appropriations directly to individual campuses and decentralizing decision making.
What's more, the food fight over legislative appropriations and other scarce resources did not disappear. The flagships felt threatened by the wannabes and their advocates. The up-and-coming institutions complained that they were not securing the resources to catch up. Rather than generating more political support, the addition of new campuses often amplified local and regional conflicts.
Indeed, in the rush to create new systems, legislatures had often not sufficiently grappled with critical questions: Is a campus better off standing alone or as part of a network? Are system bureaucracies just one more impediment to progress, or can they be beneficial? Which businesses, if you will, should systems be in, and which should they abandon?
The fundamental question is the one that I asked myself in 2003 after I became chancellor of the University of Texas system: Can the operations of a system truly add value to the work of the campuses? I have found that the answer lies in three related propositions:
1. Systems usually contribute more to emerging institutions than they do to flagships. System people are no smarter or more experienced than those at the campuses, and usually there are fewer of them. They are also farther from the campuses and less knowledgeable about local circumstances. That said, flagship institutions generally have the knowledge and capacity to make and carry out most of their own decisions, as approved by their boards. In contrast, emerging institutions often lack the personnel, programs, and experience of the flagships and may look to the system for assistance on academic-program development, fund raising, capital planning, and other matters.
One caveat: Everyone, or nearly everyone, has a boss. Legislatures, subject to the limits of their state constitutions, have broad authority over higher-education policies, as do governing boards. All public universities should follow those policies, whether related to academic programs or not — even if people on the campuses think they are misguided. System administrators may be chosen to compel compliance with such policies, irrespective of each campus's administrative capabilities. They might be required, for example, to monitor and set targets to improve graduation rates — a matter of considerable concern to governing boards and elected leaders.
2. A system's role should expand when it comes to broad organizational issues that concern the entire enterprise. While system officials should usually leave teaching and scholarship to each institution, even the most mature and capable campuses can sometimes benefit from support in certain management areas. For example, a robust accountability system, overseen from the center, is part and parcel of an efficient administration. Similarly, a system may be better positioned, as an entity external to the campus, to investigate allegations of impropriety, like the recent student-loan controversies involving inappropriate relationships between financial-aid offices and lenders.
Systems can also act as honest brokers, encouraging cooperation and collaboration among their campuses. Left to its own inclination, each campus would have its own computer backup facility. It would order all of its supplies. It would have its own technology-transfer office. Significant economies of scale can be found in several areas, like sharing electronic library databases or using uniform definitions of accounts and other common standards to assess financial performance.
In our system, for example, three campuses share a technology-transfer office; a group of universities has adopted one software system for tracking registration, financial aid, and other student matters; and our academic-health campuses jointly purchase equipment and supplies. We project those steps will save $250-million over the next decade.
A university system can also invest in certain priorities and measure the impact of those investments. Besides our accountability system, we require each campus to assess and compare student learning. In recent years, we have also allocated $100-million for faculty start-up packages, primarily for equipment and facilities renovations to our campuses, as a means of attracting and retaining outstanding professors — and a way to gauge how well each institution is doing so.
The system can also speak as one voice to gain support among legislators, other policy makers, and the public. In Texas we produced a privately financed 13-part series that aired on public television, depicting how public universities help solve critical social, economic, environmental, and health problems.
3. A system that adds value will differentiate its services among institutions. Although multicampus collaborations can provide substantial savings, complete centralization would backfire — especially in a highly heterogeneous system of many campuses with various missions and resources. What is helpful to emerging campuses is often more of a hindrance to established, first-tier universities and medical centers. One size does not fit all.
Fund-raising operations, for example, are as highly differentiated as the campuses themselves. Some are in need of significant consulting services. Campuses take advantage of system services in areas such as reorganizing their personnel and operations to build a stronger capacity for fund raising, recruiting development professionals, and handling other basic growth areas. Such services are in high demand by smaller and midsize campuses. Larger campuses with mature operations prefer to have assistance in professional-development opportunities, financial support, the loosening of traditional policy restrictions, and other areas that will allow them to become more nimble and innovative in their approaches to secure more donations. The system's focus should be on providing genuine help and not adding cost and complexity.
The promise that higher-education systems would completely resolve the messy interplay among colleges, and between them and political leaders, has largely gone unfulfilled. But systems can be useful if system and campus leaders, and their governing boards, are willing to allocate authority in ways that add value to carefully delineated activities. Perhaps Larry Faulkner, a former president of the University of Texas at Austin put it best: System administrators should recognize that a system office is not a university, and campus presidents should recognize that theirs is not the only college in the system.
Mark G. Yudof is chancellor of the University of Texas system.
From the issue dated February 15, 2008 (Chronicle of Higher Education
Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems.
— Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper
Physicians and biologists speak of "systems biology" and engineers of "systems engineering." The idea is integration. If you manipulate a patient's potassium level, you had better worry about the impact on other organs and bodily functions. If you want a more powerful heater in your car, you should think about the whole electrical system.
In higher education, the term obfuscates as much as it enlightens. There are many different types of college and university systems in our country — sometimes even within the same state.
The system-level office of academic affairs in California, for example, plays a greater role in faculty appointments, promotions, and compensation than that office does in other systems. Some systems centralize legal services, facilities construction, and budget preparation, while others do not. Meanwhile, research on the subject is anemic, largely consisting of factoids organized by state. Few, if any, studies have evaluated whether our systems as they operate today are actually a good idea.
We know that higher-education systems are phenomena of roughly the last 50 years. There were state boards of regents as early as the 18th century and branch campuses of state universities by the late 19th century, but the idea of a "rational system" for higher education emerged after World War I. Frustrated state policy makers thought that public universities were not taking advantage of coordinated planning opportunities and economies of scale, and that they spoke to legislators with too many voices. After World War II, the movement toward organized systems gained further momentum as states established campuses in underserved areas to meet the growing demand for higher education.
