College Quality

Shining a Light on the University of Phoenix

Ben Miller — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:58:00 -0400

"Bring on the data," was the message echoed loudly by representatives of for-profit colleges at a recent event on the sector hosted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank. That same day, the University of Phoenix, the largest chain of for-profit trade schools in the country, took its own step in that direction by releasing the first of what it promises to be an annual self-assessment of academic outcomes.

At first glance, it appears that the for-profit sector is prepared to usher in a new age of accountability in higher education. But just how ready are these schools to let the sunshine in on their actual performance?

Consider the University of Phoenix's self study of its students' success. While perhaps a laudable step toward transparency, there are serious questions about the methodology the institution used to carry out the assessment. (It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the for-profit sector has preached openness while providing misleading data, about the performance of its students, particularly in the areas of graduation and job placement rates.)

The study was based on comparing the results between "freshmen" and "seniors" at Phoenix and elsewhere on the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP), a national exam designed by the Educational Testing Service (the different levels are in quotations because the university sets its levels by credit hours obtained, not years completed).

As presented, the results are quite impressive. Seniors showed improvement over freshmen in all MAPP areas, and Phoenix students overall scored at levels roughly equal to students at comparable institutions. Despite starting at lower achievement levels than peer institutions, Phoenix students made gains from their freshmen to senior year that were equivalent to students at these other schools.

But, as Inside Higher Ed pointed out, the data the university used to make these comparisons are problematic. Most troubling is the fact that Phoenix's study is not longitudinal -- meaning the university didn't actually evaluate the same students as freshmen and then again as seniors. While the for-profit giant is not the first college to take this approach, doing so is especially problematic at schools like Phoenix that predominantly enroll nontraditional students of a diverse range of ages and levels of work experience.

As Trace Urdan, a research analyst on the for-profit higher education industry, recently pointed out in a comment he submitted to Inside Higher Ed on the Phoenix report, it is entirely misleading to compare a 20-something "freshman" with little work experience and a General Equivalency Diploma with a "senior" who is a 40-year-old middle manager with college experience who has come to Phoenix to learn a new skill. The two are apples and oranges. Without at least comparing similar students, we can't know whether the achievement gains were caused by Phoenix or by other factors.

The Phoenix study also contains an estimate of its cost to taxpayers, presumably to make the point that these achievement gains come at little governmental expense. By focusing on the costs to taxpayers, however, Phoenix shifts the attention away from the hidden costs to students, who ultimately must live with the debt they amass to attend such a high-priced institution.

Not surprisingly, Phoenix's estimate of taxpayer expenses shows that students at public and private non-profit colleges cost the government substantially more than individuals enrolled at for-profit trade schools, primarily because of the direct federal and state support for these institutions. (Phoenix, in fact, makes the questionable assertion that it actually generates $322.79 in per-pupil taxpayer revenue because of the federal taxes it pays. See chart below.)

While Phoenix's analysis makes the school seem cheaper, there are some troubling areas in which it is substantially more expensive than other types of institutions. The largest taxpayer expense at for-profits, for example, is the expected cost of future loan defaults. The report estimates the cost of defaults is $38.93 for public colleges and $77.38 for private ones, compared to a whopping $220.26 at for-profits and $298.51 at Phoenix.

While Phoenix presents the higher default cost as more than offset by the federal taxes the university pays, it fails to mention the devastating consequences that defaulting on a loan can have for indebted students. For example, the government has the authority to seize portions of borrowers' paychecks, tax refunds, and Social Security payments without a court order. This affects an individual's ability to consume, save, or contribute to the economy in other ways -- which is a further loss of taxpayer revenue.

Ignoring the costs to students also leads to distorted policy recommendations. For example, a recent piece in Reason Magazine fawns over Phoenix, saying by many measures it is "the most successful institution for higher education in American history." This is certainly true in terms of enrollment and profit. But what about the students it serves? The article defends the school, saying "Phoenix offers the educational equivalent of a subprime mortgage: not the best product the industry has to offer, but a potentially valuable option for people who might not otherwise get into a desired market."

