Faulty Chronicle of Higher Education Survey Deserves More Scrutiny

As a person who appreciates insights into the thinking of various actors in higher education, I get excited whenever a newspaper invests its resources in fielding a large survey of college faculty, administrators, students, or those who hire them.

Thus, I was initially excited to see the results from the latest survey conducted by the Chronicle of Higher Education and America Public Radio's Marketplace, on how employers view the skills and talents of recent college graduates.  Reading through the results, one began to think the story contained provocative information on business's view of online education, for example.

But then I got to the story's end, and stopped cold. There lay the description of survey methodology: The findings on these pages come from a survey developed, fielded, and analyzed by Maguire Associates Inc., a higher-education consulting firm, on behalf of The Chronicle and American Public Media's Marketplace. Maguire invited 50,000 employers to participate in the study. Experience.com, a career-services consultancy, helped develop the sample by providing a contact list of employers that recruit recent college graduates. The survey was conducted in August and September 2012. There were 704 responses.

First, that's the sum total of all details we're given about the sample.  We know nothing about the characteristics of the sampling frame or the respondents.  In other words, we have no idea whether these employers are representative of specific sectors, specific states, etc.  And equally importantly, while the author didn't do the math for us, a simple calculation reveals a response rate of just 1.4%.

This is insanely low.  So low, in fact, that I don't think the results should be published at all-- let alone featured on the Website.  And if they are, a major banner is needed proclaiming at the start of the story, "PROCEED WITH CAUTION!"  I said the same thing regarding an Inside Higher Ed survey last year, and that one had a response rate of 7%.

Yes, I understand that surveys are expensive to field and really costly to do well, but at the very minimum the public deserves far more clarity and transparency in reporting on methods than the Chronicle has provided here. In addition, there are clear best practices for fielding web surveys (which I have to assume this was) and it sure doesn't seem like Maguire Associates followed them.  For example, Paul Umbach of North Carolina State wrote a nice piece specifically for those conducting higher education research that lays out the issues point by point. Given that low response rates may lead to sample bias (affecting generalizability), low power, and inaccurate estimations, the researchers should have randomly sampled from the target population only enough people to have sufficient power-in other words, going after a fraction of those 50,000 with solid methods instead of surveying all of them with weak technique.  And the overarching goal should have been to achieve a decent rate of response to reduce the possibility of a non-representative sample-- in this case, the response rate is pathetically low (this is as low as I think I've ever seen) and no information on representativeness is provided.  This doesn't seem uncommon for Maguire Associates-- this 2011 survey report says nothing about their sampling or response rate, nor does this one from 2010, but this one from 2005 and this one from 2008 provide at least some of the information that Chronicle readers deserve.

It's unethical to publish this information like this. So I recommend that the Chronicle do what I asked Inside Higher Ed to do-- take it down! And consider working with a more credible survey firm next time, please.

The MOOC Industrial Complex

These days, every education reform movement seems to generate profit for multiple partners.  Take No Child Left Behind, the latest testing and accountability regime. As many scholars have documented, billions of dollars have flowed to corporations providing the tests, textbooks and "supplementary education services" required by that federal policy.  Advocates say this is appropriate since it means the market is functioning freely to provide high quality services, while critics note that absent government regulation (carefully limited under the law) public goods are quickly becoming private ones.

In recent blogs about MOOCs, I questioned their business model, asking why supposedly cash-strapped universities (like mine) would choose to engage with them when there is no evident monetary return?  I received little response from MOOC advocates on that question. But the answer is becoming increasingly clear.

Many universities have stated that MOOCs are the kind of innovative activity that donors would like to support, and that we would gain new donors if we engaged in creating them.  University foundations, including UW-Madison's, seem quite confident in this-- to the point that they are putting in their own dollars for the initial investments to get MOOCs off the ground.  While it's possible that this is sheer altruism, it's doubtful-- their leaders always expect a return on investment.

Where will it come from?

Why, the industry that supports the MOOCs of course.  For example, today's New York Times  documents the growing testing industry associated with online proctoring, helping colleges "keep an eye" on online test-takers. Unfortunately that article failed to investigate the money involved in this effort, focusing instead on the quality of the services provided to prevent cheating. This is unfortunate, since tracking the dollars created by the work of educators, ultimately benefiting the corporate bottom line is exactly what the "paper of record" should be doing.

