The Gates Cambridge Foundation has announced the 39 American scholars selected for graduate study at Cambridge University, and Rutgers University leads public institutions with two scholars for 2013.
In addition, Arkansas, Auburn, Binghamton, Christopher Newport, Maryland, Michigan State, New Mexico, New Mexico State, Salisbury University, UC Berkeley, and UT Austin have bachelor’s degree holders who won Gates awards. The U.S. Naval Academy also has an awardee this year, not unusual for the academy.
The overall leader in 2013 is Harvard, with five scholars. Yale, Princeton, and Stanford have two scholars each; MIT and Duke have one apiece. Other private institutions with Gates winners are Penn, NYU, Pomona, Chicago, Boston University, Case Western, De Pauw, Notre Dame, and Franklin Olin College of Engineering
A student from the University of British Columbia was also honored with an award this year.
The Gates Cambridge Scholarships are among the most prestigious in the world, paying the cost of graduate study at the eminent English university for multiple years of study.
Amid rising college costs and sharply reduced state funding, many actual and would-be reformers view the dramatic expansion of online instruction as the best way to save money and improve access to higher education. While online classes are a great advantage for non-traditional students and perhaps for traditional students who can take them in place of some large lecture courses, their overuse may have a negative impact on the personal development of students in the 18-29 age group.
Thus far, the arguments for online instruction have been so influenced by the current financial angst that the impact of true “distance learning” on the personal development of college-aged students has not been at the forefront of the debate. Yet with generations of highly successful residential college students standing as testament to the value of the traditional college experience, both in the U.S. and abroad, we should take care not to permit the perceived financial advantages of distance learning to overwhelm the developmental advantages of residential learning.
Instead of focusing exclusively on whether cheaper online instruction can impart knowledge as effectively as a college instructor in a lecture hall, we should also take equal care to understand the impact of online instruction on the personal development of students. This is increasingly true now that Massive Open Online Courses are being considered for college credit. If we continue to speak in developmental terms, we could say that the atomization of the college experience may only be in its infancy, and we are far from certain about the impact of its growth.
The online revolution is not the only factor that has reduced the proportion of students who participate in the residential college experience. According to “The American Freshman 2012,” the fascinating work of the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, fewer college-aged students are living in dorms now and more are living at home with parents. The UCLA report also shows that more students are acceding to the wishes of their parents now when it comes to which college to attend and whether to live at home, largely because of financial reasons.
While it is understandable that the economic crisis has forced parents and students alike to be more realistic, we are still left with the question whether, in the long term, we want to see further declines in residential college life.
At least since 2004, when Oxford University Press published Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the Twenties, by Jeffrey Arnett, psychologists have recognized a distinct development phase between adolescence and adulthood
Arnett convincingly argues that this phase, emerging adulthood, has come about because of the “rise in the ages of entering marriage and parenthood, the lengthening
of higher education, and prolonged job instability during the twenties…. This period is not simply an ‘extended adolescence,’ because it is much different from adolescence, much freer from parental control, much more a period of independent exploration.”
Well before Arnett’s influential work, eminent scholars such as A.W. Astin, founding director of the influential Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, had written in the 1970s about the importance of the college years to the development of personal identity. Other scholars who have contributed to our understanding of the college years as a time of critical personal development include Arthur W. Chickering (Education and Identity, 1969), among many publications.
Chickering identified seven “vectors” of development during the college years:
The list begs the question: Can’t these “vectors” be followed outside of the residential college experience? The answer is yes, but at what levels of interdependence, with what high or low purpose in mind? The context of the development is critical. Other researchers have also pointed to a phenomenon called the “environmental press,” which is a nice way of describing how our peers can push and challenge us. Will some of our old high school friends challenge us in the same way as our smartest friends and classmates in college, not to mention our professors?
