President Obama’s speech led off with a discussion of the global economy and the fact that “the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge.”  One of the first persons to stimulate a national discussion on this topic was author Thomas Friedman with the publication of his book, The World is Flat, in 2005.  Friedman cogently makes the point that technology has opened up the ability for companies to effectively employ engineers from India and China while conducting their business from the U.S.  Friedman also discusses the higher rates of education in countries with former third world status where it is recognized that the ticket to financial success is a good education.

After the publication of Friedman’s book, the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education issued a publication entitled Transforming Higher Education:  National Imperative – State Responsibility (2006).  President Obama stated that “we have one of the highest dropout rates of any industrialized nation and half the students who begin college never finish.”  Reading through the NCSL report, you will find several chilling statistics, one of which is that “for every 100 ninth graders who enter high school, only 18 finish college within six years.”  President Obama stated that “three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma, and yet just over half of our citizens have that level of education.”  It doesn’t take a degree in mathematics to figure out that with an 18 percent college graduation rate (calculated from the base of ninth graders) our percentage of college-educated citizens going forward is on a much more rapid descent rate when compared to the ascent in other countries.

Part of the problem in lower college participation and graduation rates is that the fastest growing populations in America (Latinos, African Americans, and immigrants) are the lowest participating populations in higher education.  There are many research studies that document some of the reasons why our minority populations are participating in college at a lower rate.  One of them is affordability.  The NCSL report expresses a concern that America is in danger of creating a permanent underclass in that “the poorest individuals have only an 8 percent chance of obtaining a college degree compared to a 70 percent chance for the wealthiest individuals.”  Last night, President Obama said, “We’ve made college affordable for nearly 7 million more students, 7 million.”  That comment is misleading.  The stimulus package increases the amount of the Pell Grant awarded to recipients of federal financial aid from $4,731 to $5,350.  That is a notable increase and it would currently benefit the 5.4 million students who received Pell Grants last year and the estimated 6.7 million students who are projected to be using Pell Grants.  But increasing the Pell Grant does not make college affordable for nearly 7 million more students.  Our federal financial aid system has been designed to focus on loans, not grants.  The design of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 was to distinguish between mandatory entitlement programs and discretionary entitlement programs.  Student loans are considered mandatory entitlements and all other programs, including Pell Grants, are considered discretionary.  Thus, as the numbers of students eligible for federally subsidized loans have increased and the tuitions that colleges charge have increased, the government has been required to fund those increasing loan amounts (over $60 billion in 2008).  Pell Grants remained flat at $4,050 per year for the first five years of the Bush administration as tuitions made their meteoric rise and only recently, has Congress increased that amount.  At the same time, in some years, Pell Grant funding had to be legislated in arrears after it was determined that the number of students eligible for Pell Grants exceeded the original Department of Education projections.

There are many who say that the current financial aid system is broken.  The Spellings Commission suggested simplifying it and others have suggested that it does not achieve the educational goals that we need to attain as a country.  The formula for financial aid calculates the estimated family contribution for each student based on income and assets and the costs of attending the institution.  The higher the tuition and fees, the higher the loan while the Pell Grant amount stays relatively fixed.  In an article in yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education entitled “Don’t Fix the Student-Aid System.  Kill It.”, Robert Ronstadt, a former vice president at Boston University and author of Surviving the Tuition Travesty: How to Take the Financial Sting Out of Paying for College, says that colleges need to focus on lower tuition strategies and reduce the amount students must borrow, which has inched its way up to $21,000 per graduating undergraduate in 2007.  Ronstadt cites the disparity between tuition increases and family income increases that were reported in Measuring Up 2008 whereby the lowest income quintile of Americans perceives that they cannot afford college regardless of the tuition charged. 

President Obama and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, would be well-advised to establish a Commission to examine a financial aid system that incentivizes its participants (institutions) to charge more since the financial aid system will fund a loan that a student will eventually have to repay.  The President stated that “if you are willing to volunteer in your neighborhood or give back to your community or serve your country, we will make sure that you can afford a higher education.”  Maybe he has a plan to revamp financial aid and we have not seen it yet.  Ronstadt believes that lower tuitions and consequently lower loan balances can only benefit the student and the economy since students will have more disposable income with lower loan balances to pay after graduating.  The Spellings Commission cited affordability and access as two of its four key issues that higher education needs to address.  I believe that increased affordability is the primary  way that we can increase the number of college graduates and that it will expand access.  Serving adult learners through a financial aid system that recognizes that not everyone attends college immediately after graduating from high school will expand access and affordability.  Ronstadt says that colleges need to become more competitive and revise their operating model.  Some of the for-profit institutions and non-profit institutions that are tuition dependent already operate with efficient models and generally, affordable tuition rates.  The Presidents cited in the Iron Triangle Report (see my recent blog article about this report) state that they can increase access and affordability only if someone gives them more money.  My guess is that they haven’t studied economic models in a free-market economy or chose not to go through the heavy lifting required to solve the affordability problem.  Either way, it is disappointing that the attitude is more entitlement-oriented than geared toward designing a product that will benefit America’s students.

