The Future Of Higher Education Will Be The Same, But Worse

The uncertainty that American colleges now face has sparked bombastic proclamations from reformers. A coming disruption will be led by elite cyborg universities, we’re told. The pandemic is a golden opportunity to clean out the diversity bureaucracy. Funding formulas should be changed too, while we’re at it.

Unfortunately, the desire for change has blinded experts to the reality of the situation. The French novelist Michel Houellebecq is closer to the mark: The future of higher ed will be the same, but worse. Colleges will make the changes they must as budgets shrink, and then they’ll demand more taxpayer money to restore higher ed to the way things were.

The lack of alternatives to a college education, and vested interests who want to preserve the status quo, are big barriers to fundamental reforms—and the coronavirus won’t make them disappear.

Higher ed will still survive and be popular because there are very, very few other ways for the average 18-year-old to succeed in life. The self-motivated ones might try starting a business, or take an internship if they’re lucky enough to have family connections to a business that still exists.

Most students, however, are average. They are not budding non-conformists yearning for a Thiel Fellowship. Aside from a college credential, they do not have a constructive option to avoid a Zoom classroom in the fall. To the extent that many freshmen defer college in the fall, it could put some pressure on institutions. Absent of that, however, students will suffer through Zoom and boredom to get a degree. (And it will, in all likelihood, be an online fall semester.)

To see what might actually happen among American higher education, follow what public four-year colleges and community colleges have done so far (and where almost 75 percent of all students study). Decisions at elite colleges such as Harvard, Williams, and the University of Michigan will differ markedly from decisions at Wake Tech Community College in North Carolina or the City University of New York and its 26 campuses.

For the colleges that educate the most students, the outlook is bleak.

CUNY has laid off hundreds of adjunct faculty. Ohio University is cutting hundreds of administrators and scores of faculty. The University of Akron cut three sports, East Carolina University will cut at least one sport, and Western Michigan University wants to cut spending by 20 percent across all university divisions.

The average college will see cuts made across-the-board. The lucky ones might only lose 5 percent, the stragglers 30 percent. Marginal athletic programs, such as cross country, golf, tennis, and sometimes baseball, will disappear. Adjuncts will disappear in droves, and even some tenure-track professors, too. Administrators will also be cut, but not as drastically as professors.

Those cuts won’t be as dramatic as reformers would like, mostly thanks to federal intervention. Though Colorado slashed its higher education budget by 58 percent, for example, federal aid will mean its colleges only face a 5 percent cut. That the academy sees a 5 percent cut as a sign of economic and moral destruction is a sign of the budget battles to come on the state level.

More cuts could happen, however, if students stay away. A big drop in fall enrollment would threaten all sorts of colleges. Until student deposits start to roll in, however, it’s too soon to speak in certainties. Low-income students are more likely to skip a year; FAFSA renewals have fallen almost 5 percent compared to a year ago. Part-time students, too, are less likely to return to classes, as are Latinos, a growing presence on many campuses. If a slice of Gen Z realizes it’s a fool’s game to take on debt for a college degree without the on-campus experience, perhaps the reformers will be right. Until the fall, it’s too early to say.

For some schools, like community colleges, they might even thrive. They’re much cheaper than a four-year school, public or private. Students might be more willing to tolerate online classes if they can do it closer to home and their credits will transfer. Some anecdotal and survey data show a portion of students are leaning that way. If students follow through, places like California, Texas, Illinois, and the Northeast could gain, as their high school grads often go out of state for college. Hubs for out-of-state students, like the University of Alabama, could suffer, as well as schools with a lot of international students.

Truly major changes are more likely to occur at small private colleges, for-profit colleges, and marginal schools that were struggling before the coronavirus. Pine Manor College in Massachusetts, for example, will be absorbed by Boston College. Other small private colleges will follow suit, especially in the Northeast and Midwest, as many have done in recent years. If a private college was mostly unknown outside its state and was taking on debt without getting more students, it may not be around in 2021.

Don’t expect as many closures of public schools, though. When Jeb Spaulding, the chancellor of the Vermont State Colleges System, tried to close three campuses, the response to his “politically radioactive” proposal forced him to withdraw it and resign. If Vermont, which has seen five private colleges close since 2016 and whose public system was struggling before the coronavirus, can’t close a few schools, it will be an extremely hard sell in other states. Local politicians and towns dependent on the jobs provided by the college will fight tooth and nail against closures.

More likely, some public colleges will go the route of Missouri Western State University. After financial mismanagement for years flew under the radar until the student newspaper brought it to light, MWSU cut its budget by 30 percent, reduced its full-time faculty by about a quarter, and ended dozens of majors, minors, and concentrations. It will limp on, with its 33 percent graduation rate. Public colleges can be stripped down and hollowed out, but they can’t be closed.

