Acceptance Rates

In a previous article, I talked about my son going off to college in 2031. Even though this seems a lifetime away, I am constantly researching the costs associated with higher education. Recently, the New York Times had two interesting pieces about the process of getting into college; a personal reflection by one of their bloggers and a list of college acceptance rates.

Starting with the personal reflection; this blogger describes the application process of one of her children and the factors considered when attempting to get into college. The following is a quote from the personal reflection:

“According to wisdom gleaned from the chatterers on college advice Web sites, the college offering the scholarship was not highly ranked enough or selective enough (admission rate: 65 percent) to be deemed a ‘good school’ (as in, ‘Your kid’s going to Dartmouth? Good school!’). It was low on the prestige factor that is deemed so important.”

This statement reflects many people’s perceptions of higher education. After I read this I wondered where this blogger lives; New Hampshire. For those who live in the greater Boston area, New York, Philadelphia, down to DC, and finally Richmond the competition to get into a ‘good school’ is intense. People who live in the northeast all live within a few hours of many of the best colleges and universities, both small and large in the country. This is not to discount excellent institutions all around the country, but this area has more well-known institutions per square mile than anywhere else in the world. For those who are swayed by the allure of a ‘good school’ the decision is difficult.

On to the next article; the New York Times listed the acceptance rates for a variety of colleges and universities; some big, some small, some private, some public. The acceptance rates range from Stanford, 6.61% and Harvard, 6.17%; to higher ones such as NYU, 32.96% and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, 51%.

What do these numbers mean? All acceptance rates tell us is that on a given year x number of students apply, y number of students are accepted, giving us an acceptance rate of z. Does this have anything to do with quality? No. Does it have anything to do with learning outcomes? No. Does it have anything to do with networking? No. Does it tell you about future job opportunities? No. So what does it tell you? Acceptance rates communicate exclusivity, demand, and the free market; nothing more, nothing less.

With that said you can infer certain things from acceptance rates. Students who are able to get into schools that have low acceptance rates are extremely high performing and probably skilled at networking. Because the quality of students entering is usually exceptional these schools have high graduation rates and graduates that are successful post-college. What these schools do with their undergraduates (again these students are already educated and high performing) is refine them rather than purely educate them.

Back to the blog:

“We worried that she would forever see herself as second rate because the name on her diploma didn’t command sufficient admiration. Hadn’t she already been subjected to some stinging offhand comments about this particular college? From one of her teachers: ‘You’re a great student. Why would you want to go there?’ Or this backhanded compliment from a relative: ‘You know, my company gets some of its best interns from the second- and third-tier schools!’”

For me, I do not care what people think about where I got my degree. If someone looks at my diploma and comments that it is from a second or third-tier school (my undergraduate is from a third or fourth-tiered school) I want little to do with this person. They will probably look down upon a variety of other things including living in Arizona, where I work, and my social status, aka how much money I make (although they will not flatout say it).

But remember this, acceptance rates is only for undergraduate education. Graduate education, what most Ivy and elite institutions are built upon, do not factor into this metric that people use to compare schools. The number of nobel prize winning faculty members a school has (and other prestigious awards) is not solely for undergraduates but mainly for graduates and prestige.

At the end of the day, students need to go the school that fits their needs and not be swayed by societal pressure. If you have money and/or are academically gifted at 18 with a proven track record and if needed, can get scholarships that will not put you in debt, go to a ‘good school’; it will be a profound experience. But if you do not go to one of these schools remember you are not second rate. Even if you walked the halls of Mesa Community College or the University of Texas at El Paso, the only thing that matters today is what you bring to the table. Having a degree from a ‘good school’ might get you in the door or even a few jobs but your life after college is all about what you produce and the quality of your being; not the name on your diploma.

Who Benefits from College

As I was driving into work late the other day, I was sick and slept in a bit, I overheard a story on the Diane Rehm Show called, “Who Benefits from College and Why.” As I listened to this story, which was excellent, my mind drifted to whom the panelists were; Isabel Sawhill, a senior fell of economic studies at the Brookings Institution; Nina Marks, president of Collegiate Directions Inc.; and Robert Lerman, professor of economics at American University. All highly respected in their fields with decades of experience.

As I got closer to work I wondered where these experts went to school. It turns out, according to their biographies, they went to New York University, Wellesley College, Brandeis, MIT, and Harvard (Marks only listed Harvard). According to Google Maps it is 15.4 miles from MIT to Wellesley College with Harvard and Brandeis University ‘in-between’; New York University is the odd man out.