Although the UCLA study tells us that more students are arriving at college feeling “overwhelmed,” it also reports that students with such feelings are more likely than others to find positive support in college that reduces this kind of pressure and enables them to succeed amid the “environmental press” of classwork. Students living at home may experience only the classroom “press” while lacking the support of student groups and counselors. These students, in turn, are more likely to turn to their parents at just the time in the students’ lives when they should be pursuing the “vectors” described by Chickering.
Other recent research on college peer relationships, by Lisa M. Swenson, Alicia Nordstrom, and Marnie Hiester, looks at the relationship of college freshmen with their former high school classmates.
“Peer relationships are an integral part of adolescents’ and emerging adults’ lives,” the authors conclude. “In this study, we identified specific ways in which close peer relationships are associated with adjustment to college. Maintaining ties with high school friends can help a new college student adjust during the initial transition period, but it is also important for these college students to make new friends in their new environment if they want to improve their chances of success. Given the serious implications of failure in college, this study provides empirical evidence for the importance of friendships in the transition to college.”
Without considering the personal development of the “emerging adults” who enter college and the ways their peers and professors can affect the remainder of their lives, reformers who are keen to increase access and reduce costs via distance learning may discover that, contrary to their dreams of producing more highly-trained students for the market place, they will be sending young people into the world who have yet to emerge from their early adult phase, and must then “emerge” on the job. Do we really want to wait so long for this to happen?
More than five years ago, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation decided to fund projects and research aimed at doubling by the year 2025 the number of low-income students who graduate from college or from some other post-secondary institution. The Gates-funded proposals that have come forward in recent weeks share this profoundly egalitarian focus and, if implemented, would have a revolutionary impact on higher education.
While the egalitarian goals are laudable, it is also true that if all the recommendations are implemented, middle-class parents and students will for the most part find it more difficult to pay for college. The message we receive from these initiatives is that the foundation believes that the nation as a whole is at great risk because too many low-income students are falling behind, and that ameliorating this problem is worth some sacrifice on the part of the middle class.
One such initiative is from the Committee for Economic Development, which proposes that current federal non-loan programs (e.g., Pell Grants) be replaced by need-based federal-state matching programs. This proposal has received some media attention, but after reading the entire 32-page report, we believe its potential impact has been insufficiently understood.
The CED report argues that the current higher education system is inefficient because too little financial aid goes to those who are most in need. There is an implicit recognition in the report that “broad-access” institutions will be the most affected, while elite public and private institutions will have to make fewer adjustments.
The report is critical of colleges that regard federally-funded grants and loans as the only means of increasing access to low-income students, meanwhile preferring to use state and institutional funds for the purpose of merit-based aid to high-achieving students who will raise college profiles. Middle- and even upper-class students who now enjoy merit aid may find that the matching requirements recommended by the CED will dramatically reduce the availability of merit funds.
“Our concern,” the CED says, “is that institutions are engaged in a kind of ‘arms race’ for academically qualified students….This drives an ongoing process of increasing financial aid to students who will go to college regardless of the level of aid they receive.” One reason for this “arms race” is the focus on student selectivity in college rankings, especially the U.S. News annual best college issue. Bill Gates has directly criticized this emphasis on “inputs” versus “outputs,” such as improving the skills of under-prepared students.
Clearly the rising cost of attending college has hit low-income students the hardest. The CED recognizes that state cuts to public colleges and higher operating costs are the principal factors driving higher costs, but sees little on the horizon to change the current lack of public support. Therefore, the only option is to use student aid funds more efficiently.
The aid funds themselves cannot be increased to cover the increasing costs. The CED notes that two presidents in a row have funded Pell Grants at record levels (now $35 billion), but the proportion of tuition and fees covered by the grants has gone down.
The specific recommendations of the CED report would transform the college financial aid system, especially grants:
Grant funds for a state would be determined by the number of low-income young people in the state, not by the number of high school graduates or college students.
Individual grant aid would be determined by the IRS based on tax returns.
Grants would be portable across state lines.
In-state tuition would not increase more than median family income.
State and institutional grant funds would have to match federal funds at 20 percent.