In reality, attending Phoenix is similar to taking out a subprime mortgage instead of obtaining a widely available subsidized loan from a local non-profit lender -- in this case a community college. These schools often offer similar products and cater to comparable populations, while charging tuition that is nearly $10,000 cheaper, according to the College Board. Even if a student successfully pays off their "subprime mortgage," is the education at Phoenix sufficiently superior to a community college to justify the tuition differential?

While the Phoenix study is a baby step toward transparency, the university still has a long way to go to produce a robust picture of its effectiveness. We especially want Phoenix and other for-profit colleges to demonstrate the added value that their students get from attending such a high-cost institution, rather than taking similar, cheaper programs at community colleges or at other low-cost state universities. If for-profit institutions really want to "bring on the data," they should be prepared to let the sunshine in on this area.

Guest Post: A System of Student Financial Support

Ed Policy — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:22:00 -0400

By Art Hauptman

Current arrangements for providing financial support to college students and their families in this country are not meeting many of the objectives for which they were intended. The Spellings Commission summed it up well in its final report: "The entire financial aid system - including federal, state, institutional, and private programs - is confusing, complex, inefficient, duplicative, and frequently does not direct aid to students who truly need it." As a result, the Commission and a number of other groups with wide ranging political agendas have recommended that "the entire student financial system be restructured". But what would that entail?

Since first established in the 1960s, the federal student aid programs of grants, loans, and work-study - in concert with state, institutional, and private efforts - have provided access to a postsecondary education for millions of Americans who otherwise might not have had enough funds to attend. More recently, federal tax offsets against current tuition expenses and tax-preferred incentives for college savings serve as an important source of financial relief for hard-pressed taxpayers from a range of incomes who worry that they will be unable to pay the constantly mounting bill for tuition and other expenses.

But there is good reason to believe that the financing system also has been a factor in some of the most nagging difficulties associated with American postsecondary education:

The growing number of students who require remedial coursework because they are not fully prepared to do college level work when they enroll

The fact that degree completion rates in the United States are below average among industrialized countries

Tuitions and other charges at both public and private colleges increasing at twice the rate of inflation for a quarter century, raising concerns about college affordability.

Student aid and tuition tax policies are certainly not solely or even primarily to blame for these concerns and trends. Many other factors are much more important in explaining the lack of student readiness, low completion rates, and mounting tuition bills. But the student aid system is not blameless.

The basic underlying problem is that the current system of providing financial support to college students and their families is not a system at all. Rather it is a loose conglomeration of policies and practices at the federal, state, institutional, and private levels that often conflict with each other, with the result that efforts by one governmental unit or group often cancel out efforts by others.

Moreover, federal policies are often in conflict with each other - student aid programs intended to promote greater access may be detracting from better student readiness and success as measured by degree completion. Increasing reliance on tax policies to help families pay for college is often at odds with the more access-oriented policies contained in the traditional federal and state student aid programs. As a result of poor design and lack of policy coordination, there are many problems with the current structure of providing financial support to college students and their families, including:

The system of applying for aid and administering it is far too complex which in itself becomes a large barrier to greater access.

Aid often is not well targeted to students from the lowest income families making it that much harder to achieve the goal of providing greater equity of access.

Student debt burdens are growing rapidly and there is far too little relief for the growing number of borrowers who are having trouble making their payments.

The existing financing structure places too much emphasis on getting students into college and there is not nearly enough focus on whether students are prepared to do the work or whether they will complete their educational program.

There is reason to suspect that the growing availability of aid, particularly loans, have been a factor in tuition and other charges growing at twice the rate of inflation for the past quarter century, suggesting a price effect of student aid.

The provision of government aid may encourage institutions that package aid to move their discounts up the income scale, suggesting that some forms of student aid, particularly government grants, may have an adverse substitution effect.

These and very real problems that indicate the current structure of student financial support needs to be changed in fundamental ways.

