Most important reforms needed for College/ University sector?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - for those who say that excessive tuition costs are main problem - what measures do you think would be most effective and realistic for reducing financial burdens on students and their families ?

As PP already mentioned - cut the staff and admin at universities, to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:boost up the education quality at k-12, instead of watering it down as we do now.

How would you do that? I found article below by American Progressive org but doubt many of the proposals are currently realistic …

7 Great Education Policy Ideas for Progressives in 2018
A progressive education policy agenda should focus on putting economic mobility and opportunity within reach for all.

Education in the United States must be improved to support greater economic mobility. Those without postsecondary training have experienced stagnant wages, were hit the hardest by the Great Recession, and have barely benefitted from the subsequent economic recovery. All signs point to these trends continuing, so it is imperative that today’s students are prepared for jobs that will position them to support their families and participate fully in America’s economic growth.

1. Provide a tutor for every child performing below grade level

2. Offer free breakfast and lunch for all students, regardless of income

3. Ensure opportunities to combine college preparatory academics with technical training and workplace experience

4. Transition to a 9-to-5 school day to better fit parents’ needs

5. Support, train, and pay teachers like professionals

6. Create a safe and healthy environment in every school

7. Eliminate crumbling school buildings

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/7-great-education-policy-ideas-progressives-2018/

By eliminating liberals from the local school boards. Hard to do, but it's the only way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I strongly believe that market reform will happen when people who CAN affort 85K+ per year decide that that price tag is not actually worth it. Boston University vs University of Maryland - one might argue that it isn't worth 200K more to go to BU. As upper middle class truly start to embrace research that getting a degree from good public is just as predictive of good outcomes, the market will boost up the publics and cause a strain on the privates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - for those who say that excessive tuition costs are main problem - what measures do you think would be most effective and realistic for reducing financial burdens on students and their families ?

As PP already mentioned - cut the staff and admin at universities, to start.

+1. Do this in a smart way, though. Invest in fewer, higher quality staff so that there is institutional knowledge. My university churns staff like no tomorrow and constantly hires new, cheap staff (which takes time and money), who then move onto more lucrative positions after they've received this initial training because the university will not pay to retain them. And for admin, there is no reason why a provost or vice provost should be making more than $500K, especially when you have assistant professors making $60K.

[Anonymous]

As an immigrant, here is my observation. The college experience in US was originally designed to fit the lifestyle and expectations of the very well off families, and it still is. At this point we can't do anything about colleges built in the middle of nowhere, thus forcing the extra costs on students, but we could do something about the fact that college amenities include state of the art athletic facilities but offer zero daycare for students who are parents. We could do something about the fact that it is very hard for freshmen to build a reasonable schedule that allows for part time work. We could work toward the goal of every student getting a viable paid internship experience, if they desire so. We could implement a "year zero", which in my country meant students from certain backgrounds were admitted to college provisionally, contingent on completing a year of studies to catch up, and were paid a stipend that covered a bare bones living so they wouldn't have to work and could just concentrate on studying 50-60 hrs per week; it was brutal but effective. We could do many things, but they won't be exciting to the traditional target audience for colleges and thus will never be implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is really only one obstacle and that is money.

[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.

Are you joking?

[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.

Why isn't that prestige shaming equally foisted upon the applicants who require financial assistance, too? Isn't it enough to have all financial needs met without also dictating where you attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Because your initial question was about "well resourced universities," by which I assumed -- perhaps erroneously -- that you meant the T50 or so. There aren't enough seats in the T50 for every student who is qualified to attend and would like to attend, so unless colleges want to increase the number of seats available, students will have to look at other schools.

But if I misunderstood which schools you consider well resourced, please correct me.

OP No I would agree there are many well resourced universities/ colleges outside of T50 schools. It also depends on what major students wish to pursue.

So in terms of buggiest reforms needed - is it fair to say you believe the main issue is that students and parents need to adjust their expectations beyond admission to T50 schools?

You can get an adequate education that will get you almost anywhere even at the colleges down to at least #200 in US News national universities & comparable liberal arts colleges. At that level level the tuition is cheaper, the merit aid is easier to get, and they often admit over 80% of applicants. So there really isn’t a cost problem; there is a prestige problem.

There is absolutely a cost problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I guess we need to define well-resourced. IMO that would be the top 200 or so colleges, maybe even more. I am just spitballing.

The major issue is cost. It costs money to attend and even if that is covered there are still living expenses and many of these students are also expected to provide for their families if they work. I do not live in the DMV. I live in a very 'ordinary' part of the country with plenty of good state schools that people are perfectly qualified to attend but the biggest barrier is cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Because your initial question was about "well resourced universities," by which I assumed -- perhaps erroneously -- that you meant the T50 or so. There aren't enough seats in the T50 for every student who is qualified to attend and would like to attend, so unless colleges want to increase the number of seats available, students will have to look at other schools.