What other entities will benefit from the instructional activities provided by public and non-profit universities?  Write in and let's start a list.  And while we're at it, let's think hard about the likelihood that these corporations will eventually constitute those "benevolent new donors" our universities are counting on.


ps. I keep meaning to direct my readers to this excellent commentary in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I highly recommend reading it in full.

Renewing the Commitment

This piece is cross-posted from the Chronicle of Higher Education, where it originally appeared as part of a forum on higher education and inequality. I highly recommend reading the full set of posts contained on the COHE website.

In 1947 the historic Truman Commission called for national investments in higher education to promote democracy by enabling all people to earn college degrees. Subsequent expansion of community colleges, adult education, and federal aid occurred not in the name of economic stimulation but to reduce inequality and further active citizenship.

Those ambitions have been steadily corrupted. Today the Tea Party casts the college-educated as snobbish and fundamentally disconnected. Many four-year colleges and universities reinforce that perception by focusing on rankings and alumni satisfaction rather than affordability and national service. Educators speak about business objectives, maximizing revenue through models that charge high tuition and give high aid to needy students, and using a meritocracy narrative that denies the strong role played by a family's ability to pay. The results are stark: Among high-achieving students, just 44 percent of those whose families are in the bottom 25 percent of annual income attend college, compared with 80 percent of those whose families are in the top 25 percent.

In this new world, market-based solutions increase inequality by design. As David F. Labaree documented in Someone Has to Fail, credentialing has replaced learning, and as a result, many students are derided for being what the authors Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa dismiss as Academically Adrift.

The current model ensures that private returns in the form of high-paying jobs accrue only to some, and it justifies minimal public investment in education.

Corporations act as gatekeepers, insisting that only degrees from elite colleges matter, while refusing to pay higher taxes to adequately support public higher education. It is to their advantage: They benefit financially from the for-profit colleges that are filling a void they helped create. The reality is cruel: Many families now dream the same college dream families always have, but run in place in their efforts to achieve it. Heavy debt even drags some backwards.

Colleges and universities vigorously participate in this process. As they lose state support, public flagships turn inward rather than to their communities, focusing on the self-preservation and pursuit of prestige that led them astray. Private universities help their public counterparts fail by promoting idealistic standards of "quality" and practices (such as offering grants rather than loans) that the public institutions simply can't afford. Too many leaders of public universities make common cause with elite private colleges rather than with their public brethren.

Underneath it all resides a fear-driven backlash against educational and economic opportunities for people of color and the working class. Since the civil-rights movement, and especially during President Ronald Reagan's tenure, a focus on private rights and personal responsibilities has replaced concern for social welfare. Remarkably, Reagan convinced the nation that individuals should pay to achieve the American dream. No president since has managed to combat that narrative. In today's focus on paying for performance and metrics, we hear echoes of President Bill Clinton's efforts to reform welfare by telling poor mothers to work for it.

Such rhetoric is fundamentally un-American. As John Dewey reminded us, sustaining democracy requires that we collectively provide for all children what we want for our own children. Anything else simply isn't fair. The politics of austerity have resulted in a paucity of active citizens pursuing democratic ideals by maintaining and expanding public investments. In that climate, New York State stands out for bucking the trend and promoting public higher education with limited reliance on tuition. So, too, do the university presidents urging President Obama to put into effect maintenance-of-effort requirements—requiring states to finance public colleges at a minimum level—to renew the social compact on which our great higher-education system was built. They are bravely rejecting the claim that private markets hold the key to great public needs. In doing so, those leaders may help bring the country back together.

Straight Up ... Or On The Rocks?

In his Education Week blog "Straight Up", Rick Hess comes to the defense of fellow traveler Naomi Schaefer Riley following her dismissal as a Chronicle of Higher Education blogger. The boom was lowered as a result of NSR's hatchet job, published on the Chronicle's "Brainstorm" blog, of three up-and-coming black-studies scholars. She paints their unpublished dissertations broadly as "left-wing victimization claptrap."

Hess's mounting of the barricades is no surprise as the Right is framing this as a crucifixion driven by political correctness. Ms. Riley's husband, Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley, is quoted by Hess as saying of his wife's sacking, "The mob rules." Well, there's an independent source. (Also see Mona Charen and Checker Finn for similar takes.)

Sara, my wife, a former Chronicle blogger herself, called for NSR's firing on this very blog. She described NSR's piece as "emotion-laden spewing, a venomous disdainful piece directed at young women scholars of color." Indeed. As a non-higher education expert and non-journalist, but amateur blogger, I perceived NSR's blog post as a screed better suited for a stream-of-consciousness, verbal diatribe on right-wing talk radio or the Sean Hannity show than the virtual pages of The Chronicle.