Merit-based awards could still exist, but only after this 20 percent matching level has been met.
States could refuse to participate, but then would lose the 80 percent federal grant contribution.
The tax credit for families with college students would be eliminated and the $18 billion in savings would be used for incentive programs (using financial aid to increase graduation rates; tying financial aid work-study to local job market).
Aid applications would be simplified.
Loans would be repaid based on income.
The report acknowledges that reduced merit aid and the elimination of the college tax credit will hurt middle-income families, but says that some of this harm will be offset by the requirement that colleges could increase tuition and fees only to the extent of any increase in median family income.
The CED says that this requirement will force state legislatures and college administrators to reach “durable” agreements about how much state appropriations may change or about how much tuition and fees might increase.
U.S. Newsjust announced that future rankings may be affected as a result of the generally lower rates of return on investments held by university endowment funds, a development that points out the emphasis (or over-emphasis) that the magazine’s rankings place on financial resources.
Whether the lower endowments will hit public universities harder than it does private institutions remains to be seen. Many elite public and private universities have large endowments.
While it is obvious that wealthy institutions can provide many advantages to students and faculty, we have argued that ranking components such as small class size, the proportion of faculty with Ph.D.’s, and the proportion of full-time faculty should be considered–but not in tandem with the money behind them. In other words, measure the impact of the financial resources without duplicating that impact by adding ranking points for the funds themselves.
In general, this double impact results in lower rankings for public institutions. The current magazine methodology allocates 10 percent of the total score to the wealth of an institution; 7 percent for faculty pay; and 5 percent for alumni giving, which the magazine refers to as an “indirect measure of satisfaction.” It can be argued that it is, rather, a direct measure of higher income–often a great satisfaction, but not the only one worth noting.
It will be interesting to see whether the loss of endowment income offsets the ranking advantages of wealthy private universities, hits pubic and private schools about equally, or hurts public universities the most. We will be careful to note the impact when the new rankings come out in September.
Editor’s Note: Below is another contribution to our series of first-person accounts by public university honors students. We welcome such submissions! The author of this piece is a junior at Grand Valley State University.
By Katrina Maynes
I first visited Grand Valley State University on a snowy day in early December 2009 to attend a scholarship competition at the Frederik Meijer Honors College. Since then, I am certain that choosing to attend the Meijer Honors College was the best decision I could have made.
As a freshman, I enrolled in one of the Honors College’s trademark, team-taught, year-long foundational interdisciplinary sequences. My class studied East Asia, and the small, intimate setting facilitated class discussion and emphasized interactive approaches to learning. My sequence taught me to polish my research, communication, and writing skills, and it ultimately laid the foundation my future successes. I have since taken a course that was taught by a world-renowned counterintelligence expert, met CEO’s and the family members of American presidents, and discussed history in Chicago’s Chinatown alongside leading experts on East and Central Asia. In every class, students are treated as intelligent and important, and my peers and I are taught that our ideas can have an impact, from the very first day of class to the last day of our careers.
Due to these remarkable experiences, I am convinced that it is the quality and passion of the faculty and staff that makes the Meijer Honors College extraordinary; the professors encourage students to shoot for the stars, and each faculty member has rare, intuitive talent for teaching. Their enthusiasm is contagious, and the breadth of their research and course offerings means there is something for every student. Regardless of the course that a student selects, there are no TAs, only small class sizes and professors who take an active interest in ensuring that each student is successful.
Furthermore, my professors never make me feel inadequate or bothersome. Even though they are distinguished scholars, they are always approachable, passionate, and endlessly willing to help. I have been able to discuss my ideas, research, and goals with specialists at the top of their fields, enabling a new level of learning and scholarly interaction. The faculty constantly pushes the boundaries of their fields, and they truly encourage students to do the same.
