Winters v. Murray Deathmatch on College

October 22, 2009

BelushiCollege

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Today on NRO Marcus Winters throws down the gauntlet before Charles Murray and others who have made the increasingly common argument that too many kids go to college these days. As the economy requires workers to have more and more knowledge for good jobs, more kids should go to college, not fewer, Marcus argues; the research on teacher quality and school choice shows that improvements in K-12 education can increase the number of high school graduates who are genuinely able to handle college work; and the wage premium of a college degree is not going down, but up – because the K-12 system hasn’t kept pace with the increasing demands of technological development, and college does make students more productive workers (contrary to Murray’s claim that it serves mainly as a sorting mechanism).

Over on AEI’s blog, Murray responds, calling Marcus a “romantic,” going over a lot of research that doesn’t really address the point at issue, and then falsely claiming that Marcus presents only anecdotes about “a miracle school in the inner city” but offers no “interpretable data.” Anyone who reads Marcus’s piece will see that Marcus points to the eminently interpretable data of the broad research on teacher quality, school choice, and economic outcomes.


The Price of Things to Come: Free

September 24, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

I am half way through Chris Andersen’s new book Free: The Future of a Radical Price and I can already recommend the book.

Andersen’s treatment of disruptive technologies and firms is simply fascinating. Craig’s List, for example, has from one perspective “destroyed” far more profits for newspapers than it creates for itself. The entire firm runs on a few dozen employees, but has played a large role in reducing a huge revenue stream for the entire American newspaper industry.

Craig’s List actually hasn’t destroyed profits, but in fact has redistributed them to the general public. Craig’s List provides a superior service to a want ad, and it is almost always free.

Likewise, Britannica and others used to make large profits going door to door selling $1,000 encyclopedia sets. Then Microsoft came out with a $99 dvd encyclopedia, and profits withered. Then Wikipedia came along and Microsoft abandoned their dvd project, and Britannica and company will be required to reinvent themselves if they are to survive.

Technology is driving all of these changes-exponential increases in computing power, storage capacity, are driving changes that are fundamentally disrupting several industries: music, newspapers, and perhaps banking.

The question I have half way through this book: who will become the Google of higher education?

Google has a core business of showing you online ads that is very, very profitable. Most of what they do, however, is throwing out products for free. Google has over 100 free software applications online- maps, Earth, documents, etc. and develops new ones all the time.

Highly successful American universities seem to have a core mission of educating students. This however is questionable at best. Some of these universities have endowments so large that if they simply followed the rules for non-profits and spent 5% of their endowment per year, they could eliminate tuition for their students entirely.

What these universities are really about, of course, is getting research grants and adding to their endowments. What if, however, one or more of them were to go down the road of truly seeking to educate the world by putting up entire degree programs online for free.

A Harvard, Princeton or Notre Dame is likely to always have more applicants than spaces, and in any case, these places could survive without students, not that they will ever need to do so. Why not put up entire rigorous degree programs online, and invite anyone and everyone in the world to complete them for free?

Concerned that it would lessen a regular degree? Pshaw-distinguish it from a regular degree, and require an exit exam, say the GRE, that indicates the student knows quite a bit. Random half-baked idea alert, but if a score on the GRE high enough to admit the student in the upper half of graduate programs were required, we’d know far more about the online student than the traditional ones.

Worried about quality? You should be, but don’t forget the recent U.S. Department of Education study showing that technology based learning is substantially more effective than the old fashioned way.

Imagine if students in Bangladesh could earn a Princeton math degree, or a theology degree from Notre Dame for free, or more accurately for the time, computer and internet cost. The marginal players of the American academy would squeal as they are forced to reinvent themselves from making buggy whips, but this is a small price to pay for bringing opportunity to the world.

The only question in my mind is how long it will be until an elite player has the necessary vision to defect from the comfortable cartel. Several universities have the means to do this, and could receive philanthropic help to do so. Attention Oxford and Cambridge: it wouldn’t require an American university to pull this off. A British university could put out a low-cost version of this, and unlike their American counterparts, they aren’t swimming in resources.