Hess's defense of NSR is wobbly, or "on the rocks," if you will. First, Hess equates NSR's attacks on junior academics with political protests against an elected official -- Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Second, Hess conflates NSR's blog post with scholarly work protected by academic freedom. There is a critical difference between rhetorical flourishes directed at public figures and similar ones directed at private citizens. Such instances are, in fact, treated differently in libel case law, with public figures having a greater burden of proof. "Scholarly concerns for academic freedom" are not incompatible, as Hess suggests, with an opinion that a scathing, personal critique such as NSR's doesn't belong on the pages of a respected media-sponsored blog. Agreeing or disagreeing with her isn't relevant. As the Chronicle editors noted, her post simply did not conform to "journalistic standards and civil tone." Academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the right or privilege to publish a blog or column on a given web site or publication are each very different things.

Conservative blogger and UW-Madison law school professor Ann Althouse offers a refreshingly nuanced take on the NSR affair. She points out that NSR "mocked individual graduate students.... [C]ombining that blogging style with an attack on named, individual students, where you are speaking from a high platform in the established media... that's the problem, and I don't see Riley stepping up and acknowledging it."

That's right. This dust-up isn't much about ideas at all, or freedom of speech, as some have contended. The dispute is fundamentally about journalistic standards in the realm of social media and about the specific personal attacks lobbed by NSR through the Brainstorm blog. The Chronicle and other media outlets should have a higher standard for such blogs -- and if commentators like NSR can't or refuse to meet that standard, they should be replaced by someone that can. If political or philosophic balance is of concern, there are plenty of conservative scholars and thinkers, Hess included, that even on a bad day could more than fill the vacancy created by NSR.

Why the Chronicle Should Fire Riley

It's always been hard to take Naomi Schaefer Riley seriously.  Hers is a brand of politically-motivated "journalism" only considered credible by the likes of people like Bill O'Reilly.  In an effort to expose students to multiple points of view, I recently taught Riley's book The Faculty Lounges in my higher education policy course, and my undergraduates found it laughable.  It's essentially a series of empty claims and distorted facts with little evidentiary basis (seriously, she thinks teacher tenure is a 'main driver' of rising college costs!), much like the little talks she's given around the country promoting it.

So I was a little surprised when the Chronicle of Higher Education hired her to join Brainstorm. But, I thought, perhaps she knows a little more than her book revealed-- and I like to read debates on blogs, so why not bring her on?  A former Brainstormer myself (I blogged from June 2009-July 2010 and resigned only because the time commitment was interfering with raising a new baby), I have long appreciated the freedom the editors provide to bloggers.  But that reign isn't without limits--here's the main caution I was given when I began blogging for CHE: "In submitting postings, you warrant that they are original, do not infringe another’s copyright or proprietary rights, and do not violate any person's right of privacy. You also warrant that your article will contain no libelous or other unlawful material. You agree to cooperate fully with The Chronicle in responding to and defending against any third-party claims relating to your postings."

I took those words very seriously. Before posting, I always asked myself "Is this really appropriate for a large, authoritative venue like CHE?"  If I was being critical of someone else, which I often was, I made certain I respected CHE by assembling all of my facts, linking to citations, and asking someone else to read it over before publishing. And I certainly never aimed to do any harm.  If I had an opinion that I couldn't fully research and prepare a reasonable defense of quickly, I reserved it for my personal blog--read by 100s, not 1000s.

Riley clearly doesn't share my respect for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Why am I not surprised, given her disrespect for academia more generally?  What she wrote this week about Black Studies departments was emotion-laden spewing, a venomous disdainful piece directed at young women scholars of color.  She offered not a single fact on which to rest her case.  She clearly aimed to harm these scholars by calling for the end of their discipline, ridiculing their dissertations, and she did so without even reading their dissertations (e.g. without investigating whether there was any truth to her claims of irrelevance).  The last issue regarding libel--whether she caused actual harm--remains to be determined.  The truth is, it's quite possible: let's ask these women whether Riley has cost them valuable time better spent on their work or whether they are receiving hate mail causing emotional distress.

Admittedly, I'm no lawyer.  But whether or not she really broke her contract by writing something libelous, Riley definitely thumbed her nose at CHE and undermined the paper's credibility, damaging its relationship with scholars nationwide. That's a damn shame.  She ought to be fired for that abuse of power. CHE need not continue to lend her its platform.  Let her go.

