November 11, 2008

What College Presidents Think About Costs, Access, and Quality

College presidents, the public, and other stakeholders in higher education appear to define the challenges facing the American postsecondary-education system differently, a dynamic that is a barrier to forging a consensus about how to tackle issues of cost, access, and quality, according to a new report by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and Public Agenda.

In their report, “The Iron Triangle: College Presidents Talk About Costs, Access, and Quality,” the two groups document the views of more than two dozen college presidents they interviewed about those topics. The one-on-one interviews were conducted with the leaders of various types of colleges — including public and private ones and two-year and four-year institutions — that are located across the country.

The report says it cannot provide a definitive picture of the views of college presidents nationwide, but, among the leaders interviewed, some main ideas were mostly shared.

In the view of many of the presidents interviewed, the report says, the three main issues of cost, quality, and access exist in what the authors call an “iron triangle,” meaning that they are linked in an “unbreakable reciprocal relationship, such that any change in one will inevitably impact the others.”

Most of the presidents believe that to improve the quality of education, more money needs to be put into the system, and that cutting costs in higher education, conversely, would eventually lead to declines in quality or access.

In order to meet the educational demands of the future, the college presidents also generally share the view that much of the “heavy lifting” will need to be done by governments putting more money into higher education, by families paying more in tuition, and by private businesses entering into more partnerships with colleges, the report says.

Most of the presidents also seem to believe that colleges have already done much of what they can do to become cost-effective. —Sara Hebel

Comments

1. They’ve become cost effective in terms of replacing full time faculty with adjuncts, but nothing has been done to control costs on the administrative side.

   — tje    Nov 12, 04:01 AM    #

2. This would be laughable if it weren’t so serious. Simply cutting costs is no solution, and it will effect quality. However, a systematic approach to improvement throughout an organization can reduce costs and improve quality at the same time.

   — Bill    Nov 12, 06:53 AM    #

3. Sure, more money from the government would solve a lot of high ed’s problems, but history shows that it isn’t going to happen. The demands on state treasuries for more social services, K-12 education, infrastructure maintenance and federal mandates are growing. Many of these forces are drvien by fundamental demographic changes in the population and by increased overseas compeititon. The money just isn’t going to be there, and the sooner higher ed leaders accept this fact, the sooner they can take creative steps toward finding another, more constructive business model for their campues.

   — Jim    Nov 12, 08:45 AM    #

4. tje, you must be a faculty member. More and more strains are put on the administrative infrastructure of the institution each year by various governing institutions. The reporting and regulations governing college finances is 10 fold what is was 20 years ago and this requires well trained administrators to manage. This of course does not even address the support needs of faculty who don’t feel the need to get bogged down in minutae. Maybe a better discussion on cutting costs would be a revision of the tenured faculty concept and how this eats at an institutions budget.

   — Matt    Nov 12, 08:56 AM    #

5. Both tje and Matt are correct. Maybe a 5 year rolling contract could replace tenure, and America’s institutions need to look elsewhere (UK & commercial sector in particular) for models and best practices of unbloated administrative structures.

   — DWB    Nov 12, 09:43 AM    #

6. Of course the presidents say more money will solve all problems. And of course they warn that less money will result in poor quality education. What myopic idiocy! Between 1996 and 2006 the cost of education rose 69.5%. Did quality improve by 60% or better? More money is not the answer (obviously). But what is the answer? Simply put, a complete overhaul of the American postsecondary education system. Set up like the guilds of the middle ages, our current structure – and attitudes – have to change. What did the wise man say? The sign of insanity is doing the same things the same way and expecting different results (or something like that). I suggest that a first step is to read Clayton Christensen’s book “Disrupting Class.” It may open some minds while inflaming others. It is my opinion that we need some inflamed minds and some challenges to the high comfort level of the closed, protective society that is our higher education system.