The Student Privacy Racket

August 25, 2009

Public school systems have long hidden behind trumped-up claims of protecting student privacy to shield themselves from scrutiny for poor performance or misconduct, but this story from the world of higher ed really takes the cake.

The University of Central Arkansas (UCA) was in the practice of giving out “no-criteria presidential discretionary scholarships” totalling $1.6 million  from 2006 until the program was ended this year.  The no-criteria and discretionary feature of these scholarships are what have drawn concerns.  Folks suspect that these scholarships were being given to the children of politically powerful people and other key allies to advance the political interests of this public, state university and/or the private interests of key trustees and school officials.

The suspicion that there was political hanky-panky in selecting who would be awarded these no-criteria scholarships has some support:

An Arkansas Democrat-Gazette review of hundreds of emails awarding the scholarships showed UCA handed them out often with no criteria, in wideranging amounts and under the occasional recommendation of high-profile people.  Those who recommended recipients for the scholarships included the son of former Gov. Mike Huckabee, David Huckabee; state Sen. Steve Faris;  former Arkansas House Speaker Benny Petrus; and some current and former UCA trustees.

There is no way to really investigate these concerns further  because the university has refused to release a list of scholarship recipients.  The U.S. Department of Education isn’t helping at all.  In an advisory letter to UCA, the Department warned that “because the release of this type of scholarship information in personally identifiable form could be potentially harmful or an invasion of privacy, FERPA would preclude the University from disclosing this information without the prior written consent of the recipient.” 

The U.S. Department of Education joins public schools in having a long track-record of being overly and selectively protective of student privacy.  Universities regularly announce the names of recipients of scholarships.  For example, a quick Google search finds that “The Graduate School of the University of Central Arkansas recognized Angela Quattlebaum and Jamie Martin as the 2004-05 recipients of the Robert M. McLauchlin Graduate Scholarship.”

How can those names be released but not the names of the no-criteria scholarship recipients?  The logic, if you can call it that, is that a criteria-based scholarship is flattering to the recipient so that releasing the person’s name does no harm.  A scholarship given for financial need or with no criteria might be embarrassing, so the names of the recipients of those scholarships cannot be released.

This makes no sense.  Releasing the names of merit-based scholarship recipients still invades their privacy, even if with positive information.  For example, the UCA announcement of the McLauchlin Graduate Scholarship provides all sorts of details, like “Angela Beth Quattlebaum is from Helena, Arkansas… She is the daughter of Terry and Monica Quattlebaum of Helena. In high school, she was a Girls State Delegate and listed in Who?s Who Among High School Students…”  I strongly doubt that UCA received written permission from Ms. Quattlebaum before releasing all of this information about where she is from, who her parents are, and what she did in high school.  I’m perfectly fine with it, but this hardly seems like protecting privacy.

On the other hand, refusing to provide information about no-criteria scholarship recipients may shield them from the release of embarrassing information.  But that information would only be embarrassing if they were awarded these scholarships for reasons of political corruption.  If that were the case it would be especially important that the public be informed about this even if it were embarrassing.

(edited for typos)


Correcting a WSJ Error

July 23, 2009

White out

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Today I sent the following letter to the Wall Street Journal:

To the Editor:

I wish to correct a factual error in your otherwise outstanding editorial “Bashing Career Colleges” (July 22). You erroneously state that “Pell grants and other public aid can be used like a voucher for public or private colleges and universities.” In fact, Pell grants and other government-sponsored college scholarships cannot be used “like” school vouchers because they are school vouchers.

As long as we’re asking why school vouchers are wonderful for students at non-profit colleges but deplorable for students at for-profit colleges, let’s also ask why they’re wonderful for students at non-profit colleges but deplorable for students at non-profit high schools!

Greg Forster

Senior Fellow, Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice


The Daily Show on Arizona State University

May 18, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

So Arizona State asked Barack Obama to deliver the commencement speech, but decided not to offer him an honorary doctorate, opining that his body of work was yet to come, and thus apparently did not merit such an honor.

The Daily Show picked up on this, and well, judge the clip for yourself. I’ve been critical of ASU for a lousy graduation rate and offering staggeringly unseemly bribes overly generous National Merit Scholarships in an effort to create the appearance of academic quality. Get the Daily Show mad at you, however, and they will drop the “Harvard of Date Rape” cluster-bomb on your village without a second thought.

