Commission Calls Colleges 'Self-Satisfied' and 'Risk Averse'

Critics say report fails to recognize innovation on U.S. campuses

Related materials

List: Recommendations: Quality and Innovation

Article: Uncertainty Greets Report on Colleges by U.S. Panel

Article: Preamble to the Final Draft Report of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Article: Plenty of Ideas About Student Aid, but No Road Map

Article: Controversial Proposal on Accreditation Fails to Make Panel's Final Report

Article: Lengthy Fights Are Expected Over Measures on Accountability

Article: Q&A: David Ward Explains Why He Didn't Sign Commission's Report

Opinion: The Spellings Report, 'Warts and All'

Opinion: Underinvesting in the Future

Opinion: Both Lamp and Mirror

Opinion: Science and Math Take Money

Opinion: Give Us the Tools

Opinion: More Than Competition

Colloquy: Read the transcript of a live, online discussion with Charles Miller, chairman of the federal Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines U. of Delaware Approves New Diversity Discussions for Students The new, voluntary program will replace one tossed out last fall after coming under criticism as "thought reform." In Tight Employment Market, Career Services Gain Clout Borrowers' Uncertainty Has Colleges in Quandary How It Does It: The RIAA Explains How It Catches Alleged Music Pirates State High-School Exit Tests Do Not Improve Academic Achievement, Study Finds Commentary Business Students Should Learn More About Science

By ELYSE ASHBURN

Higher-education leaders often hold up colleges in the United States as the best in the world, but don't tell that to the federal Commission on the Future of Higher Education. The panel's final draft report does not paint a rosy picture of American competitiveness.

Among the facts the 19-member commission cites: The United States, which once led the world in higher-education attainment, is now ranked ninth among major industrialized countries.

To stop the backward slide, the commission asserts, colleges need to make it more convenient for students to study and easier for them to carry academic credits with them from place to place. And curricula need to be reconceived to improve the teaching of work-force skills and to emphasize high-demand career fields like mathematics and the health sciences.

It is a message the commission laid out plainly in the final draft, which will undergo minor editing before being presented to the U.S. Secretary of Education in mid- to late September. Where the recommendations go from there is not certain, but the panel's intent is clear, says one member, Robert W. Mendenhall, president of Western Governors University, an online nonprofit institution.

"The commission made a very strong statement around the idea that we cannot continue to do higher education the way we have been," he says.

The draft report characterizes American colleges and universities as "increasingly risk averse, at times self-satisfied, and unduly expensive." And while it notes that there is much to be proud of in higher-education's past, it asserts that the field has not changed quickly enough to meet the demands of employers in a global economy.

The commissioners also charge that many colleges and universities have failed to recognize the needs of today's students — almost a third of whom are older than 24, about 40 percent of whom are enrolled part time, and many of whom will attend several different institutions. In order to meet the demands of those students, for-profit institutions, as well as nonprofit two-year and four-year colleges, must play a pivotal role, commissioners say.

For-Profit Support

The commission did include numerous provisions in its report for which the for-profit industry had lobbied, including recommendations to simplify the transfer-of-credit process, to eliminate financial-aid regulations that differentiate between traditional semesters and nonstandard terms, and to require accreditation agencies to approve new institutions more quickly.

"They clearly acknowledged that we play an important role in the higher-education community," says Nancy B. Broff, general counsel for the Career College Association, which represents for-profit colleges. "We don't have some of the same issues that nonprofits have."

Indeed, for-profit institutions were often singled out in commission meetings as the more efficient and innovative siblings of the two-year and four-year nonprofit colleges. But some industry watchers who testified before the commission backing state and federal policies favorable to for-profit institutions offered a note of caution.

Howard M. Block, an analyst with Banc of America Securities who follows higher-education stocks, told the panel that while for-profit institutions were well-run businesses, he did not necessarily believe they were pedagogically sound. "There is a growing body of evidence," he testified in February, "that the for-profits are not in general enhancing the quality of education nor are they sufficiently accountable for their transgressions."

In the last two years, federal and state investigators have examined allegations that some publicly traded for-profit higher-education companies have engaged in aggressive and misleading recruiting and admissions tactics to inflate their enrollments and fraudulently collect federal financial-aid money. Some higher-education officials are bothered that the commission did not discuss those investigations in its report or recommend measures to protect students.

"We obviously understand that for-profit higher education is an important part of postsecondary education, but we have seen sustained abuses of students in that sector over the years," says David S. Baime, vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges.

G. Wayne Clough, president of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who also testified in front of the commission in February, says the report also ignores much of the innovation occurring at nonprofit colleges.

For example, all his institution's courses now have a Web-based component, and across the country, many engineering schools have retooled their curricula in recent years to meet industry demands for more collaborative, project-based learning.

Plus, Mr. Clough says, for-profit institutions are by nature more flexible than nonprofit colleges. "It's a lot easier if you're in the for-profit sector because you're probably going to do the stuff that's easy," he says. "You're not going to do engineering. You're not going to provide counseling services for a 17-year-old. You're not going to have a football program."

Investment in Science

Several business leaders and at least one state lawmaker say the commission's recommendations are on target, particularly when it comes to the need to focus more heavily on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

More federal and state investment in such programs — which the commission recommends in its report — is needed if the United States is to remain competitive, says David R. Ferrell, director of work-force strategy for the Semiconductor Industry Association. But he worries that competing demands, like spending on elementary and secondary schools and growing Medicaid costs, will keep lawmakers from making a large financial commitment.

"They're definitely receptive to it," Mr. Ferrell says of legislators. "But it's a question of what else is on the table. Getting this whole idea of being competitive and innovating on the agenda is a struggle."

Jon A. Husted, speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, says lawmakers — at least in his state — are willing to substantially increase their investment in science and math programs, but only if colleges and universities assure them that the money will be spent in new and creative ways.

"Legislatures need to say higher education is a priority, and we're going to make it a priority," he says. "But at the same time, we don't want to subsidize business as usual."

Questions of Substance

Some critics say the commission's recommendations on innovation are so obvious, or so vague, that they are of little use. Most higher-education leaders agree that innovation is necessary. It is the matter of specifics and the question of how that are the sticking points.

"There is a sense in which the report is just a string of platitudes," says Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

He says that is especially true of the commission's recommendation to streamline the transfer process to consistently allow students who transfer to carry most of their academic credits with them. But the panel's report does not provide guidance on how colleges and universities should do that.

"The question is, What is it that we should be doing that we're not?" Mr. Nassirian says, noting that he, too, would like to see the transfer system function more smoothly. "It may not just be an issue of institutional resistance. It may be that it's a hard thing to do."

Commission members say they intentionally avoided specifics in the report because they were charged with developing a broad agenda for change, not a road map.