Lastly, President Obama ended his thoughts on a motivational note.  “So, tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be a community college or a four-year school, vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.  And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself; it’s quitting on your country. And this country needs and values the talents of every American.  That’s why — that’s why we will support — we will provide the support necessary for all young Americans to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. That is a goal we can meet.”  This is motivational and ambitious.  I hope that President Obama’s goal is attained as was President Kennedy’s goal to place a man on the moon by the end of the decade (1960’s).  I think that there will be a lot of heavy lifting required by higher education policy makers at the state and federal level, state legislators, governors and Congress, higher education leaders and others in order to accomplish this goal.  If our dialogue can be as direct and as blunt as the budget that the Obama administration promises to deliver, progress may occur.

One UNESCO report estimates that “only about 3 percent of young people in sub-Saharan Africa and 7 percent in Asia attend some form of postsecondary education.”  Compare these statistics to postsecondary education statistics in industrialized nations (approximately 58 percent of the population in industrialized nations pursue some form of postsecondary education)  and for the United States alone (60 percent) and it becomes clear that a large sector of the world’s population is not able to access the valuable skills gained through higher education.  In the United States, we have had 150-200+ years to develop our three tiered system embracing community colleges, four year colleges, and research universities.  The fixed costs of opening physical campuses, particularly in areas of large geographic expanse, often exceed the limited budgets of developing countries.  Even China’s successful and rapidly expanding economy cannot keep up with the infrastructure involved in building college campuses.

 
In recent years, many developing nations have made significant steps toward improving access to postsecondary education through the use of online education.  According to one estimate, 7 of the world’s largest distance education universities are located in developing countries.  A report published by the Task Force for Higher Education and Society, established by the World Bank in conjunction with UNESCO, found that “at the world’s 10 biggest distance institutions, the majority of them in the third world, the cost of education per student is on average about one third the cost at traditional institutions in the same country.”  In today’s “knowledge economy” it has become clear that if developing nations are to take advantage of globalization, they must reinforce their most valuable asset, their citizens, with the tools, namely education, required to compete.  The significantly lower costs associated with distance education have made that an attractive option to many developing nations.

In a report published by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), an organization dedicated to “ensuring that millions of the world’s most vulnerable people have access to education, healthcare and a social safety net,” the group found that even in Africa, one of the most destitute places on earth, significant numbers of online education programs are popping up in even the most desolate regions.  The Virtual University of Pakistan is another institute of higher education utilizing the growing access of technology to reach students across the country.  Using the internet as well as a cable television network which can be accessed from anywhere in the country, Virtual University of Pakistan is making enormous strides in providing affordable access to degrees in higher education to thousands of Pakistanis living in-country and abroad.  The Chinese have jumped on the online education bandwagon in a big way: China Central Radio and Television University has 1.5 million students and caters to working adults.  In a 2001 article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Vice President of China Central, Yu Yunxiu, explained that the traditional universities were not able to meet the demand of drastic increases in enrollment numbers so China Central has picked up the slack.

Higher education in third world countries is one of the solutions for improving the quality of life for citizens of those nations.  Funding it and creating access to everyone is a problem with solutions still evolving.  Many obstacles to online education initiatives in developing nations remain.  There are functional obstacles including spotty internet access in remote regions of many developing nations and cultural issues including those related to gender and the role of women in conservative societies.  Critics are quick to point out that there is much work left to be done before the world of higher education can legitimately believe that it has made a significant impact on the educational futures of those in developing nations.   There is little doubt, however, that the rise of online universities in developing nations is a step in the right direction.

Many institutions, including ours, utilize proctors for critical exams, randomize questions on quizzes so students in the same class get different questions, and require proctors for capstone classes.   With even some of these strategies deployed, it would be extremely difficult for a student to cheat.  Additionally, one of the individuals interviewed asks how “professors [in a traditional classroom setting] know that a student enrolled in a large lecture class is the same one handing in an assignment or test?”

I agree with the comments delivered by faculty and staff who think the language is over-reaching and believe that proctoring and other activities can manage the situation.  I deplore the fact that someone in Congress found it necessary to single out distance education as having the potential for cheating.   If I were a legislator and found it necessary to write a provision like this into law, I would remove the reference to distance education.   After all, cheating occurs in residential classes as well.  Just last night, however, House and Senate conferees agreed to the language and approved the bill.

When I returned home, I picked up the June 2008 issue of Wired magazine and noted that the cover article is about global warming and cutting carbon. The article titled “Inconvenient Truths” states that the war on greenhouse gases is too important to be left to the environmentalists. There are a few key points highlighted:

1. live in cities
2. A/C is ok
3. organics are not the answer
4. farm the forests
5. China is the solution
6. accept genetic engineering
7. carbon trading doesn’t work
8. embrace nuclear power
9. used cars not hybrids
10. prepare for the worst.

While I don’t have the background as a scientist as President Oxtoby does, many of these comments are based on scientific evidence and contrast with some of the environmentalists’ efforts. I recommend interested readers pick up a copy of the issue.