Rewarding the Wrong Types of Behavior?

"We're rewarding the wrong types of behavior, [Eloy] Oakley said (Fain, 2011)."


Eloy Oakley's comment, as president of Long Beach City College, is in response to a new initiative in the state of California to move enrollment and student retention in Higher Education - and specifically in Community Colleges - to a more performance-based model.

The state of California is well known for it emphasis on access as the first and foremost priority in Higher Education. Last year a bill was passed which required the California educational system to create a "Task Force on Student Success (Fain, 2011)." In their report this year, the Task Force found that one of the key loads on California's system was the emphasis on access irregardless of student performance. Their recommendation? Give students who demonstrate academic success based on completion and other "success metrics" priority in enrollment, advising and other services. (Fain, 2011)

In Student Affairs, one of the causes most commonly championed is increasing access to education. The rationale, which one of the members of California's Task Force - David Rattray - calls "the ideal" is that this is America and the more open-access we provide to education the greater Higher Education embodies and serves as the vehicle for the American Dream. "In an ideal world, community colleges would grant equal opportunities to all students regardless of their academic preparation...In the real world it's not working (Fain quoting Rattray, 2011)"

President Obama, in his recent speech to the Auraria Campus student body and faculty, was proud of the fact that - by executive order - they have eliminated subsidized student loans. When I asked my students what their thoughts were about this, they had no idea what the ramifications of this would be for them. While it does eliminate federal subsidies which are paid to private sector financial institutions - a popularist move with the electorate in the run-up to an election year (given the wildfire growth of Occupy Movement) - the subsidies paid to banks served a function for students who receive these loans: interest does not start to accrue until six months after they are out of school. Without subsidized student loans, the end-cost of an education goes up however it does grant the Fed more control over the dispositioning of such loans (ie - forgiveness) but this comes at a cost. There is not such thing as a free lunch and someone will have to pay for student loan bailouts. The additional problem which arises in conversations about this is the matter of accountability. What behaviors are we rewarding by doing this?

I Saw Obama and Heard the Annoucement!!

Yes, this was my view of President Obama on Wednesday morning as he made his announcement about new changes on student borrowing and loans. (Side note- I was 50 feet from him- it was AWESOME!) The announcement was also featured in Inside Higher Ed and The Chronicle. His speech was very down to earth and easy for a college student to understand that the government is trying something to help them reduce their student loan debt and if potentially their loan payments are lower, they are able to do some thing to jump start the economy like buying a house or having money to spend on other things. 

In reading some comments on each of the articles, people are assuming that these changes to lending to students will get them jobs. Obama said nothing about that today. He did talk about his frustration with congress not passing the job bill. What I took from the his speech today was these changes will potentially free up some money made by college graduates to use towards spending in the economy. More spending will boost the economy and lead potentially to getting out of our recession. He did not say this would solve it but it is one way it might help both college graduates and the economy. Does not sound half bad to me....

The other point that no article has seemed to touch on that I have read is another part of the plan called "Know Before You Owe." This is a one page handout explaining financial aid options to beginning college students. I'll be curious to see what this looks like and how informative it really is, however, I am very excited at the idea especially because I was just in a conversation about who's responsibility it is to educate students about borrowing. But if it's anything like the tuition calculators mandated to college and universities, it might confuse people more. 

I don't know how this plan is going to work and if we as a nation can financially afford it. And it makes me a little leery of things going on in Washington when the president is circumventing Congress and making Executive decisions. And like I said to my students as they were imaging how these changes will effect them, "we need to know more and know more about specifically who it will impact." Obama used the number 1 million students could see changes to their borrowing. 1 million students is not a lot in this country. 