Who Gets Paid What?

Today the Chronicle of Higher Education released information on the "Median Salaries of Senior College Administrators by Job Category and Type of Institution, 2011-12. "  Giving concerns about administrative costs contributing to rising tuition-- or at minimum, the difficulty in keeping tuition flat giving the expansion of some administrations, this is data we should all pay attention to.

How does UW-Madison stack up? A quick comparison of the salaries of a sample of 20 or so indicate that overall, Madison pays slightly better than the median salaries at doctoral-grant institutions.  But that conceals some heterogeneity which may deserve further attention.  What jumped out most to me is that while men like Vice Chancellor for Administration Darrell Bazzell, and Vice Chancellor for University Relations Vince Sweeney, and Dean of the Graduate School Martin Cadwalleder earn $30-60,000 more than the median for people in their position, three of the key female stars on campus earn below-the-median salaries:  legal counsel Lisa Rutherford, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management Joanne Berg, and Director of Academic Planning and Analysis Jocelyn Milner.  Education dean Julie Underwood, and former Chancellor Biddy Martin earn(ed) well above the national median, which offset the lower salaries of women overall.

My point in making these comparisons is not to suggest that everyone isn't earning their keep 'round these parts--we are all working hard and making do with less these days--but the comparisons serve as important reminder that we should always, always remain vigilant about the specifics of salary distributions.  I know Madison tries hard to attend to gender equity, and administrators at other colleges and universities should too.  After all,  higher education should lead the way in ameliorating inequality-- not perpetuating it!

Hat-tip to Tora Frank for able research assistance! We used 2010-11 salaries since that's what's available-- and as we all know, raises aren't happening these days...

Squeeze Public Higher Education-- And Watch it Squirm

Make no mistake about it-- a conservative agenda in public higher education, quite similar to the one for public k-12, is steadily progressing across the nation.  The multi-pronged attack includes cutting budgets ("we have no choice-- look at the deficit!"), deriding outcomes ("college is worthless, students are partying"), and applying business models to evaluating success ( c.f. all the efficiency talk).

Today's news is rife with stories suggesting that under attack, public colleges and universities are abandoning their missions, adapting market-centered approaches, fighting with each other, and otherwise jumping ship.

• A new survey reports that 143 public colleges and universities now have differential tuition -- a policy that seems efficient on its face, but may well further stratify opportunities, leaving behind those with the least information and least ability to pay.

• In Florida, a week after announcing substantial budget cuts to state U's, the legislature is pushing for the most elite public universities to jack up their tuition.  Let's create that 1%, why don't we?

• And in California, the Master Plan is nearly dissolved, as fault lines become battles lines and the new cry is "Forget you, state U-- we are better..."

If you weren't alarmed by events last year in Wisconsin, and what they suggested about national trends, you ought to be waking up now.  And assuming you are concerned, come out this week and hear about how public higher education can fight back.  Gary Rhoades is in town, at a visit sponsored by the Wisconsin Academy and the Wisconsin Alumni Association, and he's giving three talks.  Please join us!  The first one is tonight at 7 pm at MMoca.

Damned If We Do, Damned If We Don't

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

I began the article with a nice, warm feeling--a sweet story of how Barack and Michelle Obama are trying to keep connected and close with their children is a lovely thing to find on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. It's hard to imagine what it must be like to parent in the White House. Sure, you have plenty of help-- no trouble handling all those bags and kids when you're trying to get out the door, or worrying that you don't have a sitter when you need to stay out late. But I think all parents suffer from a feeling of being too visible, especially when confronted with tantrums or difficult decisions, and these two are right out in front of everyone.

So I both empathize with-- and envy-- the First Parents. Their summer trips with the girls sound idyllic; making gelato in Rome, visiting the Eiffel Tower, Ghana, etc.... While the article focused on those outings as educational opportunities, what they are most clearly is time spent with mom and dad. A very, very busy mom and dad, who've made it a priority to combine work trips with famiy time.

Of course, the article had to take a nasty turn-- revealing that some critics are after Obama for what they see as extravagence. The "nerve" to enjoy one's children while juggling a heavy work schedule, when other Americans can't afford a vacation. This is just so sad. It reaffirms just how workaholic and disfunctional this nation is. We make it hard in so many ways for children to be active parts of our lives, especially if we are working parents. It's hard to fit into the schedule, it's expensive to afford-- and we get judged for it.