In perspective, my experiences at the Frederik Meijer Honors College have not only molded me into a better student, but they have also made me a more determined, compassionate, and well-rounded person, teaching immeasurable lessons in and out of the classroom. Without doubt, the Honors College will continue to offer students the same positive experience, excitement, and enthusiasm that I have felt since that snowy day in December 2009.
Note: the following post is a reprint of an article entitled “Journey to the ‘Dark Side’,” on the Delaware Honors site called “186 South”:
This fall Ashley Lavery split her time between taking classes, working in the Honors office and continuing her internship with the Homicide Unit of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. Ashley has been titled a “Mitigation Assistant”, but she has also had the chance to work with clients on her own. What is a mitigator you ask?
“The role of a mitigator in homicide cases is to be a strong support for the client through the judicial process, reach out to their families (who are often struggling as much or more than the client), gather information on the client’s life, including their educational, medical, social, and psychiatric records, work with experts, and compile packages to submit to the District Attorney’s office. These packages provide mitigating factors to the case and are used to get the death penalty off the table for a client, or hopefully negotiate a deal with the DA to get a term of numbers for a client,” explains Ashley.
For her job, Ashley has interviewed clients in each of the Philadelphia county jails, attended hearings, trials, sentencing proceedings and “unfortunately watched some of my favorite clients (for whom I’ve developed a tremendous amount of respect, as crazy as it might sound to some) being sentenced spend the rest of their lives in prison”.
How did she land this kind of gig? “I found out about the Defender Association through my uncle, who happens to be an incredible homicide detective in Philadelphia. He jokes about handing me over to the “dark side” (the defense).”
Ashley can’t say enough about how excited this job makes her. She loves that each day offers a different agenda, full of new experiences and challenges. “I learn something new every day and everyone in the unit is fabulous; everyone brings something fresh to the table” she says.
“The most challenging part of my job has been learning to pace myself and take a step back at times. I’m a total workaholic, and my supervisor has had to constantly warn me about burning myself out”. And of course there is always the question of how hard is it to work with alleged criminals every day? “I think when people ask that question they expect an answer like “oh, I can’t relate to these people who have committed murder…” The truth is, I can’t relate to their offense, but I can listen to their stories and get to know them for who they are, not for what they (may) have done.”
So what’s next for Ashley? “I was lucky to land a permanent position in Homicide Unit, but now my role has changed a bit. In addition to putting together life histories, I’m now doing a lot of investigation and research for the cases. The amount of information that everyone puts on Facebook & Twitter these days is out of control, and can be a good source of what’s really going on [in the streets] and with the witnesses, victim’s family members, and other people involved. I’m also doing a lot of research, which is so much easier after going through the thesis process during my last semesters at UD. It’s really gratifying to put my education to work. I also have applications in for graduate school for criminal justice/criminology, and then I plan on going to law school. Undergrad at UD was great, but I’m definitely looking forward to the next chapter.”
Our thanks to Larry Gordon of the LA Times for the story reprinted below about a new national effort to preserve and strengthen the nation’s public universities, to be led by outgoing UC Chancellor Robert Birgeneau.
By way of preface, we note that on the state level similar organizations have been created to deal with the most damaging budgetary and philosophical attacks on public universities, including most of the leading flagship and land-grant institutions. Not only Texas, but Virginia, Florida, and Wisconsin have all faced or survived ill-advised attempts on the part of would-be reformers to use the recent financial crisis as a pretext for implementing a radical agenda that would diminish the excellence of outstanding public universities.
University leaders from UCLA, Michigan, UT Austin, and CUNY will assist Birgeneau, which is an initiative of the American Academy for Arts and Sciences. Levi-Straus Chairman Emeritus Robert D. Haas is also on board (see below).
The article by Mr. Gordon is below.
By Larry Gordon, Los Angeles Times
January 28, 2013
After he retires as chancellor of UC Berkeley in June, Robert J. Birgeneau will head up a national effort to study and help public universities in an era of reduced tax support, new technology and changing student demographics.