The turning point was the creation of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education in California, with its tiering of graduate, undergraduate, and community-college educational opportunities. Following the success of the University of California, a movement toward systems washed across the country. Every legislator and chamber of commerce leader, so it seemed, wanted to create a Berkeley in his backyard. Sometimes campuses were planned and created to populate the system. At other times, as in my home state of Texas, pre-existing institutions were cobbled together with new campuses to create systems that were more a result of happenstance and politics than the orderly integration of complementary institutions.
Part of the effort involved what has become known as "branding." Bringing institutions into the fold identified them with flagship universities that had built splendid reputations. Systems were also supposed to help colleges share resources and increase coordination. In addition, they had the potential to improve quality across a range of institutions and to strengthen political support.
In some cases, the systems resulted in better-coordinated degree programs and improved educational standards. But usually California was emulated in form, not substance. For example, California gave its central system office extensive authority over facilities, faculty hiring and promotion, budgets, and more. Many other states adopted similar structures but continued the old patterns, such as making appropriations directly to individual campuses and decentralizing decision making.
What's more, the food fight over legislative appropriations and other scarce resources did not disappear. The flagships felt threatened by the wannabes and their advocates. The up-and-coming institutions complained that they were not securing the resources to catch up. Rather than generating more political support, the addition of new campuses often amplified local and regional conflicts.
Indeed, in the rush to create new systems, legislatures had often not sufficiently grappled with critical questions: Is a campus better off standing alone or as part of a network? Are system bureaucracies just one more impediment to progress, or can they be beneficial? Which businesses, if you will, should systems be in, and which should they abandon?
The fundamental question is the one that I asked myself in 2003 after I became chancellor of the University of Texas system: Can the operations of a system truly add value to the work of the campuses? I have found that the answer lies in three related propositions:
1. Systems usually contribute more to emerging institutions than they do to flagships. System people are no smarter or more experienced than those at the campuses, and usually there are fewer of them. They are also farther from the campuses and less knowledgeable about local circumstances. That said, flagship institutions generally have the knowledge and capacity to make and carry out most of their own decisions, as approved by their boards. In contrast, emerging institutions often lack the personnel, programs, and experience of the flagships and may look to the system for assistance on academic-program development, fund raising, capital planning, and other matters.
One caveat: Everyone, or nearly everyone, has a boss. Legislatures, subject to the limits of their state constitutions, have broad authority over higher-education policies, as do governing boards. All public universities should follow those policies, whether related to academic programs or not — even if people on the campuses think they are misguided. System administrators may be chosen to compel compliance with such policies, irrespective of each campus's administrative capabilities. They might be required, for example, to monitor and set targets to improve graduation rates — a matter of considerable concern to governing boards and elected leaders.
2. A system's role should expand when it comes to broad organizational issues that concern the entire enterprise. While system officials should usually leave teaching and scholarship to each institution, even the most mature and capable campuses can sometimes benefit from support in certain management areas. For example, a robust accountability system, overseen from the center, is part and parcel of an efficient administration. Similarly, a system may be better positioned, as an entity external to the campus, to investigate allegations of impropriety, like the recent student-loan controversies involving inappropriate relationships between financial-aid offices and lenders.
Systems can also act as honest brokers, encouraging cooperation and collaboration among their campuses. Left to its own inclination, each campus would have its own computer backup facility. It would order all of its supplies. It would have its own technology-transfer office. Significant economies of scale can be found in several areas, like sharing electronic library databases or using uniform definitions of accounts and other common standards to assess financial performance.
In our system, for example, three campuses share a technology-transfer office; a group of universities has adopted one software system for tracking registration, financial aid, and other student matters; and our academic-health campuses jointly purchase equipment and supplies. We project those steps will save $250-million over the next decade.
A university system can also invest in certain priorities and measure the impact of those investments. Besides our accountability system, we require each campus to assess and compare student learning. In recent years, we have also allocated $100-million for faculty start-up packages, primarily for equipment and facilities renovations to our campuses, as a means of attracting and retaining outstanding professors — and a way to gauge how well each institution is doing so.
The system can also speak as one voice to gain support among legislators, other policy makers, and the public. In Texas we produced a privately financed 13-part series that aired on public television, depicting how public universities help solve critical social, economic, environmental, and health problems.
3. A system that adds value will differentiate its services among institutions. Although multicampus collaborations can provide substantial savings, complete centralization would backfire — especially in a highly heterogeneous system of many campuses with various missions and resources. What is helpful to emerging campuses is often more of a hindrance to established, first-tier universities and medical centers. One size does not fit all.
Fund-raising operations, for example, are as highly differentiated as the campuses themselves. Some are in need of significant consulting services. Campuses take advantage of system services in areas such as reorganizing their personnel and operations to build a stronger capacity for fund raising, recruiting development professionals, and handling other basic growth areas. Such services are in high demand by smaller and midsize campuses. Larger campuses with mature operations prefer to have assistance in professional-development opportunities, financial support, the loosening of traditional policy restrictions, and other areas that will allow them to become more nimble and innovative in their approaches to secure more donations. The system's focus should be on providing genuine help and not adding cost and complexity.
The promise that higher-education systems would completely resolve the messy interplay among colleges, and between them and political leaders, has largely gone unfulfilled. But systems can be useful if system and campus leaders, and their governing boards, are willing to allocate authority in ways that add value to carefully delineated activities. Perhaps Larry Faulkner, a former president of the University of Texas at Austin put it best: System administrators should recognize that a system office is not a university, and campus presidents should recognize that theirs is not the only college in the system.
Mark G. Yudof is chancellor of the University of Texas system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)