September 26, 2006 - The Commission on the Future of Higher Education believes U.S. higher education needs to improve in dramatic ways, according to its report submitted to the Department of Education. “Among the vast and varied institutions that make up U.S. higher education, we have found much to applaud, but also much that requires urgent reform,” the final draft report says. We asked presidents at Annapolis Group colleges and universities to comment on the report. How are liberal arts colleges responding to commission proposals on issues such as cost, access, and accountability? Which proposals for reform do they find helpful to their work, and which do they view as harmful?
Daniel F. Sullivan
President, St. Lawrence University ( Canton, N.Y)
dsullivan@stlawu.edu
Believe it or not, in the just-released report of the federal Commission on the Future of Higher Education the word “faculty” appears just once. In a report meant to outline the kind of education students will need to be successful and contribute usefully in the complex world of the 21st century and to make recommendations for how we as a nation can provide such an education, how could it be that the nature, training, status and commitments of the present and future professoriate would be seen as not a strategic issue?
One clue is that the report actually does not provide any serious and coherent guidance on what a high-quality, 21st century higher education should in fact be. Without a vision for what a higher education of excellence would look like, it is impossible to imagine what kinds of teacher/scholars one would need in order to make it happen. Lack of attention to this is a serious flaw in the report.
Katherine Haley Will
President, Gettysburg (Pa) College
& Chair-Elect Of The Annapolis Group
will@gettysburg.edu
The Commission report addresses issues of importance such as access and affordability, but the recommendation to create a national unit records database is an egregious attack on student privacy.
This registry would track academic performance, financial, and other personal information. Federal laws currently require written consent to release this personal information. Why would we take control over this information from students and hand it to the government?
We already have systems in place to satisfy the need to inform public policy without violating student privacy. We report on retention, graduation, financial aid rates and more. Why does the Commission want to add to the cost of education by creating yet another database?
And how about security? This past year has produced one massive database breach after another. If we are not able to guarantee the protection of personal information, why would we even consider creation of another database?
Thomas J. Hochstettler
President, Lewis & Clark College (Portland, OR)
pres@lclark.edu
Contrary to what critics of the database plan might have the public believe, we in academia know remarkably little about what emerges from the vast and diverse system of higher education.
I question the wisdom of rejecting wholesale the benefits to be derived from a national student database. Where some see the specter of Big Brother looking over colleges' and students’ shoulders, I see a potential for a robust (and privacy-protected) set of metrics that would yield essential data with tremendous potential for advancing our individual institutions and for identifying with greater precision those areas where our national education policy needs to be strengthened.
Where some see the specter of government intrusion, I see the possibility of transforming our current separate data-reporting schemes into a streamlined system that is beneficial to students and useful to faculty and administrators.
Christopher Nelson
President, St. John’s College (Annapolis, MD)
Rosemary.Harty@sjca.edu
The call for the use of broad, national, student learning assessment measures has its risks. The first of these is that it encourages colleges to teach what can most easily be measured and counted, rather than what can best serve as the foundation for life long learning and independence of mind — that is, to focus our attention on those things that are of least importance to living a thoughtful, examined life. Our liberal arts colleges are not about serving the appetite of the global marketplace, but about making a life worth living. Such a purpose is best measured by the quality of a life lived over the full span of years — not easily assessed by any instrument of general application.
Sharon D. Herzberger
President, Whittier (CA) College
sherzberger@whittier.edu
The Commission’s focus on access to higher education should be applauded. Remember the growth of the middle class and our flourishing role in science and technology following efforts to boost college attendance after World War II? Those days are past, and we must recover them. Broad access to higher education means even more in today’s world.
Attending one of America's most diverse liberal arts colleges, Whittier's students interact around the clock with students from all socioeconomic and racial/ethnic backgrounds and from around the world. Our students learn to work and study in teams with people who bring dramatically different experiences and ideas. These interactions stimulate measurable intellectual growth and bring significant advantages as our graduates join workplaces and assume leadership positions. All students need this kind of education, but few can afford it. Colleges, corporations, and citizens must partner and find the political will to provide such education to all.
Ronald Crutcher
President, Wheaton College (Norton, MA)
president@wheatoncollege.edu
The Spellings Commission failed to specify exact standards for assessing higher education and that is reason for rejoicing. The reality is that each institution has a responsibility to build meaningful assessment into every facet of its operations-from its curriculum to its marketing materials. It would be an enormous mistake to measure each institution by the same yardstick. Research universities, community colleges, public institutions and private liberal arts colleges have different missions and serve different populations.