Birgeneau, a physicist, is to lead the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ new initiative that will propose ways for the federal government, private industry and foundations to better aid state institutions, along with developing reforms the schools could undertake. It is being called “The Lincoln Project: Excellence and Access in Public Higher Education” — named for President Lincoln, who in 1862 signed the Morrill Act granting federal lands for the establishment of public universities.
The announcement is scheduled to be made Monday at UC Berkeley at an academy symposium about higher education.
Birgeneau, who is 70 and has led UC Berkeley since 2004, said he wanted to help develop “workable plans that will help reverse the progressive disinvestment we have seen in public higher education across the country.”
He said that will not occur by just urging more state funding but will need a wider range of government and private supporters. “The long-term civic and economic welfare of the country depends heavily on a robust public higher education system,” Birgeneau said in an interview, adding that it is too soon to discuss specific goals or plans.
The position is a part-time, unpaid one for Birgeneau, who will begin a sabbatical from UC in June and return at a later date to teach and conduct research. He said he hopes to have the first Lincoln Project proposals ready in a year and that the effort probably will last three years. Previously, Birgeneau was president of the University of Toronto, Canada’s largest public university, and science dean at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The American Academy of Arts and Sciences is a policy research center and honorific scholarly organization headquartered in Cambridge, Mass. Its president, Leslie C. Berlowitz, described Birgeneau as “a dynamic and highly respected leader in higher education” and noted his efforts to broaden financial aid for middle-class families and for undocumented students.
Smart Money Magazine, a publication of the Wall Street Journal, issues annual rankings of the universities whose grads earn salaries that are high relative to the cost of tuition and fees. The top 17 schools on the list are all public universities, and 21 of the top 50 are public.
This return on investment analysis is different from the annual Kiplinger Best Value Report, which ranks colleges based on cost and student indebtedness on the one hand, and the academic ranking of the school on the other. The resulting “value” is not expressed in dollar terms but in the quality of education derived from the investment.
But Smart Money is all about the bottom line: the pay derived from the investment.
Below is a list of the top 25 public and private universities on the top 50 list, showing their rank, four-year cost, median salary of new grads, and median salary of mid-career grads. The figures are based on starting tuition and fees for the class of2009, so be aware that tuition and fees for some of these schools have gone up dramatically since 2005. Unfortunately, the salary figures probably have not gone up much at all.
1. Georgia Tech: cost ($87,810); new grad pay ($59,000); mid-career pay ($102,000)
2. Florida: cost ($73,476); new grad pay ($46,200); mid-career pay ($80,800)
3. UT Austin: cost ($91,596); new grad pay ($48,800); mid-career pay ($90,800)
4. Georgia: cost ($77,957); new grad pay ($41,100); mid-career pay ($79,200)
5. Illinois: cost ($91,382); new grad pay ($51,400); mid-career pay ($95,900)
6. Washington: cost ($86,540); new grad pay ($47,600); mid-career pay ($90,300)
7. Clemson: cost ($85,362); new grad pay ($45,300); mid-career pay ($86,900)
8. Purdue: (cost $86,538); new grad pay ($51,800); mid-career pay ($87,200)
9. Colorado School of Mines: cost ($90,334); new grad pay ($64,200); mid-career pay ($105,000)
10. UC Berkeley: cost ($104,717); new grad pay ($52,100); mid-career pay ($103,000)
11. Miami of Ohio: cost ($94,784); new grad pay ($46,600); mid-career pay ($85,500)
12. Indiana: cost ($87,065); new grad pay ($42,400); mid-career pay ($80,000)
13. Penn State: cost ($93,108); new grad pay ($48,600); mid-career pay ($83,000)
14. Oregon: cost ($74,481); new grad pay ($39,500); mid-career pay ($76,600)
15. Michigan State: cost ($95,372); new grad pay ($44,300); mid-career pay ($78,000)
16. William & Mary: cost ($103,799); new grad pay ($44,000); mid-career pay ($97,100)
17. Virginia: cost ($107,395); new grad pay ($50,200); mid-career pay ($89,400)
18. Princeton: cost ($131,740); new grad pay ($58,300); mid-career pay ($137,000)
19. Colorado: cost ($97,918); new grad pay ($45,000); mid-career pay ($87,100)
20. New Hampshire: cost ($93,615); new grad pay ($42,600); mid-career pay ($75,600)
21. Carnegie-Mellon: cost ($143,540); new grad pay ($59,800); mid-career pay ($104,000)
22. Williams: cost ($138,770); new grad pay ($53,600); mid-career pay ($113,000)
23. Dartmouth: cost ($137,364); new grad pay ($54,100); mid-career pay ($111,000)
24. Harvard: cost ($136,977); new grad pay ($50,700); mid-career pay ($111,000)
25. Colgate: cost ($145,340); new grad pay ($49,700); mid-career pay ($111,000)
The Cockrell School of Engineering at UT Austin has launched a $310 million project to build the Engineering Education and Research Center , which will include 23,000 square feet of space for engineering students to create and develop hands-on projects.