It’s almost enough to make me feel sorry for ASU (once I got my breath back and dried my eyes) but when you lead with your chin, you can’t credibly complain when someone breaks your jaw. When you accept 92% of applicants and have a 28% 4-year graduation rate, it just might indicate that you are using a large number of ill-prepared students as financial cannon-fodder.

Yes, yes-it’s their choice, everyone gets an opportunity, yadda yadda yadda.  That’s all fine until you finance these six-year-beer-soaked-odysseys-of-self-discovery-resulting-in-a-graduation-about-half-the-time-vacations-from-reality with money forcibly extracted from other people. Many of the third party payers never went to college and are struggling to make ends meet.   What choice did they get?

(edited for typos)


Carey: Universities = Newspapers with a longer death sentence

March 31, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Wow…just wow.


Please Ignore the Huge Pile of Payola Behind the Curtain

March 18, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The New York Times turned in a must read article on Arizona State University President Michael Crow:

He quickly made a name for himself, increasing enrollment by nearly a third to 67,000 students, luring big-name professors and starting interdisciplinary schools in areas like sustainability, projects with partners like the Mayo Clinic and Sichuan University in China, and dozens of new degree programs

But this year, Mr. Crow’s plans have crashed into new budget realities, raising questions about how many public research universities the nation needs and whether universities like Arizona State, in their drive to become prominent research institutions, have lost focus on their public mission to provide solid undergraduate education for state residents.

I love the way the term “quality” is used by Dr. Crow. Maybe it is just me, but it certainly appears to me that ASU has been seeking to create the appearance of quality more than the reality. As JPGB readers will recall, ASU’s four year graduation rate is 28%, lowest among the peer institutions as identified by the Education Trust.

Case in point, National Merit Scholars- ASU has a lot of them. But **ahem** there is a little problem identified by the New York Times:

Arizona State University recruits National Merit Scholars nationwide with a four-year $90,000 scholarship, a package so generous that Arizona State enrolls 600 National Merit Scholars, more than Yale or Stanford. Through the cuts, Mr. Crow has kept that program, even while proposing to cut a scholarship for Arizona residents with high scores on state tests, a proposal the state regents turned down.

In their promotional materials, ASU boasts of the number of National Merit Scholars they enroll, but doesn’t bother to mention the obscenely large bribe offered in order to get those National Merit Scholars. If I wanted to be cruel, I’d compare this package to another university and…

Okay, so I’m cruel: the Education Trust identified the University of Indiana Bloomington as the highest performing peer institution for Arizona State based on 4 year graduation rates (over 50% for IU). Last year, their National Merit Scholars had an average package worth $13,609 each.

For some reason, ASU feels compelled to offer almost seven times as much as IU. Maybe the weather is just better in Indiana. Oh wait, you don’t have to hang around at ASU in the summer, so it can’t be the weather.

Well, um, some people don’t like palm trees…


A is for Average, B is for Being There

February 25, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Good stuff from George Leef of the Pope Center and the New York Times on spoiled brat students and declining standards in higher education.


Munchausen by Proxyocracy

February 4, 2009

I See Bankrupt People!

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Byron Schlomach and I had fun co-authoring this piece for the Goldwater Institute:

The supernatural thriller “The Sixth Sense” features a young boy who assists the ghost of a young girl in exposing her mother as her murderer. The mother, suffering from an uncommon mental disorder known as “Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome” had slowly poisoned her daughter to death.

While actual Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (MBPS) is very rare, something much like it is sadly all too common in American policy-making.

MBPS involves a caregiver deliberately making another person sick. The caregiver may exaggerate, fabricate, or even induce symptoms. The perpetrator achieves a twisted satisfaction from deceptively gaining the attention and sympathy of doctors and others. Because the caregiver appears to be so caring and attentive, often no one suspects any wrongdoing.

In politics, many of our longstanding, serious policy problems are similarly inflicted upon us by our alleged caregivers. Two obvious examples of this political slow-poisoning: runaway costs in heath care and higher education. Simply put, government policies have spun heath care and higher education costs out of control.

