This is in today’s paper.
Tying Federal Aid to College Ratings – NYTimes.com.
The three metrics they support are:
- number of poor and working-class students (>17%)
- graduation rates (>15%)
- Measuring loan default rates (<28%)
At least it’s a start, but what will the real outcomes be if colleges work toward these minimum metrics? Will more people get a better education? I don’t know. I wrote some of my thoughts online.
“”…tie federal aid to performance…” Absolutely.
The educational mission of a university is to “educate”. The goal should be “educational” performance. That modifier should never be assumed, just because we are talking about colleges.
I am a former professor. I have taught at a state school that admitted mainly needy and working class students. I taught at an “elite” school. When it comes to “educational” performance, there was little difference.
Of course, if you measure educational performance by input (SAT scores) and POTENTIAL quality of teaching (as US News does), then the “elite” school wins hands down. But if you measure it by “educational” value-added, there is little difference. There is a simple reason for this.
Universities will solve for the winning solution. They will produce the winning number. If the winning solution is letting consumer ( aka student) “wants” trump student “needs”, then that will be the solution. If it is counting graduates, that will be the solution. This is the danger of the proposals advocated here. It’s too easy to solve for the winning solutions.
Our problem in America is too many unscrupulous people, in too many universities, willing to mislead people who buy the idea that university people aren’t like, well, bankers.
The evidence for what I argue here is abundant. The book, “Academically Adrift”, contains hard data, and there are books and blogs (like mine) that relate telling, and shocking, examples.”
Recent Comments