But if I misunderstood which schools you consider well resourced, please correct me.

OP No I would agree there are many well resourced universities/ colleges outside of T50 schools. It also depends on what major students wish to pursue.

So in terms of buggiest reforms needed - is it fair to say you believe the main issue is that students and parents need to adjust their expectations beyond admission to T50 schools?

You can get an adequate education that will get you almost anywhere even at the colleges down to at least #200 in US News national universities & comparable liberal arts colleges. At that level level the tuition is cheaper, the merit aid is easier to get, and they often admit over 80% of applicants. So there really isn’t a cost problem; there is a prestige problem.

+1

Plenty of affordable options. My state has 2 excellent state choices (beyond the highly ranked state flagship, these two are in th e100-200 range) that are all in under $25K. If your kid is a top student, they would get some merit My 3.5UW, 1250 got $4K at one bringing cost to ~$20K/year---my 3.9UW/1500 kid got $8K in merit and could have gotten more if they applied to the honors program. A student can easily earn $10K in summers and breaks in our area (min wage is not $7.25 in our area), add in a PT job during school and the kid can easily earn $14K each year to put towards school. That leaves $8-12K to pay for. $5K in fed loans and the parent can help with the rest ($3-7K). Sure it is not the glamorous T20 university, but it's an excellent option that will get you a great education and a great job once your kid graduates.

The above demonstrates that there are indeed affordable options available. And if you are smart, you will use these options rather than going into major debt. If money is already saved, then spend more, but if you can't afford more, then go for great education for minimal costs.

[Anonymous]

If the next 400 schools after the T20 are so great, why are they not good enough for applicants who require full subsidy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP - the original question is about what reforms are most important for helping more bright and hard working students from disadvantaged communities/ backgrounds gain admission and graduate from well resourced universities.

So are you saying more students need to apply to lower ranked universities? I personally think that many already do apply to much lower ranked colleges due to the madness with common application induced mass rejections.

Also, many black students fail to graduate from low ranked universities and are still lumbered with life long student debt. I wonder whether part of it is they are not given the extra help they need to adjust to the rigors of four year programs.

Well 50-100 ranked schools are not the low ranked universities where black students are failing to graduate. Those are not Low ranked universities. Key is to attend a uni where they care and make an effort to help first gen and low income students graduate. Key is also a program that helps mentor those kids so they are not majoring in Psychology and taking on $100K+ in student loans. I have 3 kids at T100 Uni---ranging from ~30 to ~80s. All 3 make concerted efforts to support those kids with special programs and extra involvement to assist them

OP - I agree that T50-100 are not the colleges I was referring to.

Wonderful that your 3 DC are flourishing.

I agree that applying to colleges with adequate student mentoring is key.

FYI--my kids did not use those programs (mine are beyond privileged and are appreciative for that). But I can tell from the Parent FB groups and the information the U provides that they are all 3 working hard to ensure those kids get the assurances they need to succeed. 2 are Jesuit universities who always do an excellent job with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I strongly believe that market reform will happen when people who CAN affort 85K+ per year decide that that price tag is not actually worth it. Boston University vs University of Maryland - one might argue that it isn't worth 200K more to go to BU. As upper middle class truly start to embrace research that getting a degree from good public is just as predictive of good outcomes, the market will boost up the publics and cause a strain on the privates.

Except it's not likely to happen. We saved and can afford whatever schools our kids want to attend. Top kid got into 2 Top 50 schools. Both $80K+/year. One did not offer merit (simply doesn't offer much) the other gave kid ~50% of total cost/year, amounting to ~$160K total over 4 years. We allowed our kid to select the best fit for them. They chose the full cost and were right, it was a definately a better fit for them, despite fact both are excellent schools and kid would excel at either. Is the "better fit worth $40K+ more per year"? Not if you cannot easily afford it. The 2nd choice is an excellent school. Our kid is well aware than in 99% of households, it would not have been a choice, they would be attending the other school and saving over $40K/year. But we are not alone. There will always be people who are willing to pay $80K+, and if it dries up in the USA, there will always be wealthy foreign students willing to step in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why isn't that prestige shaming equally foisted upon the applicants who require financial assistance, too? Isn't it enough to have all financial needs met without also dictating where you attend?

Majority of schools that "meet full financial NEED" are in the T50. So the really smart, motivated kids with high financial need smartly give it a go to try to get into a school that "fully meets financial need". Schools ranked 120 are not typically meeting full financial needs, so for those kids it's either "elite school meeting need" or CC/lOcal state U that they can work 20 hours/week to be able o afford