I read an article in the October 15, 2011 issue of The Economist entitled “Trouble in the Middle.”  The article begins by stating that interest in MBA programs at American business schools peaked in 2009 and applications have fallen since then.  The author states that some business schools are worried that the trend is related to more than just a slow recovering economy, but in fact a greater change.

The Economist presents data that may back the case that it’s not just the economy.  In examining data accumulated in their annual ranking of the top 100 MBA programs, they note that in 2010, the average cost of an MBA for the 85 schools outside of the top 15 was $81,911 while the average starting salary for the graduates of those schools was $81,178.  Five years earlier, the two year cost for the same 85 schools was $60,247 while the starting salary average was $78,442.  The attached graph shows that the disparity was greater ten years ago when the average starting salary was over $80,000 and the average cost was slightly less than $50,000.  The comparison could hardly be more dramatic; increasing costs of tuition have cut the noticeable advantage of attending a residential MBA program outside of the top 15. 

Elite schools like Harvard still have an advantage according to The Economist’s survey data.  Additionally, the article mentions a recent event at Harvard hosted by a large consulting firm where a member of that firm’s senior management noted while speaking to the faculty that the most valuable player on the Harvard Business School team was the Director of Admissions, a not so subtle reference to the elite students recruited to the school and subsequently recruited by that consulting firm.

Read the rest of this entry »

An article in the August issue of Wired magazine about the Khan Academy and how it is changing the rules of education prompted me to write.  Back in 2006 when my neighbor’s son was a middle school student at McDonogh School, I heard his mother describe how the math teachers at McDonogh had created math instructional videos for the students to use to grasp mathematical concepts.  The part that resonated with me was her statement that her son would review the videos from their home computer as many times as necessary to grasp the topic before submitting homework or taking exams.  Although I was a good math student in high school, I remembered the experience of learning new concepts where I would either see the teacher or another student after class in order to better comprehend the methodology for solving the question.  The videos being used by my neighbor’s son substituted for the after class or after school in person tutorials I used to seek out. 

Since APUS courses are offered wholly online with no time for face-to-face instruction, we developed a number of math instructional videos using Camtasia tablet software and embedded them in our classrooms to supplement the instructional materials.  Later, we decided to make our math videos available to everyone on our American Public University iTunesU site  and our APUS Youtube channel.  Comments to the individual videos, primarily in the form of thank you’s, demonstrate the usefulness and the need for technology like this.  More recently, we partnered with McDonogh School to establish a website, www.campusmath.com, to offer primarily math videos to the public for an elementary school through high school curriculum.  While I can’t speak on behalf of McDonogh School, I think that both of our institutions are aligned with the belief that math skills need to be improved and providing access to these videos to teachers, students, and parents may contribute to improved skills without providing the teachers and professors inside of a physical or electronic classroom.

Read the rest of this entry »

In February, Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn, Louis Caldera, and Louis Soares published a research report entitled “Disrupting College:  How Disruptive Innovation Can Deliver Quality and Affordability to Postsecondary Education.”  The report was sponsored by the Center for American Progress and Innosight Institute.  Christensen is a Harvard Business School professor noted for his study of disruptive innovations that influence industries and a few years ago, he and his colleagues penned a book entitled Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns which I reviewed on my blog.

In this report, Christensen and his co-authors (hereafter abbreviated as Christensen) discuss the potential for online education to be a disruptive influence on higher education with a total cost of education per student 40 percent less than the traditional universities (when you combine the state and federal subsidies with the cost of tuition). 

Probably the most relevant parts of Christensen’s paper are the recommendations at the back for policymakers and traditional universities.   Christensen says that state and federal officials must “honestly ask and answer” two questions.  The first question is “is the traditional universities’ business model sustainable?”  Christensen believes that there are few traditional universities that can answer yes to this question, particularly given the evidence that online education represents a scalable disruptive technology.  The second question is “is the primary stewardship to facilitate the best possible postsecondary education and training for the people in their state or whether they are appointed to be caretakers of the specific institutions that have historically provided higher education.”  If the answer is the former, then officials must include the disrupters in their partnership to ensure that as many as possible receive higher education.  If the answer is the latter, then low cost universities must be framed as “competitors and enemies.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education “promotes public policies that enhance Americans’ opportunities to pursue and achieve high-quality education and training beyond high school.”  The organization also “prepares action-oriented analyses of pressing policy issues facing the states and the nation regarding opportunity and achievement in higher education-including two- and four-year, public and private, for-profit and nonprofit institutions.”  I have cited their Measuring Up reports in previous blog postings as well as utilized some of their published data in my research.  The next, and possibly last, Measuring Up report may be issued this fall or early next year. Read the rest of this entry »

I recently had the chance to read a research report titled “With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them,” published by Public Agenda with financial support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  The authors of the report surveyed over 600 young adults between the ages of 22 and 30.  The purpose of the survey was to compare the answers of students who dropped out of college to the answers of students who graduated within the three year (for community colleges) or six year (for four-year colleges) standards as measured by the U.S. Department of Education.  Jean Johnson and Jon Rochkind, along with Amber Ott and Samantha DuPont, wanted to validate the reasons why students depart from colleges before graduating and see if the students themselves offered reasons different than many of the recent research studies.

The authors point out that according to the U.S. Department of Education, only 20 percent of community college students graduate within three years and only 40 percent of four year college students graduate within six years.  In fact, only 27 percent of college students attend the traditional residential college that most people envision as the idyllic college environment.  Even more telling of the changes in college student profiles, 45 percent of students attending four year colleges reported working more than 20 hours per week and 60 percent of students attending two year colleges reported working more than 20 hours per week.

Read the rest of this entry »

An August 11th article in The New York Times caught my attention.  Written by Tamar Lewin, the article describes a policy brief released by the College Board which concludes that for the most part, recent graduates are carrying “manageable” debt loads.  Using data published in the Department of Education’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, the policy brief notes that while the number of students using loans to pay for their post-secondary educations has increased in the last five years, the volume of students who carry overly burdensome levels of debt upon graduation remains small in comparison.

According to the policy brief, of the students who earned a degree or certificate program during the 2007-2008 academic year, some 41 percent graduated with no debt whatsoever.  Those students borrowing more than $40,000 to pay for their educations represented only six percent of total student borrowing.  Students borrowing money to pay for a certificate program carried substantially less debt overall than those borrowing money to pay for an associate or bachelors degree.  A meager one percent of those borrowing money for a certificate program found themselves $40,000 or more in debt upon graduation while ten percent of those borrowing to complete a bachelors degree carried that level of debt or more upon graduation.  The above statistics found in the College Board’s policy brief are logical when one considers the number of credits required to complete each of the three degree types compared above.  What’s not logical is the $40,000 threshold selected to evaluate reasonable debt loads.  Obtaining a $40,000 loan for a certificate program is almost certain to lead to a negative ROI unless the certificate is related to technical training in an extremely high paying profession.  Even then, it is a risky venture.  While borrowing $40,000 for a four year degree sounds better, it may not be relative to the average loan balance of graduating students.  The College Board briefing does not take into account the students who borrow money to attend college who don’t graduate at all, or the students who attend college until their money runs out.  Using limited outcomes with a broad brush to stimulate policy discussions can be misleading.  With approximately half of college freshmen graduating in six years, we shouldn’t ignore the half that don’t finish.

Read the rest of this entry »