Each type of institution should be judged by the extent to which it adds value to students’ lives. What we have in common is the need to do the hard work and an obligation to use criteria that focuses on student outcomes, such as the ability to navigate diverse cultural communities and the development of core skills in communication and quantitative analysis. That is the kind of accountability that students and their families, and the public at large deserves.
Jill Beck
President, Lawrence University (Appleton, WI)
jill.beck@lawrence.edu
Though one may applaud specific calls for increased need-based aid or reduced regulatory burdens on colleges, the fact remains that the Commission’s approach to higher education reform is highly over-simplified. A fundamental strength of American higher education is its remarkable institutional diversity. Rather than embracing that diversity, the Commission’s proposals and rhetoric – in areas as varied as tracking academic progress through a centralized database to improving “productivity” by imposing misguided benchmarks – have the effect of trying to homogenize American higher education at the expense of its ability to help all of our citizens realize their potential.
Our future as a nation rests upon the cultivation of innovation, discovery, and independent creativity, traits that transcend the mastery of an already existing body of knowledge. We should encourage colleges to be accountable — but to that greater aim, not just what can be measured on “one size fits all” test instruments.
Les Garner
President, Cornell College (Mount Vernon, IA)
lgarner@cornellcollege.edu
Though it has its faults, the report of the Spellings Commission draws our collective attention to an important fact: higher education is critical to the nation’s future.
Following World War II, the partnership among the higher education community, government, business and foundations expanded access to colleges and universities and increased the breadth and depth of teaching and research. We need to reinvigorate that partnership by reaffirming the importance of government support for students. Business and the philanthropic community should join in, and colleges and universities should focus on ensuring that the experiences they offer effectively deliver the learning they promise.
The Commission’s call for a student unit record system, however, is fraught with peril involving student privacy. Outcome measurement is notoriously tricky business. Getting the partners back to the table can provide the opportunity to craft a policy agenda that will serve us well as we look to the future.
Richard F. Wilson
President, Illinois Wesleyan University
mkurz@iwu.edu
One of the most controversial recommendations of the Spellings
Commission relates to the creation of a national student records
database to track retention and graduation rates. I have reviewed the
arguments for this recommendation and find myself puzzled, not with the
need or appropriateness of reporting this data, but with the complexity,
expense and value of building a national data base for this purpose.
University presidents agree that retention and graduation rates are
critically important in assessing the effectiveness of our programs and
in informing prospective students, parents and others. However, in my
view, the solution is much simpler than building a massive, expensive,
and time-consuming national database. What is really needed is to agree
upon more uniform, inclusive, and robust formulas for institutions to
use in reporting this data. We can accomplish that task long before the
issues surrounding a national student records database are ever resolved.
Jake B. Schrum
President, Southwestern University ( Georgetown, TX)
davise@southwestern.edu
The overwhelming consensus of the group – which I share – is that the major problems facing higher education in this country are societal problems that no government agency can solve.
For example, one area the report focuses heavily on is access to higher education, particularly for the country’s growing minority population. However, the report fails to acknowledge that many students – particularly those from minority communities – need stronger preparation toenter college. Some require as much as 18 months of remedial work before they can even begin college-level work. This prolongs their time to graduation, which puts even further financial strain on these students and their families.
A much better approach to solving problems such as these is for local communities and private entities to make a commitment to helping those who need extra support to obtain a college degree.
Judith Shapiro
President, Barnard College
egilders@barnard.edu
The Spellings Commission condemns “a financing system that provides limited incentives for colleges and universities to take aggressive steps to improve institutional efficiency and productivity.” The implied argument here is that gifts from donors hide operating flaws in the functioning of our educational institutions. This argument denigrates philanthropy, and assumes that donors are oblivious to issues of strategic priority and to how well their gifts have been used. In fact, private institutions are highly accountable to their donors and communicate with them in great detail, and with specific evidence, about funded projects.
Philanthropy is one of the central strengths of our society. Basic to our civilization is the sense of obligation that the fortunate feel to give back substantial portions of their wealth for the common good. For example, in the face of inadequate government funding for financial aid, private gifts enable our colleges to open their doors to students of all socio-economic backgrounds. |