However, while we're waiting for answers, I think the thing I loved best about today was and is the reason I am in higher education. Of my 14 students, 10 went to the speech today and were excited and passionate about change in this country. They are getting the idea they are civicly (like all of us) responsible to help our government in this country (Obama asked us to tweet our congressmen to share our opinions- got a huge laugh and cheer from a room full of almost 4,000 college students) . And on the way back to our office after the speech they just asked questions, and made statements, and did some true critical thinking about what they had just heard from the President and how it might affect them. Any time I get moments like this I feel privileged and lucky.  I did some asking of questions too and I loved watching their minds turn and turn.

So yes, I saw the President today make a good speech and announcement, and there is more to know about these new things, but more importantly I got to share it with my students. I am a lucky professional. 

Undocumented students in higher education: various perspectives

The topic of undocumented students in higher education and the attempt to provide in state tuition for these students create an intense debate subject to opposing views within the ideological, political and economic spectrum.

Republican candidates have blatantly opposed undocumented immigration in the U.S. There have been some initiatives at the federal level to include in-state tuition for undocumented students in a comprehensive immigration reform. However, those initiatives have not materialized because so much emotion and fear have colored the debates.

Nevertheless, there has been some success at the state level and since 2001 there are 12 states that allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition: California & Texas in 2001, New York and Utah in 2002, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois and Kansas in 2003 & 2004, New Mexico and Nebraska in 2005-2006, Wisconsin in 2009, Maryland and Connecticut in 2011 (Wisconsin revoked the law in 2011).

One of the most recent successes for undocumented students has been the passage of the California Dream Act, under which undocumented students admitted in any public college or university are eligible for Cal-Grant assistance.

The experience of undocumented students already attending higher learning institutions varies considerably. However, they all have a common concern: an uncertain future, wondering if anyone will hire them when they graduate.

Let us assume that the majority of undocumented students we allude to are Latino students. Such an assumption will be helpful because we now will be able to look at national data in order to contextualize and elucidate the importance of this population for the United States.

According to the 2010 census, the Latino population accounted for more than half of the nation’s growth in the past decade. Currently there are 50.5 million Latinos living in the U.S., making up 16.3% of the total population. Projections indicate that this percentage will increase by 2050 and will represent 25 % of the total population of the country. Geographically, most Latinos continue to live in nine states Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York and Texas. But neighborhoods of Latinos in other states have been increasing.

As of March 2010, more than 11.2 million undocumented immigrants were reported living in the United States. These numbers inevitably speak of the reality of undocumented immigrants. They contribute to the nation’s economy as workers, taxpayers, and consumers.

In the current economic slowdown, political and economic leaders must consider the aforementioned data to provide the necessary avenues not only to pass legislation creating a path to legalization and permanent resident status for undocumented students, but also to realize that by doing so they will boost the economic development and success of the nation.

Colleges and universities must provide support to all college students regardless of their students’ immigration status. We must strive to promote inclusion for all students in our communities and our campuses. We must also strive to build inclusive campus climate. And we must advocate for underrepresented and marginalized students.

A healthy society’s obligation is to afford opportunities for all to attain the highest degree of education relevant to their interests and needs. Building a highly educated workforce is essential for the long-term sustainable development of the nation. Undocumented students deserve equal opportunities to access the institutions of higher education, and thus contribute to the socioeconomic development of our communities, and our society.

Financial Aid Discrimination

Last night, I gave a presentation in a Sociology class. The professor invites me to present on the services that my office provides to the campus, as well as current terminology. The students, as usual, had some great questions, including those about the laws surrounding and effects of reparative therapy and legislation regarding bullying. For the most part, the class went really well. But there was one student who was pretty upset that I was there, and confronting some of the teachings of her religion. She was very opposed to what I was teaching, which for me, just reinforced the reason that we have a GLBT office on campus. I don’t doubt her faith. What I have an issue with is questioning our existence on campus.

As I often explain to people who ask, my job is to level the educational playing field for the LGBT students here on campus, giving them an equal opportunity to access their education. A recent article in the New York Times just highlighted one of the many reasons that LGBT centers are still necessary on campus. The article highlighted stories of two students who had difficulties in filling out the FAFSA, and not just because the form is confusing.