   — Joe S    Nov 12, 11:06 AM    #

7. More money? Please! On an inflation-adjusted per student basis, higher education is less efficient now than at any other time in our history. Unless students are coming out a whole lot smarter, the US has been experiencing a massive decline in higher educational productivity. One of the primary problems is the continued emphasis on prestige over productivity. Dressing up schools with star faculty, four star dining and rooming facilities, and luxury-box stadiums may help the brand but it doesn’t do much to increase productivity. Educating as many students as effectively and efficiently as possible should be job one. Time to eliminate tenure, outsource standard classes (e.g. calculus on-line), test graduating students for knowledge obtained, and measure schools on productivity per student. I think its time to start a non-profit to help dismantle the higher education system as we know it.

   — SmcD    Nov 12, 11:33 AM    #

8. As usual in these debates some folks assume that tenure increases the cost of higher education and that its elimination would lead to lower costs. This assumption
   is neither consistent with the evidence or economic theory. First, over the last 30 years the percentage of the faculty who hold tenure or are tenure eligible has declined dramatically. In 2005 only 32% of faculty either held tenure or where on the tenure track. That compares with almost 60% in 1975. This massive shift occurred at the very same time that tuition was rising faster then the cost of living.
   This fact alone should be sufficient to suggest that the institution of tenure is not responsible for the rise in tuition. (You will notice I refer to the rise in tuition and not cost since one of the factors involved in the rise in tuition has been the massive increase in financial aid provided by institutions to increase access). As for economic theory let us assume that tenure has a real economic value. Let us also assume that we want to attract talented people to become university faculty. If you eliminate tenure you will have to add something else to the mix in order to attract the same caliber of individual. In fact one of the reasons faculty salaries are lower then those of similarly educated people in other sectors of the economy is that faculty receive very valuable but non monetary benefits. Tenure is one of those. Remove tenure and you make the job less attractive and you have to either reduce the quality of the pool you are going to draw from or increase monetary benefits. Now you might point out that since the number of faculty who have tenure or can obtain tenure has in fact declined that this theoretical model must be wrong. In fact university’s and colleges have in fact followed the first option by hiring many many part time faculty who on average are less qualified then those on the tenure track. (whether this has reduced the quality of the education provided is a much harder question to answer but a recent study does show an inverse relationship between student success as measured by graduation rates and the use of adjunct faculty)

   — JH    Nov 12, 12:18 PM    #

9. Throwing more money at an outdated education system that doesn’t educate our children is not a very bright idea. Students learn just enough to pass the SOLs and graduate, but there is a gap in their English and math skills so they are not ready for college level work. I believe we rank number 10 in the world for education these days and our kids can’t pass the international tests. I’d say it’s time we benchmarked our system against the best… and it isn’t us.

   — Susan    Nov 12, 12:27 PM    #

10. For the past 10 years, what is the average percentage increase in administrative salaries vs. faculties’ salaries? What is the current percent of total higher education is allocated to administrative cost and to instruction cost relative to what it was 10 years ago? This may answer some of you concern about higher education cost.

    — mmh    Nov 12, 12:29 PM    #

11. Technology is one cost that hasn’t been discussed, but it impacts both faculty and administrators. The percentage of my budget that is devoted to tech support, computers and making sure that students can access things online that used to be provided in print has increased dramatically. In my area, the efficiencies created by technology haven’t necessarily resulted in more student learning, but rather in just keeping pace. Don’t get me wrong. Technology can be a wonderful thing, but it’s very expensive and often taken for granted.

    — cmm    Nov 12, 04:00 PM    #

12. I commented earlier today and have just now finished reading the report cited. Two things stand out, one of which is that “money will solve the problems, and we don’t care about the source of the funds – government, private industry, foundations, parents, and of course students – just get more of it to us.” But that’s old news. The most perceptive comment in the entire report, in my opinon, is the comparison of higher education to the American auto industry of the 1960s. Summed up in one word: hubris. To see this in context I urge you to read the report.

    — Joe S    Nov 12, 05:00 PM    #

13. There is no shortage of talented people willing to teach without tenure. The very fact that only 32% of faculty now have tenure vs. 60% in 1975 makes that abundantly clear. The mindset that tenured faculty are somehow special is part of the problem feeding higher education’s narcissistic elitistism.

    — SmcD    Nov 13, 04:53 PM    #

Previous: Professor Who Organized Climate-Change Project Plans Another Teach-In
Next: Provost Who Stepped Down at Washington State Will Teach at Regional Campus