I have a friend who often does what feels nearly impossible to me; bringing his kids along when attending conferences (especially those in exotic places). I'd love to do this more, if only. If only it didn't cost so much (the tickets for my son and my husband), require me to make guilt-filled choices between time in a meeting and time at an outing, and most of all, if it didn't seem to diminish me in the eyes of some colleagues. Push a stroller around an academic meeting for an afternoon, and watch as your status facilitates between scholar and Mama...it's no fun. Make it even more fun, and take a break to nurse on a bench-- just as one of your grad students walks by...

I've heard rumors that some funding agencies get the struggle that parenting academics and researchers feel, and allow for grant resources to be used to bring kids along, or finance childcare to make attendance possible. If it's true, that's fabulous and a practice that should be brought to scale. But in the meantime, let's start on the non-monetary side of things by simply casting a friendlier eye on all working parents who embrace children as part of their work and non-work lives. Barack and Michelle are simply showing us how it's done.

The Ugliness of For-Profits

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

I admit it. I have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to for-profit providers of higher education. Until now, I wasn’t entirely sure why. After all, I generally like competition and think that more options for students is a good thing.

But I grew nauseous reading this Reuters article, which summarizes President Obama’s American Graduation Initiative and concludes (with a nearly audible sigh of relief) that it doesn’t present a threat to the for-profit sector. Specifically, while “analysts said the program for community colleges could make them more competitive against firms such as Apollo Group Inc, Corinthian Colleges, ITT Educational Services Inc and Lincoln Educational Services Corp….the amount of money earmarked for the program would result in only a marginal increment in budgets for community colleges and have a small impact on these companies in the short term.”

Oh, well thank goodness. Because we wouldn’t want our efforts to increase degree completion rates in this country to hurt your bottom line—god forbid. Lest we forget for one moment that America is in the business of education, an analyst from Wedbush Morgan Securities states “"We would be more cautious on the market-funded sector had President Obama added another zero to the proposed $12 billion targeted for community colleges."

My goodness, yes—good thing the feds didn’t give too much money to the colleges serving the widest swath of Americans. Then you for-profits might really have to compete on a level playing field.

A Question of Place

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

While working on a grant application recently, I had the opportunity to spend some time thinking about settings, the places where students (hopefully) learn. Settings are typically thought of as the environments in which individuals experience life, where developmental processes take place. This led me to wonder, in today's world what constitutes a “setting” in postsecondary education?

While in the past, college attendance was for a select group only—those who could afford to live at school and enroll in classes with little time devoted to work—this is no longer the case. The fastest growing enrollment is at nonresidential 2-year colleges, where students mix class attendance with heavy work schedules and participate in student activities only to a limited extent. Research at the widely attended, less-selective 4-year state colleges reveals that such behaviors are increasingly common there as well (for example, check out ethnographies by Nathan and Clydesdale). In addition, a substantial number of students now enroll at multiple colleges—switching between them, combining attendance, and cycling in and out (for more, see my research on this in the 2006 and 2009 editions of Sociology of Education). In this new postsecondary environment, what constitutes the “setting” in which college takes place? Is “college” anything more than a time period partly characterized by some (intermittent) periods of schooling beyond high school?

I really don't know. But I was intrigued to read on the New York Times website this morning about Student Union 34, a new website that purports to bring together the 34 Philadelphia colleges and their students. The motto: "34 colleges, 1 city: College life in Philadelphia."

Is there such a thing as a "life"? Probably not. But I really like the idea of an attempt to connect students from so many different kinds of colleges and universities-- not to mention Philadelphia Community College. As a Penn alum, I can attest that Philadelphia is an absolutely fantastic place to get an education. Forget the classroom and go wander Baltimore Avenue in West Philly, or spend time volunteering in North Philly (in my case, at a needle-change and condom distribution program). Explore the many locally-owned BYO restaurants, the vibrant concert scene, and the neighborhoods full of folks who've lived there for lifetimes. The sociologist in me was in pig heaven. I miss the place tremendously.

As life goes on outside campus, academic studies tend to continue an emphasis on institutional effects (despite not finding them particularly strong predictors of student outcomes) and interventions to enhance college life continue to proliferate (see, for example, the widespread use of learning communities). This should make us wonder: to what extent can these on-campus efforts be effective for students who experience college in “momentary and marginal ways” because of factors that lie beyond the characteristics or practices of the college itself (the quote is from Nathan, 2005)? Should we instead focus on helping students construct lives in other, meaningful ways?