The first student was raised by a lesbian couple. However, the FAFSA form only includes a space for a male parent and a female parent. To further complicate the matter, her mothers had separated, and were in relationships with other women. In cases such as these, what is a student to do? There are no instructions on the FAFSA form that would indicate how to handle this situation. Through no fault of her own, this student is dealing with a discriminatory process, as FAFSA relies on the federally-mandated Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Because this student cannot fully define her family situation on this form, the amount of financial aid that she receives may be affected.

The other student that the article interviewed faced a different problem. After coming out to his parents, they threw him out of the house, and cut off any kind of financial support, including assistance with his tuition. Because FAFSA normally requires that parents of students under 24 years of age fill out the application, this student was placed into a huge financial dilemma. Luckily, he discovered that FAFSA does allow universities to declare a student independent of their parents, but the process is sometimes long and harrowing.

The Center for American Progress recently published a report titled: “Unequal Aid: Discriminatory Treatment of Gay and Transgender Applicants and Families Headed by Same-Sex Couples in the Higher Education Financial Aid Process.” This report outlines the discrimination faced by LGBT students, and students with LGBT parents. Unfortunately, until the United States decides that all citizens are equal, students will continue to face discrimination based on one facet of their or their parents’ identities. The process of getting a college education is difficult enough. It’s time that we end discrimination in this country. It might put me out of a job, but if that's what it takes, I'm really OK with that.

New blogs are open

Current Issues Students:  the new blog have been created for the second half of the course. Each is based on a student recommendation.  You should receive invitations to join these 5 new blogs this afternoon.  If you do not (or if you need the invitation to go to a different email address), please let me know.  The older blogs will remain open for students who want to post in them for this week.

The new blog titles are: Higher Education in Colorado, For Profit, International, Protest and Conflict, and Graduate Education.

College Pregnancy

A freshmen returns from class emotionally drained. On top of a calculus and chemistry exam next week, she has one more test she fears. She takes her third pregnancy test of the day and it's still positive. She promised her parents she'd be responsible at college and she is grown up. She isn't sure who she can talk to. Though she thinks at least half the floor is sexually active this feels different, shameful, embarrassing.

The college environment isn't designed for parents. Married and family housing are largely part of the past. Though non-traditional students are on the rise, it isn't all that common to see a pregnant traditionally aged student on campus.

I work with one student who just got pregnant. Her parents told her they'll continue paying for school, but she has to figure the baby out by herself. She may find ads in the local paper offering to care for the baby. She may have a supportive friend group, but just because someone will hold your hand in the delivery room doesn't mean they'll help you get through classes, test, work, and holding a baby shower in your floor lounge.

Is this a population we should be reaching out to and helping them succeed? Or is this a group that just shouldn't be in school? Abortion has become an increasingly political issue, rather than a human issue. To breach the subject of her pregnancy with faculty, staff, or students could bring support, quick condemnation, or a careless "just take care of it."

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy petitions in Washington to increase education about unplanned pregnancy, especially at community colleges. Here are three alarming statistics about pregnancy on community colleges:

• 61% of people who have a child while in college drop out before obtaining their degree
• The dropout rate for people who have a child in college is 64% higher than those who don't.
• 48% of all community college students claim to either have been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant

Forty eight percent?! I challenge someone to identify another issue that affects 48% of our students that is as poorly funded, or about which we are more poorly educated. Because we have made this a political issue, we've been paralyzed in our ability to respond to it. Though we address this issue with high school students, more unplanned pregnancies occur to women in their 20s.

What should we do? I've got a few ideas...

1. We should talk about sex with college students.

2. We should provide emotionally and physically safe environments for women to talk about options.

3. We should provide counseling for women who are pregnant, who have had abortions, miscarriages (1 in 4 pregnancies end in a miscarriage), and with postpartum depression.