A subsequent post or two, if Higher Ed Watch doesn't tire of me, will describe a set of principles that should guide future reforms with specific suggestions for moving forward on this agenda. Big changes are needed to make current levels of government support work better for students and their families. Patchwork won't do.

Art Hauptman is an independent consultant on higher education finance issues. The views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the New America Foundation.

Adjunct Faculty Use

Lindsey Luebchow — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:11:00 -0400

Colleges' reliance on adjuncts, or low-paid part-time instructors, to carry much of the teaching load at their institutions has long been one of higher education's dirty little secrets. College lobbyists are fighting to keep it that way, as they are opposing efforts by Congress to shine a little light on their adjunct hiring policies.

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have approved Higher Education Act reauthorization bills that would require colleges to publicize to prospective students the number of adjuncts they employ. The American Council on Education and other college groups oppose these provisions, complaining that providing specific data on adjuncts would be burdensome for their institutions.

We're sensitive to higher ed concerns regarding reporting burden. But given the choice among doing nothing, government actively regulating the use of adjuncts, or reporting to students and families, we vote for sunshine. In fact, Higher Ed Watch would urge lawmakers to go even further and require colleges to provide greater detail to prospective students about the types of courses that adjuncts teach.

Adjunct Faculty and Student Retention

In evaluating colleges, prospective students deserve to know the likelihood of whether they will be taught by full-time professors or adjuncts. This is not just an academic matter. Recent research has shown the negative impact that heavy use of adjuncts, particularly for teaching freshmen, has had on student academic performance and success.

For example, a new study, which will be published later this year, found that first-year college students are much more likely to drop out if they take a "gatekeeper course" with an adjunct instructor rather than with a full-time faculty member. The study, the results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in March, examined the transcripts of about 30,000 students who attended four public four-year universities in a southeastern state between 2002 and 2005. The researchers defined gatekeeper courses as large introductory classes that students must pass in order to continue on to higher level classes in a degree track.

The study found that students who took gatekeeper courses with adjuncts were "significantly less likely to return for their sophomore years," according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. The study's authors did not place the blame on the adjuncts themselves, but on institutional policies that make it difficult for students to interact with adjuncts outside of the classroom. Because adjuncts generally spend little time on campus, students can't easily discuss their course work or get help outside of the classroom.

Other studies have found similar negative student outcomes, particularly related to student retention. One study, conducted by a University of Washington researcher, looked specifically at community colleges and observed that institutions with higher percentages of adjunct faculty had lower program completion rates. Another study, conducted for the National Bureau of Economic Research, looked at individual students and found that those with an adjunct-heavy course load in their first year of college were much more likely to drop out.

The Adjunct Faculty Trend, and the Growing Need for Transparency

The number of adjunct faculty has been quickly rising in recent years, while tenured, full-time faculty positions have grown at a much slower rate. In 1985, full-time professors represented 64 percent of all faculty members. Their share dropped to 59 percent in 1995 and 52 percent in 2005. Adjuncts represented 36 percent of all faculty members in 1985, and their share grew to 40 percent in 1995 and 48 percent in 2005.

Colleges generally hire adjuncts to save money. They typically are paid much less than regular faculty members and lack job security. Many also lack health care and retirement benefits.

As these studies indicate, colleges' growing reliance on adjuncts comes at a cost to students. College leaders need to evaluate their use of adjuncts, particularly in teaching introductory courses and at community colleges where students often need more faculty support. (In addition, accrediting agencies should incorporate adjunct faculty information into their reviews; a new report finds they rarely consider adjuncts when performing faculty evaluations.)