The Power Elite

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

It’s hard to get to know the rich. Gaining insight into how they think, act, behave is much harder to do, since in general they maintain the highest levels of privacy.

This is a well-known fact in social science research, and it leads to a preponderance of studies examining poor folks rather than rich ones. Why do we (think we) know so much more about the “truly disadvantaged,” the "unmarried mothers with children," the "children of the slum"? Quite simply, because they let the public (and researchers) in. Open to questions, sometimes flattered by or at least welcoming the attention, in need of the monetary incentives offered, and often lacking the presumption that inquiry will lead to destruction—for how could things get any worse?

In contrast, it’s rare to find a rich ethnography of the elite. Sure, there are a handful—but they are notable for the researcher’s ability to “study up”—to get those higher in the power structure to consent to questions.

So, why be surprised that Elyse Ashburn reports in today’s Chronicle, the private universities won’t let the sunshine in? Of course they won’t. That’s part of maintaining their elite aura, the mysterious glow that attracts students and families and leads them to believe that for the right sum, magical postsecondary dust will imbue them with super-human earning power.

This is precisely how inequality is maintained, and the elite of any kind will work to make it happen. The only way to change the situation is to begin to dismantle the entire apparatus, one that allows different rules for different schools and different kids, based on their funding mechanisms. Will that ever happen? I doubt it. For the rich, too much is at stake.

No Money Left Behind

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

The U.S. Department of Education has finally announced some concrete plans to reduce the complexity of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). After years of debate that largely focused on whether to kill the beast entirely (ditching the form and using IRS data instead) or cutting off some of its limbs (cutting some of questions but keeping the form), ED is starting with a middle-of-the-road approach. In spring they’ll pilot a program to use IRS data to populate forms for students who elect to go that route, and in the meantime cut back on asking questions about assets.

While most consumers agree that simple is best, and easy, transparent programs are notably more effective in reaching the families who need aid the most, these steps are not popular with everyone. Complex forms require specific knowledge, and those who specialize in them are nearly assured of keeping their jobs. Reduce the complexity, and paper-pushing jobs can be eliminated entirely. Increase the number of aid applicants, and financial aid officers worry about the increased workload on their end. Furthermore, some states and institutions are concerned that they will not have enough information from a simplified FAFSA with which to tailor their programs. There’s also the potential (unlikely, based on calculations by Sue Dynarski and Judy Scott-Clayton) that fewer criteria will mean that need-based aid will be only slightly less targeted.

But if our goal is to make sure that scarce resources are used efficiently and effectively, FAFSA simplification is one step in the right direction. Set aside the issue of targeting for the moment, and let’s consider how much financial aid money is currently left on the table. Each year, the American Council for Education estimates that each year more than one million students are Pell Grant-eligible but don’t get that money because they do not file a FAFSA. While some people like to blame individuals for inaction, and claim those who don’t file forms don’t “deserve” the money, there are many PhDs who themselves find the FAFSA overwhelming and would agree the time it takes to complete one is well-beyond what’s available in a working-class family’s day.

Ultimately there is no excuse for allocating resources and then not doing everything we can to make sure people can access them. We could do so much more. Right now, there are many programs available to help low-income students build human capital, but they are poorly coordinated or worse yet work at cross-purposes. Welfare reform (TANF) effectively took money for college off the table for poor women, at a time when tax credits for higher education were expanded and we were all implored to attend college. The Workforce Investment Act currently utilizes a byzantine system that makes accessing education and training, particularly at community colleges, harder than ever. Many states and institutions make money available to poor kids, but as they disburse it via the aid package they substitute it for existing resources. Did you know that if your kid gets a Rotary scholarship, their college will likely reduce the institutional aid they’re offering by a similar amount?

Better coordination of existing resources and a simpler, more transparent system – the best would be no application process at all—these things are essential to achieving the President’s goal of more college graduates. ED is going in the right direction—now let’s hope that conversations with Department of Labor and Health & Human Services are coming soon.

Valuing Children

Cross-posted from Brainstorm


I am in the midst of what I sometimes feel is an incredibly risky endeavor. Or rather, what some would have me feel is risky.

I’m having a baby. A second baby. On the tenure track.

My ears sense some e-groaning. My fears detect some e-judgment. Maybe, somewhat out there, there is a little applause, and elsewhere sighs of relief.

