|
|
 |
|
The views expressed on this page are soley
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
 |
Diminishing
Returns
By Kate Burch
I have lived in the same medium-size rust-belt city almost all of my
life, and I have been amazed to observe, over the last couple of
decades, the growth of the physical structures of the area’s two
universities. Along with the remarkable enlargement of these
facilities has been an increase in amenities and improved
esthetics. And this has happened concurrently with a steady
decrease of our population, starting in 1978 and continuing
today.
The universities have endowments amounting to about half a billion
dollars for one school and about half that much for the
other. They also have been on the receiving end of a steady
stream of federal dollars for many years. It seems to me
that they are, frankly, awash in cash.
This richesse, however, pales in comparison to the condition of the Ivy
League. I read yesterday that Princeton has an endowment of more
than $22 billion! Conservatively estimating the return on the
investment of those funds results in a total income of $220 thousand
for every student enrolled, every year!
As the money, and the prospect of ever more money, have rolled in, the
institutions sought higher and higher enrollments. The numbers
alone, which include many students of lower ability, have called for
lowering standards, so as to assist retention. It is not a news
flash that the quality of the product has declined. I saw it
first-hand in my psychological practice when people would come to me
for psychoeducational assessment to help determine why they were unable
to perform adequately in their jobs. I found that these
individuals typically could not demonstrate proficiency in necessary
skills consistent with the number of years of schooling that they had
finished. Sometimes the gap was huge, as in a college graduate’s
having less than high school-level proficiency. This failure of
our schools to produce what they promise hurts everyone, not least the
graduate who has received false assurance of his or her
preparedness.
There are many facets to the problems with the educational system in
our country. One issue, which will be addressed by proposed
legislation, is the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity (HERO) Act,
proposed by Utah Senator Mike Lee and by Florida Representative Ron
DeSantis. This legislation would reform the current college
accreditation system, allowing states the opportunity to establish
their own accrediting systems, rather than the current,
one-size-fits-all system developed and overseen by the U.S. Department
of Education. The system, as it stands, requires that students
attend an accredited school in order to qualify for a federal student
loan, and it does not allow for the accreditation of individual
courses. Students thus must sign on for an entire, accredited
curriculum, rather than tailoring a program that would suit their
individual talents, proclivities, and needs. A student who might
become prepared for meaningful and productive work with less than the
standard four-years-long slog, for example, is barred from receiving
any financial help to do so. Online courses, similarly, are
excluded. Besides the waste of time and money, the system has
also contributed to decline in quality, as accreditation, once granted,
is almost never lost, and many programs of questionable academic value
and quality are included under the umbrella of rigid
accreditation. So, the student enrollments and the student loans
continue to fill the coffers of the accredited schools while many
students drop out early or finish with a meaningless degree and
crushing debt. I understand, also, that the schools are not
required to repay the funds they have received for a student who fails
to complete the program.
The HERO Act would decouple student aid from the current accreditation
system; allow states the right to designate an accrediting body; and
allow credentialing of programs of study, rather than
institutions. It would help bring down costs, increase
flexibility in designing educational and training programs for
students, and eliminate many barriers to innovations in
education.
It’s a start.
|
|
|
|
