Higher Ed Watch - logo
 

Higher Ed Roundup: Week of December 1 - December 5

December 5, 2008 - 11:45am

Paulson Acts to Prop Up Private Student Loan Providers

Reports Paint Dire Picture of College Affordability

Adjunct Faculty Use High and Widespread

 

Paulson Acts to Prop Up Private Student Loan Providers

Shortly before the Thanksgiving holiday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gave private student loan providers a reason to be thankful. He announced that starting early next year, the federal government would lend as much as $200 billion to investors holding securities backed by private student loans and other forms of consumer credit, such as auto loans and credit card debt. The plan is aimed at reviving the credit markets to help provide capital and liquidity to lenders so that they will continue offering consumer loans, including high-cost private student loans. While the loan industry and allies at groups like the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators hailed the plan, consumer advocates and some Democratic lawmakers expressed serious concerns about it. On Wednesday, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) sent a letter to Paulson urging him to be cautious about bailing out lenders who have engaged in unethical practices that have harmed students. “Using taxpayer dollars to aid an industry that has been detrimental to so many students is very troubling,” Durbin wrote. “At a minimum, the Treasury should require that any receipt of taxpayer dollars be contingent on the lenders’ agreement to increase consumer protections for private student loan borrowers.”

Reports Paint Dire Picture of College Affordability

Unless steps are taken to curb ever-increasing college prices, higher education will become unaffordable for most Americans, according to a new report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. The report, “Measuring Up 2008”, finds that published tuition and fees increased 439 percent between 1982 and 2007 in non-inflation-adjusted dollars while family income rose 147 percent during this period, meaning that the cost of higher education is eating up a growing share of family incomes. The report calculated that the net cost of attendance at a four-year state university amounts to 28 percent of median family income, while the cost of attending a four-year private college amounts to 76 percent of median family income. For the poorest families, the cost of attending a four-year public university amounts to 55 percent of median family income, up from 39 percent eight years ago. At community colleges, the cost of attendance represents 49 percent of these families' median income.

Meanwhile, a second report released this week by the National Association of State Colleges and Land Grant Universities projected that by 2036, tuition and fees at its member institutions would rise from 11 percent of family income to 24 percent of family income. While the group’s findings are less dire than “Measuring Up," the report does acknowledge that tuition growth at public universities, largely due to cuts in state funding, is making attendance at a four-year colleges unaffordable for students from the most financially needy families. "We think public higher education is affordable right now, but we're concerned that it won't be, if the changes we're seeing continue, and family income doesn't go up," David Shulenburger, the association's vice president for academic affairs and co-author of the report, told The New York Times.

Adjunct Faculty Use High and Widespread

The majority of public college and university courses are taught by adjunct faculty members and graduate teaching assistants, according to a new report released this week by the American Federation of Teachers. The report found that 49 percent of courses at these public institutions are taught by non-tenure-track, part-time and full-time instructors. In addition, the report estimates that graduate teaching assistants represent between 16 and 32 percent of undergraduate instructors at these institutions. Meanwhile, the report found that the average compensation per course for adjunct faculty, $2,758, was about a third of that paid to full-time faculty. The increasing reliance of colleges on "a growing corps of instructors who teach classes part-time or on limited-term contracts, without permanent appointments, equitable compensation, or appropriate professional support," the report states, "raises serious issues about the ability of colleges and universities in the United States to provide the highest quality education possible."

Use of Adjunct Faculty

I was struck by the following quote in the item on the use of adjunct faculty:

"The increasing reliance of colleges on "a growing corps of instructors who teach classes part-time or on limited-term contracts * * * raises serious issues about the ability of colleges and universities in the United States to provide the highest quality education possible."

There are a very few institutions that provide the "highest quality education possible" in the absolute -- isn't the issue providing the highest quality education possible GIVEN THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES? If the choice is between raising tuition even higher (or reducing aid to needy students) or reducing the cost of instruction through the use of less costly instructional personnel, isn't there a balance to be struck? Adjuncts or part-time faculty are not inherently inadequate or even inferior: the question is not their use in the abstract but WHO they are and HOW they are used. I'd like to see some qualitative research respecting the use of adjuncts and part-timers in terms of educational outcomes. Then one can do a more significant cost-benefit analysis.

I am not suggesting eliminating the professoriate -- full-time faculty are essential to a healthy higher education system and certainly to maintaining a robust research environment. but that is a societal benefit; for most students, what is most important is having a quality learning experience. Employment status doesn't necessarily correlate.

Part-time faculty

I think AFT agrees with the idea that using part-time faculty is not a problem. The issue is the lack of support part-time faculty receive such as professional development, administrative help, and time to spend with students outside of class. In many cases, pt faculty provide needed specialization and staffing flexibility. If colleges provided the same support to part-time faculty that is available to full-time faculty and raised their pay to something approaching the pay of full-time faculty, they would be less likely to be accused of cutting costs and cutting quality.

The report is an introduction to a model that colleges can use to estimate the cost of finding the right balance between use of part-time faculty and the economic realities colleges must deal with.

An income transfer and an unsustainable business model.

I am with Mike Goldstein 100% when he says "Adjuncts or part-time faculty are not inherently inadequate or even inferior: the question is not their use in the abstract but WHO they are and HOW they are used. I'd like to see some qualitative research respecting the use of adjuncts and part-timers in terms of educational outcomes. Then one can do a more significant cost-benefit analysis"

But let's look at from the schools point of view. I worked at a school of higher ed that charged about $25,000/yr to the students. Given about 5 courses a semester that works out to about $2,500 per course. I taught as an adjunct for about $3,500 per course. I had 15 students in my section.

If we use $2K per student per course that looks like:15 x $2K = $30 K
That leaves about $27 k per course/per semester to pay for everything else. This has nothing to do with the quality of learning, it is only from the business point of view.

Meanwhile, I have watched good hard working parents and their students go into $100,000 of debt to give their kids the best life chances.

In this context, does it make more sense to focus an on A: make debt easier or B: to make education faster, better and much cheaper? Given the explosion of communication tech and given that education is primarily based on communication, it seems to me that the common sense approach is B. The real question is who is going to capture the value? Is it going to be the school or is it going to be the rest of us, through lower prices?

Given that America is now entering a world of limited financial resources, my bet is that President Elect Obama will have no choice to concentrate on B. This is going to ruffle lots of feathers in the ed business.

But my take is that we are looking at a "General Motors" problem.

Post new comment

Please note that comments are reviewed by an editor prior to publication. We welcome all relevant critiques, feedback and counterarguments, but comments that are profane, offensive, off-topic or blatantly commercial will not be published.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for weeding out automated spam submissions.