The truth is, I don’t know what to say—except that I’m completely happy and scared, all at the same time.

Why happy? Because having a family is exactly what my husband and I always wanted. And having our first has proven to both of us that professional success is entirely eclipsed by the sheer joy of watching our son learn to eat a popsicle, or experience his first swim lesson.

Why fear? Because it is far from clear what baby #1 means for my tenure prospects, let alone baby #2. Because I have already been the recipient of far too many stories about pregnant professors overburdening their colleagues when they take leave, of comments from both men and women who say “well, one kid pre-tenure is one thing, but two…?” Because the question of how I am to juggle a late December birth with a two-course teaching load come spring has not yet been resolved.

I know I’m in good company—plenty of American working women have more than one child, and do it while working far less cushy jobs than I. Many have to forgo the pleasures of nursing, a job that requires upwards of 30 hours per week initially by itself. And a scary proportion do it all without healthcare.

I am lucky, to be sure. I am also—however—completely freaked out. Maybe that will change? I’ll keep you posted.

The College Payoff

Cross-posted from Brainstorm...

One reason I was so excited to join Brainstorm was that it presented a chance to go toe-to-toe once in awhile with my colleague and friend, Kevin Carey. Over the years I’ve read Kevin’s work frequently, and often found myself respectfully disagreeing with him. What’s the best is that our points of disagreement are always worth arguing over—as we are both so clearly interested in seeing major changes when it comes to equity and educational attainment.

This past week presented an illustration. I wrote a critique of an American Enterprise Institute report Kevin co-authored, and he responded with a post taking on some of my points. Since I have plenty to say in turn, and since I think this is a discussion very much worth having, I want to continue the debate here.

My main point in the original post was that the AEI authors jumped to conclusions I don’t find particularly helpful. They want to do something about low graduation rates, but prematurely conclude the solutions lie in changing institutional practices. Kevin replied with “colleges make a difference” and who would want to argue otherwise?

Well, in some sense—me. To put a finer point on it, I argue they individually make a difference, but mainly on the margins and for uncomfortable reasons.

Here's the outline of what I'm thinking. First, I emphatically believe that there’s an economic payoff to years of college, and credentials in particular, and that most students learn at least something during the time they spend in college. I also buy the research of Jennie Brand & Yu Xie (and others) who find that students least likely to attend college are in fact most likely to benefit from attending. This is why I'm for greater equity in access and completion. Second, I definitely do not believe that the sources of observed differentials in student outcomes among colleges—things like levels of student engagement, graduation rates, and returns to the degree—are about institutional policies and practices of the kind Kevin's referring to. Why? Since at least to some degree, most of our colleges select kids for admission based on evidence that they will be engaged and “able to benefit” from the experience--and they do this in different ways and to differing degrees-- then variation in graduation rates is clearly going to result.

So that's why colleges themselves probably only matter on the margins. And here comes the "uncomfortable" part. We have to recognize that (like it or not) the primary functions of our colleges and universities are (1) facilitating the creation of social networks and (2) credentialing. We go to college to hang out with people who will later be our friends, spouses, colleagues, and Facebook buddies-- and these people will help us find jobs and make good connections throughout our lives. We also go so that future employers will find us more desirable-- whether or not they should.

Ultimately, I don’t think that detracts from the importance of higher education, and in particular from the goal of broadening access to higher education. It’s a gatekeeper, and more people need to get in. But it does—and should- detract from the sense that some colleges “do a better job” than others. What does that really mean when what they "do" is help you meet your socially advantaged counterparts and send smoke signals to employers? If that’s what you’re buying, and you understand that, ok. I don't think most people do.

Now back to Kevin’s points. Sure, some colleges have high dropout rates and that’s a shame. Part of the reason is that they’re enrolling students who—a decade or two ago—wouldn’t have attended college. Now, in a college for all culture, they go. Some get a degree- and in this sense, opening doors is serving them well. Others suffer enormous personal costs, financial investments and feelings of personal failure. These things are hard to measure, but are undoubtedly affecting the numbers we observe. We hardly pay attention to (or measure) important factors like individuals’ health and development, and yet we assume that any remaining variation in outcomes (e.g. engagement or graduation rates) not accounted for by observable factors can be credited to college practices—instead of attributing the variation to the vast array of important predictors of individual functioning that we just don’t measure. Why?

