One Day in the President's Office #1

I have been thinking about doing something like this for a while. Apologies for the quality. My first time drawing and I am still getting a hang of the software.

The school's Executive Committee in conference.

The College President is concerned. 

The Dean immediately considers all angles.

The Provost is flummoxed.

The Vice -resident of Something Important is just plain worried. 

****Ever since I was a young man
I've worked in Higher Ed
After twenty years of slaving
My soul is nearly dead.
But I have got a talent
At challenges I never pale
Give me an enrollment number
I will meet it without fail!

*** Sung to the tune "Pinball Wizard" (and with sincere apologies to The Who)

He's an Admission's wizard
There has to be a trick
An admissions Wizard
His goals are always met!

How do you think he does it?
I don't know!
What makes him so good?!

He stands before prospectives
Deftly selling our old school
Sometimes attracting scholars
But usually, those who drool
All are FAFSA eligible
Tuition check's in the mail
Give him an enrollment number
He'll meet it without fail!

He's an Admission's wizard
There has to be a trick
An admissions Wizard
His goals are always met!

How do you think he does it?
I don't know!
Maybe he has no soul!

We can't stop him now
We have six figure salaries to feed
I beg thee Oh Lord!
Let him his enrollment numbers meet!

I'm looking at my numbers
Your budget deficits
No one ever told me
Your school is such shit.
I ain't seen nothing like it
This time I must stand tall
If I don't meet my enrollment numbers
This school is going to fall!!!

Collateral Damage in Higher Education -- Part 2

Please click here for Part I of this entry. 

I left off in Part 1 by throwing the higher education establishment under the bus (especially the most Progressive parts), essentially claiming we have been involved in perhaps the largest (and most officially sanctioned) bait-and-switch in history. I want to further explore this idea.

But three clarifications first.

First I don't think my claim applies to all schools. I think it mainly applies to schools who service the type of populations I am talking about.  This is probably some second-tier, and most third-tier, schools, as well as many public institutions.

Second, I LOVE the idea of education equaling opportunity. I have worked with first-generation and at-risk populations for years. They may be my favorite students. I am NOT saying we need to limit opportunity. I am just saying that the opportunity we currently present may not be the opportunity we believe it is. Wanting something to be good does not mean it is good.

Third, I am not assigning malicious intent here. I think most of us have good intentions. We WANT to be doing good. If this is a bait-and-switch, then in a way we ourselves have been deceived. (Or we have let ourselves be deceived.)

However, even if we have been somewhat "deceived", we still have abetted  in this process. We went to college ourselves. We drank the Kool-Aid, liked the taste, and wanted to share. So we have told the younger generation that they too should go. And we have meant it! We have sold the narrative. Teachers. Guidance counselors. Parents. Politicians. Advocates. College Administrators. College Professors.  We have given the hard sell to the population that can least afford to go to college. And since we are their "trusted advisers" and since we so sincerely believe in what we are saying, we are very convincing. They listen to us.   They go to college and take out loans in the process. 

Much has been said recently about students graduating with college degrees and debilitating debt. This is not good, but at least they have the credential. At least they have the potential to move forward.

I am more concerned about all the students who don't finish college but still have this debt!

The for-profits have been (deservedly) crucified for predatory recruiting and having unqualified students take out loans. But even though intentions may be more "honorable" on the non-profit side (I hope), many of  the outcomes are the same.

We tell ourselves we are doing good because we are engaged in Education. (Which is a much nobler cause than profit!) We tell ourselves, our intentions are good.That allows us to look at the problem and perhaps not see our complicity.

But how come all these good intentions at the individual level seem to add up to so much dysfunction? How come they seems to create (an unethical) system that often takes far more than it gives? Yes, there is the Principle of Unintended Consequences, but this seems bigger than just that. What is going on here? 

I think part of the problem lies in a dated meta-narrative. The current college narrative is about a world that no longer exists (if it ever did).We want to believe a college degree is this ticket to a better life. And, if one can afford to not go into debt, it still most definitely is. However, these days many (most?) seem to have to go into debt and this debt level is rising. The present reality differs from the ideal world spun in the meta-narrative. 

In the world of finance, mutual fund companies often sell their funds by pointing out past performance. However, critics are oft heard to say that “past performance does not guarantee future results.” Just because a fund has returned 25% a year for the past five years doesn't mean that it will do so the next five years. In fact, if performance “returns to the mean”, it may very well under-perform.

Yet we sell college based on past performance. A performance that took place in a rapidly receding world, a world that was more affordable and had better public support. One that contrasts sharply with our current world:

• A world where college tuition rates have outpaced inflation for years.
• A world where “financial aid” for most students means loans (that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy).
• A world that is deeply indebted at both private and public levels and where public funding is consequently at risk

I am not saying that college still cannot be a good thing. I am claiming that we need to recognize that we may be playing by a set of rules for a game that longer exists. We may have good intentions, but by reciting dated arguments, we may actually be more part of the problem than part of the solution.