4. We should provide counseling and support groups for men who are facing pregnancy decisions.

Pregnancy on campus is an academic success, retention, mental and physical health, and community issue. We have an obligation to respond.

Revision of Student Loan Repayments?

Income contingent student loans is undeniably an attractive alternative for repayment of student loans. The concept, currently used in both Australia and Britain, allows the student to repay their student loan based on a percentage of their annual income. If you think about it, a student will likely earn less in their years following their graduation and their income should rise as the years goes by. It also allows students that cannot find a job immediately following college because of the overall weakness of the economy, to not have to start paying on their loans immediately. Little or no income would mean no payments required. With an income-contingent loan, if payments were required the payments would be automatically withdrawn from their paycheck and as their income rises, their payment would rise.

Currently, students are required to pay back the loans on a loan amortized over 10 years with a fixed payment. Students are struggling to pay those fixed payments due to lower starting salaries, inability to find jobs and high payment requirements due to high debt levels. Loan defaults are quickly and sharply on the rise. The US Department of Education reported that "borrowers whose first loan repayments came due between Oct. 1, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2009, and of those borrowers, defaulted before Sept. 30, 2010 was more than 320,000. Those borrowers who defaulted after the two-year period are not counted as defaulters in this data set." This is a staggering statistic especially considering this is not even counting the 2nd year default rates.

The down falls of this system for the student has a single negative point. Longer loan periods, mean additional interest is paid over the life of the loan. However, additional interest is much preferable to having to default on the student loan and having issues with their credit for the long term. In the current system, student loans are almost never discharged in bankruptcy but under the income contingent loan systems, loans not paid in a period of 20 or 30 years are discharged.

56% of American borrowers struggle to repay loans after the first five years as compared to the fact the 98% of the British borrowers meeting their loan obligations. This is a significant difference. Also, since the federal government is now handling the all of the federal loans (no banks handle federal student loans), the system should be somewhat simple since the income reporting from the IRS will only have to be reported to one entity, the US Department of Education. This should be a relatively easy.

With the decrease of defaults, with the cost of hiring collection agencies, with less former students suffering from ruined credit and a system that seems fair and reasonable, I am hoping for a change to the system very soon. I believe the income contingent loans is a definite improvement over the current loan programs!

On the brink: Helping students complete college

In an October 6, 2011 article Diverse Education posted an article, Keeping Day to Day Problems from Derailing College Students. The article begins by telling the story of a community college student who was nearing graduation and making plans to transfer to a four year institution to complete his bachelors degree. The young man in the story was nearing completion when he got a toothache - a very expensive toothache - and did not have insurance to help cover the cost of the procedure. He was at the point where he was making a decision about whether or not to stay enrolled at the community college or leave to focus on earning enough money to cover his medical bills. Thankfully for this young man his community colleges' foundation stepped in and paid for the procedure with a pool of money raised to cover just this kind of thing. He was able to complete his degree and is now working on a bachelors degree. 

The article goes on to talk about the rising number of students whose personal circumstances often leave them with very little margin for error or unexpected crisis. The young man in the article was quoted as saying, "I've seen other students drop out, not because they can't affor tuition, but they can't afford the other costs of coming to college - rent, health insurance, transportation." The young man in the article got financial help from his community colleges' foundation who was recieving funds from the Dreamkeepers and Angel Fund program - a Lumina Foundation project.

The Dreamkeepers and Angel Fund program provided emergency financial aid to students at 37 community colleges. The Dreamkeepers program provided emergency aid to 11 Achieving the Dream community colleges and the Angel Fund provided funds to 26 Tribal Colleges and Universities. The two programs had three overarching goals: 

1. to develop infrastructures at participating colleges for delivering emergency financial aid; 
2. to learn whether the students who receive such aid stay enrolled in college; and 
3. to promote long-term sustainability of the emergency aid programs.