College lobbyists may want to keep institution reliance on adjuncts hidden, but Congress shouldn't let them. At the very least, colleges should be required to disclose their numbers of adjunct faculty to prospective students, and the Department should then publicize it on their website. We'd urge lawmakers to go further and require colleges to report what types of courses adjuncts are assigned to teach (e.g. freshman v. upper level courses). These are at least good first steps that could encourage colleges to slow adjunct growth and consider quality questions when they use adjuncts as a cost-saving measure

The American Council on Education says that it wants to strike the adjunct faculty reporting requirement in order to "streamline information [HEA bill] mandates to aid prospective students." Not reporting adjunct faculty isn't streamlining; it's an omission that masks an indicator of college quality.

In Pursuit of a Quality College Education: An Academic All-Star Basketball Team

Lindsey Luebchow — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:33:00 -0400

Last week, Higher Ed Watch published its annual "Academic Sweet Sixteen" bracket, which ranks the teams in the NCAA tournament based on their basketball team graduation rates. While it's important to consider how many players leave school with degrees in their hands, there's a significant flaw in the comparison. We have no way to determine whether players who graduated actually learned anything or obtained the skills necessary to enter the workforce.

As we discussed during the football season, there is no data on college quality for athletes and very little for college students in general. It's widely known that athletes often cluster in "jock majors," which provide them with classes that demand and teach very little. The goal of many big-time basketball teams is simply to keep their players academically eligible, not to give them an education that will be of value in the future.

But because there is no objective way to track the relative worth of athletes' degrees (and remember, this problems extends to all consumers of higher education), we have to rely on anecdotal evidence.

On the positive side, there are examples of basketball players and teams that excel both on the court and in the classroom. Higher Ed Watch wants to applaud some of these current players, and use them as an example for the teams that place little value on academics. As shocking as this may sound, these athletes show that it is possible to be a highly successful Division I basketball player and graduate with a meaningful degree.

The following players are seniors who will graduate in May, and they have all started games for teams that made the NCAA tournament this year:

Adam Emmeneker, Drake
Four majors: management, business, finance and entrepreneurial management
3.97 GPA
Cliff Hammonds, Clemson
Double major: architecture and psychology
3.2 GPA
First scholarship basketball player on record at Clemson to earn a degree in architecture
A. J. Graves, Butler
Major: Mathematics and Actuarial Science
3.35 GPA
(Butler also won Higher Ed Watch's Academic Sweet Sixteen last year with a 83 percent graduation rate)
Justin Hare, Belmont
Major: Exercise Science, Pre-Med
3.86 GPA
Plans to attend medical school
Sasha Kaun, Kansas
Major: Computer Science
At least 3.2 GPA
"Computer whiz"; participated in an engineering robotic competition
Jonathan Wallace, Georgetown
Major: Government
Admitted to Georgetown University Law Center
Ty Rogers, Western Kentucky
Major: Business management, minor in entrepreneurship
3.8 GPA

That's a pretty impressive list. In contrast, consider the University of Memphis men's basketball team this year (most recent graduation rate: 30 percent): Of the six juniors and seniors who have declared majors, three are majoring in "Interdisciplinary Studies," two in "Sport and Leisure Management," and one in "Communication." These don't sound like the most rigorous academic tracks to us.

The broader point, however, is that we don't really know anything about the education that these athletes received. Maybe the Sport and Leisure Management department at Memphis has very high standards and produces students well-prepared to enter a management career upon graduation.

However, stories like this recent investigative series in The Ann Arbor News raise major questions about the academic integrity of big-time sports programs. The Ann Arbor News found that a very high percentage of University of Michigan athletes, particularly football players, major in "general studies" and enroll in numerous independent study classes. This clustering of athletes in a cushy academic track raises red flags about the quality of Michigan athletes' degrees.

But it's only when the media takes the time to do these investigations or when frustrated faculty members speak up that academic quality problems are exposed. The NCAA needs to start keeping comprehensive data on academic quality for its athletes—for example, an accounting of the courses taken by athletes with statistics such as GPAs or course requirements. And higher education institutions in general need to establish better quality measures for all students.

All college degrees are not equal—and unless colleges and the NCAA take steps to prove that the degrees received by their students have real value, they are both at risk: colleges of losing consumers, and the NCAA of losing its tax-exempt status.