If we want to make better policies to increase attainment and close gaps we need to get a better handle on what the real problems are. What if the differences in graduation rates are explained by differences in how mentally and physically prepared students at different colleges are for postsecondary education? Right now, that doesn’t show up in the data. So Kevin says the remaining variation is in the colleges’ domain. Yet if, based on that, we direct policy interventions at the colleges when the real problem is health, we’ll fail to generate change. That’s simply not useful, and potentially a waste of money. Why wait for research? This is why. We need more numbers, and less conjecture.

How College Gets Under Your Skin

Cross-posted from Brainstorm, over at the Chronicle of Higher Ed.

I’ve been preoccupied by sleep lately. Not sleeping— though as I approach the end of my first trimester I sure could use some— but sleep itself. What it means to sleep a little or a lot, how it affects your daily interactions with others, etc. This is something I know a tiny bit about, having spent a solid year sleep-deprived after the birth of my first child, but not something I’ve devoted my academic time to.

Until now. I just spent two full days at the Cells to Society (C2S) Summer Biomarker Institute. C2S is also known as the Center on Social Disparities and Health at Northwestern University. It’s directed by developmental psychologist Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, and has additional star power in folks like Thom McDade, Emma Adam, and Chris Kuzawa. These are social science researchers who have mastered the hard sciences as well, and are using medical tools to get at how social practices and environments “get under the skin.”

What does that mean? Well, to explain I’ll tell you why I’m thinking about sleep. It all begins with an attempt to understand the reasons why so many low-income kids drop out of college. A big problem, to be sure— and one that we still don’t know enough about. I’m thinking that has to do with the limited number of ways in which we’ve approached the problem. It’s primarily treated as an educational issue, one we tackle with a combination of college practices and individual-level incentives like money.

But what if, in fact, higher rates of dropout had something to do with poorer mental or physical health? What if the conditions in which low-income kids experience college actually make them less healthy? We all understand stress, and most of us think it’s a regular part of life everyone deals with. But we have differing types and degrees of stress, and in turn differing responses and reactions. Some of us think being stressed out is about trying to fit in an optional French class to our busy schedules, because we’d like to hang out with that cute French boy. Others feel stressed because they do not have enough money to pay for lunch, and are working 2 jobs on top of 4 classes to try and make ends meet.

Looking at sleep patterns, and sleep quality, is one way to try and quantify the effects of college— and policies associated with college-going — on health. I have Emma Adam to thank for getting me to really start think of this as a research topic— one I plan to pursue. When you wake up well-rested your cognitive functioning is improved, and you can go out and learn. When you’ve been in bed for very few hours, or tossed and turned all night, it can be hard to drive to school, let alone master the material in class. At some point, you may just give up.

Lest anyone read this to mean that I think genetic differences underlie social class differences in college attainment— stop right there. Not at all. But there are complex ways in which one’s social environment can alter the biological state, even temporarily, which in turn affects academic achievement. I think it’s about time we start thinking, then, about how college gets under our skin.

Hitting the Big Leagues

It's with quite a bit of trepidation that I share the news... I have joined the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm. Starting today you can check me out over there and over here too, of course.

This assistant professor mommy didn't really need more on her plate, but what can I say? I guess I'm just a girl who can't say no... (I hope you all hear the Oklahoma theme music in the background.) G'nite!

Higher Ed Cop Out #5: Cheerleading

Sitting at my desk preparing for tomorrow's class, and then just like a little ray of sunshine the Chronicle's afternoon update arrives. Hope springs eternal. To wit:

"College-Preparedness Campaign Shows Good Results"

The news? Kids across the country reported on a survey that they've seen the KnowHow2Go ad campaign, and those kids also report that they've talked to adults about attending college.

According to the president of the American Council of Education this means, "The campaign message is taking hold and students are taking action.”

Ok, then. Um, where to start?

How about:

1. All empirical evidence indicates that ambitions for college are rising.
2. There's little empirical evidence to suggest that failing to talk to adults is part of the reason why more poor kids don't attend college.
3. The survey didn't ask kids if talking to adults was the DIRECT result of seeing a KnowHow2Go ad.
4. The survey was only taken by kids who like to take surveys about college-going.

In a nutshell, while it's clear that several organizations are spending loads of money on KnowHow2Go, this hardly constitutes evidence of "success" or "impact."

If we really want to make sure that our efforts add value by truly helping kids, we must let go of such cheerleading and instead commission rigorous evaluations designed to help us ensure our programs have genuine impact, dollar for dollar.