Now that I knew where these guests went to school I wondered: where is the diversity of thought, experience, and perspective from these panelists?

First of all I do not question the credentials, the accomplishments, or the notoriety of the panelists. I do not question the status of the institutions where the panelists were educated. I do not question the research or the valid points that each of them contributed to the show.

But the sad reality is that many schools in this country are cash strapped. I am not talking about the schools that make the news everyday or the football/basketball schools that are always playing for NCAA championships; I am talking about the schools that educate the majority of undergraduates in this country without fanfare or large endowments. Because of the Great Recession, reduced funding from state governments, unfocused business plans, dated educational priorities, the inability to change, legacy costs, etc. many higher education institutions are struggling.

One metric that people use to compare institutions is the funding per student. Below are examples of funding per student at four institutions in Massachusetts:

Wellesley College:

Wellesley College has an endowment of around $1.5 billion, with around 2,300 students, and an endowment per student of approximately $652k.

Brandeis University:

Brandeis has an endowment of around $703 million, with around 5,828 students (undergraduate and graduate), and endowment per student of approximately $120k.

University of Massachusetts at Amherst:

University of Massachusetts at Amherst has an endowment around $210 million, with around 28,084 students enrolled (undergraduate and graduate), and an endowment per student of approximately $7,477.

Bunker Hill Community College:

Bunker HIll Community College does not have an endowment but the Massachusetts FY2012 budget allocated around $17.4 million to Bunker Hill Community College (not including a federal grant), with around 14,000 students enrolled (undergraduate; two-year associate), and funding per student of approximately $1,242

What do these numbers mean? The amount of money per student shows how much institutions theoretically have to spend on educating their students. Institutions such as community colleges and small to medium sized four-year colleges and universities are tasked with educating high risk students with minimal funding. Other institutions, such as Amherst has enough funding to focus on student learning and compete with other institutions for national prestige. Elite institutions have so much money beyond what is needed to support student learning that it is used to enhance prestige and maintain exclusivity (high educational standards are rarely questioned at these types of schools by anyone).

I would like to see this same discussion that occurred on the Diane Rehm Show but with a different panel; Sawhill would be included because she authored the study but include a president from a community college, a professor from a directional school, and a middle to low income college prep director from a major metropolitan area ideally from the south. I also would like to see these people’s degrees coming from a variety of places, not just Boston or New York.

Why do I want this ‘alternative’ discussion? To be honest, part of it is my own anti-elitism but more importantly I want to hear first hand accounts of what people are doing everyday to improve higher education in this country. I want to know what community colleges are doing, what directional schools are doing, and even what for-profits are doing to help undergraduates prepare for life after college. I want to know what Mesa Community College, Jackson State University, University of Texas at El Paso, Missouri State University, and the like are doing to help their students and their localities succeed. I want to know what all the cash strapped institutions are doing to help adults learn and prepare for the future without the help of billion dollar endowments.

An Academic Cesspool

Recently an article came out in the Chronicle about the accreditation status of University of Phoenix. After reading this article I meandered down to the comments section and was surprised by the harsh and hateful language used by what I assume are working academics. Below are my favorites:

“Why does the Association continue to shelter this fraudulent dump? Phoenix is a rip-off institution. It doesn't truly educate anyone...It insults the integrity of legitimate higher education.”

“The University of Phoenix must be regulated out of business...The peer-reveiw process is irrelevant when it comes to the for-fraud sector, and unilateral - if not dictatorial - actions must be taken if anything is ever going to change.”

“The U of Phoenix  is an academic cesspool. Any person who taught there and taught at 'real universities' knows that the quality of academics is abysmal. To even consider it a 'university' is to insult every other real residential university.”

As someone who works at one of these cesspools these comments are not surprising. The hate that is directed at for-profits is invidious and unproductive. I could counter these people with stories of successful graduates, faculty members that are dedicated to their students, and an organization that wants the best for its students and employees; but instead I will offer a simple proposal, “come work for us!” Be a change agent and help ‘fake universities’ become ‘real’.

If you are a tenured professor or an administrator take a sabbatical or see if you can set-up an exchange program with your university and a for-profit. But some writers and thinkers use their pens to criticize rather than using their words to create solutions. The complexities and real challenges that adult education faces in this country are not going away and public funding will not miraculously appear out of thin air; we all have to work together.

With that said, I guess some want a benevolent dictator to take charge and just fix everything.