Most important reforms needed for College/ University sector?

[Anonymous]

I am curious as to what different stakeholders (students, parents, HS college counselors, college admissions staff, tutors and SAT/ACT prep workers) think are the biggest reforms needed to reduce obstacles for bright, hard working students from disadvantaged backgrounds gaining admission to, and completing studies at, well-resourced universities/ colleges ?

I will post some suggestions from center-right and more left wing thinkers - to give ideas and get the ball rolling. Obviously, this is a huge and complicated topic. So please focus on the what you consider to be the most important reforms needed.

Thanks in advance for any constructive discussion.

[Anonymous]

From center-Right think tank AAF

Options for Innovation and Reform in Higher Education
Isabel Soto, Tom Lee

* Higher education is facing a confluence of challenges: tuition inflation, mounting student debt, and decreasing value in a changing economy.
* National-level reforms – specifically accreditation reform and greater transparency – would pave the way for greater innovation at the local level and generate more competition with traditional 4-year degree programs.
* Several innovative programs have integrated the private sector into job training with largely successful results, demonstrating a potential pathway for boosting innovation and competition.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/options-for-innovation-and-reform-in-higher-education/




October 1, 2020
Policies to Ensure Equitable Access to Well-Resourced Colleges and Universities
Cindy Le, Elizabeth Davidson Pisacreta, James Dean Ward, Jesse Margolis, Heidi Booth

In this policy brief, we discuss a range of ways to improve access to well-resourced institutions. We suggest states take a multi-pronged approach to addressing this issue. Increasing and equalizing funding across campuses, providing more direct routes to college through affirmative action policies and a streamlined admissions process, lowering financial burdens to high-tuition/high-resource institutions, and maintaining educational quality through strong oversight are all important ways states can reduce inequities in access to high-quality postsecondary opportunities. Through this broad set of levers, state leaders can simultaneously increase the supply of well-resourced institutions and decrease barriers to these institutions for historically underserved students. Both strategies will serve to reduce inequities and have positive social and economic impacts on states.

https://sr.ithaka.org › publications
Policies to Ensure Equitable Access to Well-Resourced Colleges and Universities

[Anonymous]

And what motivation to colleges have to do any of this?

FWIW, I've been saying for 21 years, since our first was born and our financial advisor told us to put away $1600 a month for college (equivalent to our then mortgage payment and no way could we do that), that something would have to change by the time our kids went to college. And, nothing has changed, prices are huge and growing, and we are paying $80-plus thousand per year for each of our college age kids.

[Anonymous]

The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And what motivation to colleges have to do any of this?

FWIW, I've been saying for 21 years, since our first was born and our financial advisor told us to put away $1600 a month for college (equivalent to our then mortgage payment and no way could we do that), that something would have to change by the time our kids went to college. And, nothing has changed, prices are huge and growing, and we are paying $80-plus thousand per year for each of our college age kids.

OP - so is it fair to say you think that the biggest reform needed is cost of tuition? Would reforming student loans be the answer here? For example, getting rid of provisions that loans are federally protected so students and parents cannot even declare bankruptcy? Making them interest free and that students are not required to pay back until after they earning more than median income and then no more than 10% of income can be required to pay back loans?

Public universities probably have more incentive than private colleges to create reforms that allow more students from disadvantaged communities to enroll and graduate. That may not be correct though and I am interested in what other stake holders think

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

OP - yes I have been reading about that recently - the auS has far fewer slots for well ranked colleges than in many other countries.

So is it accurate to categorize your response as the only reform needed is to create more universities or to expand programs within existing universities to allow more students to enroll?

[Anonymous]

The biggest factor is price. Both university administration and parents/students are responsible for this. Administration because they keep hiring more administrators at salaries higher than professors ("administrative bloat"). Parents/students because they choose colleges based upon things like how nice a dorm is, the availability of fancy food. Finally--and this is controversial, I understand--the shockingly high numbers of students with learning disabilities that require accommodations, additional staffing, and space (because the kids have to take their tests somewhere--so these offices need to be larger and larger).
FWIW, faculty are not paid well in general, and the cost of adjuncts is cheap. Universities should implement mandatory retirement at 72 (five years past the recommended 67), IMHO. Lots of old, expensive faculty hanging around.
-College Professor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest factor is price. Both university administration and parents/students are responsible for this. Administration because they keep hiring more administrators at salaries higher than professors ("administrative bloat"). Parents/students because they choose colleges based upon things like how nice a dorm is, the availability of fancy food. Finally--and this is controversial, I understand--the shockingly high numbers of students with learning disabilities that require accommodations, additional staffing, and space (because the kids have to take their tests somewhere--so these offices need to be larger and larger).
FWIW, faculty are not paid well in general, and the cost of adjuncts is cheap. Universities should implement mandatory retirement at 72 (five years past the recommended 67), IMHO. Lots of old, expensive faculty hanging around.
-College Professor

OP - thanks! I was hoping to hear from college professors and thank you for your work.