These damaging cycles of cost inflation are the direct result of the MBPS-like policies administered by the federal government. When citizens raise concerns that health care or a college degree are financially out of reach for many, politicians show their compassion by administering more of the bad medicine that created the problems in the first place.

Consider health care. The problem is people can’t afford it. Although history shows medical care prices do not inevitably rise, medical inflation more than doubled general inflation from 1960 to 2006. If medical prices had not raced ahead of general inflation, health care would represent 7% of the American economy rather than the current 16% and growing. While many politicians want to make the availability of health insurance the issue, the real issue is that medical care is becoming increasingly less affordable, reducing accessibility.

Americans went from paying the lion’s share of medical costs ourselves to depending on government (Medicare and Medicaid) and employer-provided health insurance to pay for us. Consequently, price has become no object and we have become uninformed and unwise shoppers for medical care. Providers have become wasteful, often taking advantage of this distorted market, competing on a non-price basis.

All of this has occurred because government tax policy has encouraged employers to pay us in health benefits instead of cash. Add Medicare and Medicaid bureaucracy to the mix, and you’ve got a perfect prescription for out-of-control costs and increasingly reduced accessibility.

What are politicians offering as a solution? The Obama administration offers more of what got us here in the first place: expanded insurance, expanded market regulation, expanded Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP. As we pay even less out-of-pocket, medical prices will only get higher and medical services will only get more expensive and less accessible.

Amazingly, higher education costs have been rising at a rate even faster than medical cost inflation. Since 1982, the average cost of college tuition and fees has increased by 439% while median family income increased by a mere 147%. Think of it as compound interest for putting college financially out of reach and/or crushing families with debt.

Again, President Obama has proposed more of the same: a $4,000 tax credit for higher education expenses. Sounds great, but based on decades of bitter experience we have every reason to believe that if Obama’s tax credit plan passes, universities would simply hike their tuitions and fees. Congress has been chasing its own tail on college affordability for decades: while providing ever-increasing subsidies, costs continue to go up, so it repeats the process again and again.

Please- no more Congressional medicine!

Obama’s policy plans will simply add more fuel to the fire, leaving our very serious affordability problems in higher education and health care unaddressed. This is not change that we can believe in, but more of the same.

Like the MBPS abuser, politicians often come across as compassionate as they indulge their pathologies. If our politicians suffer from MBPS, we suffer our own sort of insanity in allowing ourselves to be victimized by it year after year. Our form of insanity could be referred to as Battered Taxpayer Syndrome, and it is time to call a halt to it.

It is a fallacy for the public to judge our leaders by their stated intentions, rather than the results of their decisions. Why is health care so expensive in the United States? Why the crushing debt for college educations of no greater worth than those obtained decades earlier at far less cost? Sadly, it’s because of federal policies whose follies have been repeatedly reinforced.

Rather than Munchausen by Proxy politicians, we need leaders who will follow the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.


Please Ignore the Academic Catastrophe Behind the Neo-Sustainable Curtain of Experiential Innovation

January 28, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

What is it we want from state universities? I’m a bit confused by things like this clip from Arizona State University: University as Entrepreneur.

The video goes through plenty of buzzwords: innovation, entrepreneur, empowerment, experiential, sustainability and (my favorite) New American University. The proper definition for entrepreneur, however, is “a person who has possession of an enterprise, or venture, and assumes significant accountability for the inherent risks and the outcome.”

Who then is being held accountable for the fact that 72 percent of Arizona State University students fail to graduate on time? The word that comes to mind when I see a 28% four year graduation rate isn’t innovative, empowering or entrepreneurial but rather “unfocused.”

Education Trust identifies six peer institutions for ASU based on a variety of factors: Michigan State, Indiana Bloomington, Purdue, Central Florida, LSU A&M, and the University of Arizona. ASU is tied for last place with a six year graduation rate with (ahem) the University of Arizona at a decidedly underwhelming 56.4 percent.

Michigan State, IU and Purdue all have a six year graduation rate over 70 percent. I therefore strongly suspect that each of these universities are doing substantially more to further economic development in their respective states.

I’m a fan of the Old American University- the kind that would rigorously train students at a small fraction of today’s cost and in a four year time span.