More federal funds also portend against public college closures. The higher ed lobby has demanded at least $47 billion more from Congress in coronavirus aid. The status quo, from that point of view, needs to be maintained. In protecting the status quo, even the basket cases are bailed out: According to Real Clear Investigations, 87 percent of the 447 colleges under “heightened cash monitoring” by the Department of Education received funding in the first round of coronavirus aid. Given how uncritically state and federal governments fund higher education, it’s unlikely that a coronavirus renewal will cleanse what plagues American colleges and universities.

Yet, perhaps some colleges deserve to die. Many of the schools now shutting down, merging, or getting hollowed out have a poor track record for graduate outcomes. They have abysmal graduation rates and high debt loads. They also struggle to maintain enrollment numbers as students have noticed the poor results and vote with their feet. Declining to save those struggling institutions could leave would-be students better off. Jettison the dead weight, and decent colleges might remain.

Higher education does not exist in a vacuum. The ongoing changes are made based on local economic and political conditions. That makes it harder to implement good ideas, unless it’s sold as an expansion that requires more funding, not fewer administrators on campus.

The decisions are also made, increasingly, by people who all have a college degree. They see college as the only route to success; they rarely have an appetite for expanding non-college career paths. They are the ones that college was designed for. Why reform college, in their view, when the problem is not enough state funding for colleges?

Many of the proposed reforms are good ideas. My colleagues at the James G. Martin Center have offered an outline of reforms for the University of North Carolina system that many state systems could follow. The National Association of Scholars has offered an even broader, national plan for change. And the Drake Group’s ideas for athletics could lay the groundwork for restoring the primacy of academic success above some sports-obsessed schools.

Those ideas are sound, and it’s worth challenging college leaders and politicians to endorse them. However, reformers need to think about reform in terms of what to expect from decision makers and existing conditions. Reformers won’t suddenly be embraced while higher ed leaders and lobbyists cajole state and federal officials for emergency funding.

The coronavirus will not spark The Great Higher Ed Reform. Federal laws would have to change. Guardians of the status quo, like Saul on the Road to Damascus, would need the scales to fall from their eyes. And the average student would need a viable alternative that pressures colleges to change their ways. Until then, reformers will continue to fight in the trenches to change a bloated system that leaves many students worse off than before they entered.

SOURCE 





UK: Home schooling boosts parents' interest in teaching as a career

School closures have turned the UK into a nation of temporary teachers since the coronavirus lockdown – and that may have inspired some people to seek new careers in the classroom, according to a new survey.

Now Teach, the charity co-founded by the former journalist Lucy Kellaway, encourages older workers to change careers, and has found that the lockdown has increased the status of school teachers among the population at large, as parents have come to appreciate the joys of designing scientific experiments that impart knowledge rather than just make a mess in the kitchen.

The survey of 2,000 UK adults found that 3% said they had “been thinking about becoming a teacher and I wasn’t before the coronavirus lockdown”, while a further 5% agreed that they had been “already thinking about becoming a teacher before the coronavirus lockdown but I’m thinking about it more seriously now”.

“The leap in interest in teaching is exactly what I’d hoped would happen during this wretched time,” said Kellaway, who left her post as a columnist at the Financial Times in 2016 and is now an economics teacher at Mossbourne Victoria Park academy in east London.

While 3% might not sound significant, Kellaway points out that across the UK population as a whole that would amount to more than enough recruits to solve any teaching shortages in Britain’s schools for a generation.

Now Teach said it has seen a 70% rise in applications for its training programme between March and May this year, at the height of the lockdown.

One of those, Aisha Singleton, who worked in publishing in Norwich, said: “My previous industry had so many opportunities and I have many great memories of it, but the bottom line is, I don’t feel I’ve really helped anyone.

“When coronavirus broke out, I thought, ‘I want to inspire young people, I want to be giving back.’ This pandemic has given me the final push in that direction.

“When children go back to school in September, they’re going to need support, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

The survey found that despite some high-profile complaints, 64% of parents have enjoyed the experience of home schooling and only 9% reported a negative experience – which Kellaway thought might help explain the new attraction of a career in teaching.

The desire to change careers was strongest among workers who are still in full-time employment, according to the survey, rather than those who had been furloughed or were unemployed during the lockdown.

“I co-founded Now Teach four years ago because I hoped there were other professionals out there who, like me, wanted to do something more useful with their lives. The pandemic has made this point more powerfully than I ever could. It has shone a light on the emptiness of some jobs and made people want to do something that really matters,” Kellaway said.

The survey also found that respondents with school-age children – who have spent the past two months home schooling – “overwhelmingly reported increased gratitude to teachers and respect for what they do”, compared with just 4.5% who said their respect had lessened.