Over the last couple years, it seems there have been several new reports that confirm college is still "worth the investment." The problem is that these results cite  a "statistical" figure. It does not predict how a given student will do. It predicts how the theoretical average student will do. The student who comes out of high school with a 1.7 Grade Point Average is not average, but now that student thinks he should go to college to get his payoff. ( Keep in mind, that 1.7 GPA student is balanced out in the calculations by the 4.0 GPA student who will be going to Harvard and earning six-figures upon graduation.)

 The Right may be guilty of cuts, but the Left (at least some of us) can be said to be guilty of tunnel-visioned thinking . We continue to recite the meta-narrative and blindly push students toward a system that, for many, is just as likely to beggar as lead to success. We tell ourselves it provides opportunity, but we selectively focus on those for whom it has actually done so; we avoid looking at the many for which it has not.

There is nothing we can do about the past. We can only change things moving forward. However, I think we need to stop hiding in a dated mythos of higher education and recognize the world for what it is. Problem solving needs to take place for this world. We don't have to like the way things are, but we can't pretend they are anything but what they are. If opportunity and access are still going to be major aspect of education, we need to rethink how it can be done else we will be actively complicit.

What do we do? I am honestly not sure. I guess that is what this blog is for. However, I do want to refer to an earlier post A Few Ground Rules. I think there I begin to lay out a lens to approach the problem. It will not be easy. (In fact, I worry that it is near impossible.) But if we really care, we have to try. If we just sit back and accept the status quo as the "cost of doing business", I think we are being unethical. 

Education as a Trailing Indicator

I briefly considering blogging in 2011 and this entry is something I wrote in October of that year. I include it now because I think it is still relevant.

It is important to remember that I was still working full time at this point. My ethical "crisis" was in its earliest stages.

_________________________________________________________________________


In economics, there are "leading" indicators and "trailing indicators. A leading indicator is a statistic that may indicate where the economy may head next. For instance, the stock market is considered a leading indicator. If the market thinks the economy is going to turn south, often it goes down first. Any sort of overall downturn follows later.By the time the economy reaches its nadir, the market is already rallying.

On the other hand, a number like unemployment is generally a trailing indicator because employers react to the economy. If it is going down, they lay off employees after the downturn has started. And if it going up, they wait until they have hard evidence things are improving before they bring someone new aboard.

Looked at in this light, I would argue that education is a trailing indicator.

This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. But it is something worth considering when we ask ourselves: how can we improve higher education?

 It seems everyone has an opinion on what we could do to change/improve our schools. But if these opinions are based on backwards-looking information, how can we improve?

Jeff Selingo on HuffPost Education in his column "Why Can't We Educate for a Job and an Education?"  discusses this exact issue. He critiques both sides in the ongoing debate about the purpose of higher education. To educators who advocate education for the sake of education he tells them to recognize that college has become more of a "transaction", a step toward a better life. If they don't deliver what people are looking for, "it's going to be almost impossible to get students and parents to pay $200,000 for a four-year undergraduate degree." To those who argue for college as job training he says: "[E]mployers and politicians need to learn that if colleges provide training only for jobs that need to be filled now, those workers will probably be useless in about two years, given the rapid pace of change in most industries."

This is education as a trailing indicator in action. Both sides have good intentions. Both sides have good arguments. At the same time, many on both sides are anchoring their arguments in a reality that no longer exists.

Learning for the sake of learning is a great thing. I love to learn and spend a lot of my time trying to do so. But one thing everyone has to accept: you need to be able to afford to learn. Either in terms of time or money (or both). Not everyone can afford tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars to get "educated." As Selingo notes, people expect a college degree to deliver more than just "smarts." The truth of our current world -- at $100,000, you need to deliver something tangible.

Learning for the job is also a great thing. But again, advocates for this position are looking back and living in a different world. Ours is not a static existence. Technology has been changing at an increasing pace over the past century and a half; the change also seems to be accelerating. If we ground education in current job needs, we are going to spend all our time playing catch-up with ever-changing demands.

Selingo tries to bring the two sides together by pointing out that liberal arts skills -- writing, speaking, critical thinking -- are also professional skills.

I work at a professional school and this is something we recognized a long time ago. Being in close connection with an acting, functioning  profession has left us more in touch with its needs. Currently we are working on a new curriculum and this curriculum will be grounded in thinking, communication and critical thinking skills as much as possible.

It would be nice if more people could recognize this connection. We need to provide skills that are flexible, that give students the potential to become leading indicators. They need to have the skills to identify and recognize change, maybe even before it happens.

While it may seem I am coming down pretty firmly on the liberal arts side of the equation, not so quick. As far as I am concerned, content is only half the battle. Delivery/pedagogy is the rest. And here too, many of us are backward looking.

I can't count the number of times I have heard teachers at my school explaining a curricular choice as something "that worked for me."

Your students aren't you. They are a diverse bunch with a variety of learning styles. They have been raised in a technological world. While we don't necessarily know the effects this world is having on them yet , it is likely having something. As an educator, you can do nothing worse than looking back and be content with how you teach because "it worked" for you. As instructors we can't rest on our laurels. While we can't predict the future, we can at least try to be dynamic and innovative.