So is it accurate to say you believe that the biggest reforms needed are:
(A) reducing cost of tuition (i expanded above on whether this also connected to student loans)
(B) much more competitive compensation of professors while slashing marketing and admin costs; and
(C) restricting accommodations for learning disabilities (that would violate existing disability laws and I in the camp that the pros outweigh the cons for educating those with LDs to the fullness of their potential. But you are right - there are hidden costs).

Thanks again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

OP - yes I have been reading about that recently - the auS has far fewer slots for well ranked colleges than in many other countries.

So is it accurate to categorize your response as the only reform needed is to create more universities or to expand programs within existing universities to allow more students to enroll?

No, that does not reflect my opinion at all. My response is that people need to stop being prestige whores and shift their focus away from the T50 or so schools and apply to the roughly 4,000 colleges that accept the majority of their applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest factor is price. Both university administration and parents/students are responsible for this. Administration because they keep hiring more administrators at salaries higher than professors ("administrative bloat"). Parents/students because they choose colleges based upon things like how nice a dorm is, the availability of fancy food. Finally--and this is controversial, I understand--the shockingly high numbers of students with learning disabilities that require accommodations, additional staffing, and space (because the kids have to take their tests somewhere--so these offices need to be larger and larger).
FWIW, faculty are not paid well in general, and the cost of adjuncts is cheap. Universities should implement mandatory retirement at 72 (five years past the recommended 67), IMHO. Lots of old, expensive faculty hanging around.
-College Professor

+1

The administrative bloat is real, and enormous. No one wants to hear about it. Most colleges could get rid of half their (likely remote and likely DEI) staff. DP here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

There are plenty of seats available for "qualified students"---just look outside the T20 schools. The differences between a T20 and a T60 school are minimal. Plenty of really really really smart kids at schools ranked 30-60. Once you realize that, not much needs to change. Just you broadening your definition of acceptable schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

OP - yes I have been reading about that recently - the auS has far fewer slots for well ranked colleges than in many other countries.

So is it accurate to categorize your response as the only reform needed is to create more universities or to expand programs within existing universities to allow more students to enroll?

No, that does not reflect my opinion at all. My response is that people need to stop being prestige whores and shift their focus away from the T50 or so schools and apply to the roughly 4,000 colleges that accept the majority of their applicants.

+1000

And realizing that if you kid has the "resume" for a T20 school, they will get into many in the 40-100 range, many times with excellent merit (if it's a private uni). So broaden your horizon and search for a great fit in that range. Basically have a true list of targets and safeties and your kid will be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

OP - yes I have been reading about that recently - the auS has far fewer slots for well ranked colleges than in many other countries.

So is it accurate to categorize your response as the only reform needed is to create more universities or to expand programs within existing universities to allow more students to enroll?

No, that does not reflect my opinion at all. My response is that people need to stop being prestige whores and shift their focus away from the T50 or so schools and apply to the roughly 4,000 colleges that accept the majority of their applicants.

OP - I am trying to understand your position.

How does this belief that parents and students need to shift focus to applying to lower ranked schools (I think many of us are doing that already BTW with your earlier statement that

“The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.”

[Anonymous]

Reduce advantage that athletes and legacy get, and then continue to review URM student apps holistically. I would require SATs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest factor is price. Both university administration and parents/students are responsible for this. Administration because they keep hiring more administrators at salaries higher than professors ("administrative bloat"). Parents/students because they choose colleges based upon things like how nice a dorm is, the availability of fancy food. Finally--and this is controversial, I understand--the shockingly high numbers of students with learning disabilities that require accommodations, additional staffing, and space (because the kids have to take their tests somewhere--so these offices need to be larger and larger).
FWIW, faculty are not paid well in general, and the cost of adjuncts is cheap. Universities should implement mandatory retirement at 72 (five years past the recommended 67), IMHO. Lots of old, expensive faculty hanging around.
-College Professor

OP - thanks! I was hoping to hear from college professors and thank you for your work.

So is it accurate to say you believe that the biggest reforms needed are:
(A) reducing cost of tuition (i expanded above on whether this also connected to student loans)
(B) much more competitive compensation of professors while slashing marketing and admin costs; and
(C) restricting accommodations for learning disabilities (that would violate existing disability laws and I in the camp that the pros outweigh the cons for educating those with LDs to the fullness of their potential. But you are right - there are hidden costs).

Thanks again!

Not quite.
1) At this point, the huge amount of student loan debt is sending a clear signal that the cost of attending college has risen too high. The easy availability of student loans might have been a factor 20 years ago, but not now.
2) Not the slashing of "marketing," but the actual building of fancy dorms with singles is very high. And colleges, by the way, subsidize the cost of the nicest dorms by passing on the cost to the students who can afford only the cheapest dorms. It's shameful. Colleges that are invested in DEI should not be providing housing with tiers--the wealthiest students end up in the fancy dorms while the poorest students end up in the cheapest dorms or off campus (further isolated from campus life).
3) The percentage of students coming to campus with LDs has tripled in the last decade. The majority of students I've encountered with LDs do fine, but some of them need a gap year.