This came despite high-profile attacks on teaching unions by some in the media and government, over their concerns about the safe return of pupils into schools.

SOURCE 







Race to shore up big Australian University as cash crisis bites

La Trobe University has over 30,000 students

La Trobe University is at risk of going broke in a matter of weeks unless it secures a financial lifeline from the banks and an agreement from staff to cut wages.

La Trobe's cash reserves have been reduced to the minimum required to meet a single month's operating expenses as it grapples with the loss of overseas students because of the coronavirus crisis, which has wiped $16 billion from Australia's university sector.

Vice-chancellor John Dewar, in a briefing to staff on Tuesday, said the university had “no money tucked down the back of the sofa’’ and that unless they agreed to a 10 per cent salary reduction, La Trobe would resort to forced redundancies.

La Trobe sources told The Age that ANZ bank had declined to extend by $100 million an unsecured credit facility it holds with the university and that the university had already sold $29 million in shares to find more cash.

Professor Dewar denied the university had been unsuccessful in securing credit and said negotiations were continuing with the banks. As part of these negotiations, “the banks are interested to see actions around balancing our books over time'', he said.

Asked whether the university was at risk of insolvency, Professor Dewar said: “The actions we are taking are about setting up the ongoing financial sustainability of the university.’’

The university’s chief financial officer, Mike Smith, told staff in a 90-minute webinar that La Trobe was facing a revenue slump of $400 million to $520 million between now and the end of 2021. To date, only $207 million in savings had been found to fill the anticipated funding hole, he said.

Mr Smith said that in the absence of the proposed wage reduction, 450 positions would be made redundant.

La Trobe’s 2019 calendar accounts tabled in Parliament on Tuesday showed that before the pandemic interrupted the international student market, the university’s finances were already deteriorating.

Last year’s trading surplus of $19.4 million was down from $30 million recorded the previous year, and $75 million in borrowings for new student accommodation had trebled the debt-to-equity ratio.

A quarter of the university’s 2019 revenue came from overseas students.

Hannah Robert, a law lecturer who helped organise a Monday-night meeting of staff to discuss the university’s financial predicament, said the situation was difficult.

“The picture the CFO paints is dire. "I have been on boards before and if there is uncertainty over whether you will have cash reserves for a month's operational expenditure that is really scary.

“But I don't think it is fair to ask ordinary staff to carry so much of the losses through pay cuts.

"The fact that the federal government is hanging universities out to dry like this when we are the biggest service export industry in the country, it is just unbelievable. You have got a serious prospect of universities going under.”

Ms Robert said there was anger in Tuesday’s meeting at the refusal of university management to entertain larger salary cuts for executives. Professor Dewar has accepted a 20 per cent cut. He was last year paid between $970,000 and $980,000.

La Trobe staff have already rejected one offer under the Australian University Jobs Protection Framework, a variation to the university’s enterprise bargaining agreement negotiated with the National Tertiary Education Union.

Under a revised offer, staff would receive a sliding pay cut, depending on their classification, reduce annual leave to 10 days and receive no pay increases until 2022. There would be involuntary redundancies in “very limited circumstances.’’

NTEU members will vote on the proposal this week and non-union members next week, with the result to be known on June 17, subject to Fair Work approval.

Universities have received no federal government financial assistance to weather the COVID-19 fallout and cannot access the JobKeeper scheme. The umbrella group Universities Australia said new four-year modelling showed that universities were facing a combined revenue loss of up to $4.8 billion in 2020 and, at worst, a $16 billion hit by 2023.

In his address to staff, Professor Dewar quoted from a Melbourne University research paper showing that of all Australian universities, La Trobe and the University of Canberra were at greatest risk from the drop-off in international students.

“La Trobe is one of the two most financially vulnerable universities in this group,’’ said Centre for the Study of Higher Education honorary fellows Ian Marshman and Frank Larkins. “Its available reserves are not sufficient to cover any of the predicted loss situations.’’

Higher education expert Andrew Norton, of the Australian National University, said La Trobe was in a “wobbly situation’’ before the pandemic because it was struggling to attract domestic students and had lost prospective students to free TAFE courses.

Professor Norton raised the possibility of a federal government bailout, saying there was provision in the Higher Education Funding Act for the Commonwealth to advance money to universities against future years' grants. He also suggested the Victorian government could become a guarantor on the university’s loans, to ease the concerns of banks.

Professor Dewar said the university’s problems would not be fixed by the banks alone. “The banks are willing to lend to us and we are pursuing additional debt. However, this would be a short-term loan; borrowing in the longer term is not the solution to the financial situation we face.”

SOURCE