You can see a summary of the final report on these two project, which wrapped up in 2008, here.

The notion of emergency financial aid was only one of the strategies the article outlined as community colleges, in particular, deal with increasing numbers of students who are running into challenges that have the ability to derail students from achieving their goal of earning a degree. Other strategies institutions are engaging in are more robust early alert systems that are seeking to detect when students are at risk for non-academic issues, case management approaches to serving students and developing equipment loan programs (laptops, calculators etc.)

Others have blogged about similar issues in higher education and at what point we as student affairs professionals become social workers and is that really our role. Throughout this class and in my work at a community college I really do have to wonder, not about whether this is our role or not but, whether we are seeing a shift in our profession. Have the changing needs of students and the economic situation begun changing what it means to be student affairs practioners?

I'm going to argue that, yes, in order to be responsive to our students needs and ultimately do our part in helping students get to graduation that we must reconsider our role. I'm not arguing that in the end higher education can or should be all things to all people but that we must consider who is coming through our doors and respond to the changing needs of todays students. 

Years ago when I was working with our TRiO program (serving first generation and low income college students) I returned from a meeting to find that our staff had decided the best course of action for a young woman we had all been working with was for her to leave an abusive boyfriend, take her 1 year old and move in with one of our staff advisors. I'm using this example to highlight what I believe to be the extreme and am not making an argument that we in student affairs should be considering blurring the boundaries to this extent. In the end the young woman did not move in with our advisor but instead we all worked diligently to help her identify community resources and get connected to those resources. This is I believe is where being responsive to student needs in order to help them refocus their energies on being a college student is part of our changing role in higher education. 

I wonder what your institutions have done to support students - ours for example has started a foodbank to support the many students and families who struggle each week to have enough to eat. 

A hold on a policy drafted by the National Association for College Admission Counseling to use commission-based recruiting on international students is still up for debate. Last May the policy was drafted, but at the recent annual NCAC Conference in September word spread quickly about the policy put on hold for the next two years.

There is a growing concern about how colleges are recruiting international students. Some think that the mission should overrule the money involved in getting more numbers. Others think the money is of concern and international students help programs to compensate with funding. International students are sought after because they pay an out of state rates which helps pay for programs in state students. The commission-based approach is scary by the tactics admission officers are using to get students in the door and not thinking about the whole person.
So what will happen in the two years while the policy sits in limbo? Will we see a continued increase in international students coming to our campuses? Once they arrive on our campus, being pushed to come, will we have the resources and opportunities to meet the needs they expected when they signed up to attend?

Beyond the money, we should think about ethics in education. Is it ethical for international students to pay more for an education than those who are domestic students?

The cost makes me think of my own experiences studying abroad. When I studied abroad I was able to pay the same rate as a domestic student while I was away internationally. If we looked to go this route instead with our international students we may end developing better long term partnerships and connections with international institutions for numerous years. This could outweigh the one student every year recruitment effort to a cohort every year from a few schools with great relationships.

Could we see an increase the immigration by international students to seek out citizenship to save over four or five years and remain in the States? How much should we ask students to pay for their education?

Are the challenges facing U.S. Higher Ed really that bad?

The several dilemmas facing Higher Education in the United States are well documented and become topics for discussion on a regular basis. Lack of funding, low levels of education among under-represented groups, and the gap in education among the older and younger generations of the nation are just a few topics that warrant further review. However, it is easy to find examples of countries around the world that are suffering Higher Education woes of their own. The following discussion may add some perspective on how problems in the U.S. stack up against Higher Education around the globe.

While many students in the U.S. struggle with whether they can afford to attend college or not, Norway is struggling with whether or not they can continue to offer free education for all students. Free education for all, literally means all, even international students. This is a practice that Denmark and Sweden have recently abandoned, causing a significant increase in the number of international students finding their way to Norway for a free education. While this may not seem like a significant issue, or at least one that most of us would welcome in our own country, there are underlying issues. Norway strong values equality, and this includes the right of everyone to receive an education. An initiation of even modest fees could significantly hamper the underlying values of the country. Additionally, the country is already experiencing a decrease in population. This trend could become significantly worse if international, and national students, chose to live elsewhere during, and after the completion of, their education. Still, there are worse problems elsewhere.

