1. John Immerwahr Public Agenda/Villanova University January 12, 2010

2.  Opinion themes from four important stakeholder groups: College Presidents: Iron Triangle (2008) Public: Squeeze Play (2007 and 2009) State Higher Education Officials: Campus Commons (2009) Faculty: Campus Commons (2009) Warnings: talking about perceptions; most information based on qualitative research only!

3. Public Agenda (www.publicagenda.org) in collaboration withwww.publicagenda.org National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (www.highereducation.org)www.highereducation.org

4.  Three factors: cost, quality, access locked in reciprocal relationship  Can’t change one without impacting on the others

5.  Labor intensive industry  Health care costs rising  Increased demand for services  Technology does not produce efficiencies for core mission  Unprepared students  Reality of university governance

6.  Many states are either decreasing financial support or, at any rate, financial support is not keeping up with the growing costs  At the same time, states are demanding more accountability, driving up costs further

7.  Greater efficiencies are possible and are being pursued.  But: savings will be only incremental and not meet growing need  More corporate and philanthropic support also needed and is being pursued

8.  Only one solution possible  Redefine education as public good, not merely private good  Calling for major reinvestment of public resources into higher education

9. 1. Growing importance of higher education 2. Access is threatened 3. Squeeze play: public caught in the middle 4. The “bloom is off the rose” 5. Public’s solutions? Protect access: do more with less

10.  College is important ◦ 1993 – 79% ◦ 2003 – 87%  Impossible to succeed without a college degree ◦ 2000 – 31% ◦ 2003 – 37% ◦ 2007 – 50% ◦ 2008 – 55%

11.  College costs going up at a faster rate than other things ◦ 2007 – 58% ◦ 2008 – 63%  College costs going up as fast or faster than health care ◦ 2007 – 59% ◦ 2008 – 77%

12.  1993 – 60%  1998 – 45%  2003 – 57%  2007 – 62%  2008 – 67%

13.  2000 ◦ College essential – 31% ◦ Many can’t go – 47%  2007 ◦ College essential – 50% ◦ Many can’t go – 62%  2008 ◦ College essential – 55% ◦ Many can’t go – 67%

14.  Colleges are like businesses, care mostly about bottom line rather than education ◦ 2007 – 52% ◦ 2008 – 55% ◦ 2009 – 60%

15.  58% -- colleges could take more students without hurting quality or price  56% -- colleges could spend less money and still maintain quality  Only 48% say students are learning more as a result of increasing prices

16.  Meet economic needs of state  Improve well-being of individuals

17.  Increase graduates by ◦ Becoming more productive (asking hard questions about things such as class size) ◦ Focus on retention (easier to keep students than to get them) ◦ Incentivize schools for producing more graduates ◦ Technology ◦ Dual enrollment, K-20 systems

18.  The high-discretion workplace  In areas where workers have high autonomy, managers cannot command changes in performance, workers have veto power  Higher education faculty: the ultimate high- discretion workers  Changes won’t happen without faculty buy-in

19.  Major problem: decreasing quality of students ◦ Poor preparation ◦ Poor attitudes ◦ Too many distractions

20.  Unprepared students drag down standards  Pressures from administration to improve access and graduation rates further depress standards

21.  In contrast to all other groups: the problem is too many (unprepared) students, not too few enrolled or graduating  If you want to improve American higher education, the solution is not to push more students through the system, but to improve the quality of education for students who can do the work

22.  Bad ideas from faculty perspective: ◦ Incentivize colleges for completion of courses or programs ◦ Over-emphasize retention ◦ Increase class sizes ◦ Dual enrollment so students take college classes in high school ◦ On-line education

23.  An entirely different mindset from other stakeholders  Focus should be on greater quality, not improved productivity or access  Best solution: improve K12 education!

24. GroupDefinition of ProblemSolution College PresidentsCaught in iron triangleReinvest in higher education! PublicCaught between growing importance and decreasing access Protect access at all costs! State Financial Officers (and legislators) Need more college graduates Increase productivity and retention! FacultyDeteriorating quality of students and declining standards Raise standards, improve K-12, stop talking about productivity!