Malaysia is being severely hampered by the rules, regulations, and policies that are present at Higher Education institutions in the country. Creativity and critical thinking are all but crushed at the gates of the universities, as status-quo thinking and standardized political views are forced upon all graduates of Higher Education in the country. Students are forced to conform to certain standards. There are too many issues with such a system to even list in this blog. The biggest issue that jumps out however, is the concern for the future of this country. The education structure is simply limiting the advancement of this country. If everyone is educated in exactly the same manner, and forced into a specific way of thinking, then it does not matter the percentage of educated citizens, as one could do the thinking for thousands that have exactly the same views.

One of the most troubling situations in Higher Education seems to come from Sudan. In a country that already has a very poor education system, the Minister of Higher Education has suspended private universities based on lack of infrastructure, standardized curriculums, and general incompetence. The suspension of private universities has placed a burden on citizens to spend large sums of money to attend schools that are great distances away, as there are only 5 institutions with recognition from the nation. The problems only begin to spiral from this point, as the 5 universities have created a monopoly on education in the nation, even though they lack a sufficient number of qualified professors to teach students. The issues in Sudan should begin to develop deep rooted stakes in moral and ethical conversation, and not just ones of policy.

Generally, we can say that Higher Education in the United States faces many challenges. But, as we examine other nations around the world it is easy to realize that we are not alone in this dilemma, and in many cases we are much better off than other nations in this regard. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect perfection from a system that has been flawed for hundreds of years. Rather, we should focus on issues that we can chip away at over time and make progress with, rather than try to make everything perfect all at once.

Is Higher Ed advocating it's own demise?

Giroux, H. (2008). The Militarization of US Higher Education after 9/11. Theory, Culture and Society vol.25 (5): 56-82 DOI: 10.1177/0263276408095216

While this article is somewhat dated, 2008, we are currently experiencing a portion of the fall out from what Giroux calls for. This article is a qualitative examination of the legitimacy and political crisis, Giroux feels, is in higher education today. Giroux claims higher education has compromised itself by working with government, military, corporate and private interests. This working with the military/government/private interests, Giroux ascertains, undermines the university as a site of criticism, dissent and critical dialogue.

There is a great deal of rhetoric in this article many may find objectionable. However, for the purposes of this blog I am focusing on the avocation of removing what has become essential funding sources to Higher Education.

Over the last several years the cost of attending a University has been steadily growing. This has been caused by the cut backs in funding from the entities Giroux would like to see removed from Higher Education. Compounding this is the increased costs in operating a University. While in some institutions salaries have been frozen there is still the cost of everything from electricity to office supplies to janitorial supplies. Buildings need to be maintained, the grounds of the institution addressed and vehicles/machinery maintained. Every nut, bolt and pencil has a cost attributed to it and every year the cost grows with inflation and the market demands for the resource used needed.

As a result of the lessening of financial support from the aforementioned entities we are seeing an increasing cost for students to attend any form of higher education. In Colorado we saw a 15% increase in tuition. Should this dangerous trend continue education will quickly become affordable by only the wealthiest aspects of our society thereby denying the majority of the population of it's greatest social equalizer. Furthermore, if economic indicators prove true, the rate of long term economic progression will continue to be slow and eventually stagnate as the United States loses it's competitive edge, an educated professional population.

I recognize the current fiscal situation of the states and federal governments are dreary and cuts need to be made however, education is not the place to make those cuts. An educated populace not only increases economic outlook but promotes democracy as people are more able to ascertain, apply critical thinking and address social and political issues which affect their daily lives.