The total size of the center will be 430,000 square feet, including classroom and office space.
Dr. James Truchard, co-founder and CEO of National Instruments, has donated $10 million for the National Instruments Student Project Center. Dr. Truchard has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in physics and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, all from UT Austin.
The Cockrell School of Engineering is outgrowing its present space and needs the addition in order to match recent growth at MIT, Georgia Tech, UC Berkeley, and Texas A&M.
The Cockrell School says that for Truchard, “the a gift to the EERC is about more than giving back to the university. It’s an investment in National Instrument’s future workforce. Headquartered in Austin, Texas, National Instruments includes more than 6,000 employees working in 40 countries.
“We hire from many different areas, electrical engineering, computer science, mechanical engineering and increasingly biomedical engineering. Our professionals need to be flexible, creative and innovative and know how to stay above the curve. Their education is a critical component to their future success,” Truchard said.
“Bringing to life math and physics to students in a way that it inspires innovative thinking and allowing them to succeed and fail with hands-on projects are just a few of the many benefits Truchard and others look forward to with the building of the EERC,” according to the Cockrell School.
At least one-third of the total cost of the 430,000 square foot facility will come in the form of private donations, with the UT System, the university, and the state of Texas providing the rest. So far, the Board of Regents has designated $105 million for the project from the state’s permanent university fund.
“Depending on fundraising progress, the construction could begin in 2013, and faculty and students could move into the EERC by 2017,” the School says. “The return on…investment will be substantial since a typical graduating class from the Cockrell School generates
$2.5 billion in annual spending, $1.1 billion in gross product, and 10,240 jobs in the U.S. according to an economic study by the Perryman Group.”
U.S. News has recently issued its rankings of online programs that award bachelor’s degrees or graduate degrees in business, engineering, education, nursing, and information technology, and we come away from our review of the rankings with two main thoughts:
(1) Could the highly ranked programs provide an indication of how well a university will do when it expands its online offerings to resident students? and
(2) Could the U.S. News methodology for online rankings be a sign that the magazine is shifting from its current over-emphasis on a school’s financial resources?
A positive answer to the first question is far more likely than it is for the second. This is unfortunate, because the methodology used for ranking online programs is much better.
We will begin with the rankings themselves, focusing on graduate programs for business and engineering. Many of the best ones are centered at the major public universities that we follow, while many of the bachelor’s programs are from lesser-known institutions.
According to the magazine, Washington State has the number one-rated MBA online program. Our congratulations to WSU, and to Arizona State, Indiana, and Florida, whose MBA programs were ranked two, three, and four, respectively. Penn State’s World University was number 2 in engineering, Purdue number 4, Michigan 5, Auburn 6, and NC State 7.
Special congratulations to Penn State, Auburn, NC State, Arizona State, Florida, and Washington State for having top 50 programs in both engineering and business. Auburn and South Carolina also ranked second and fifth, respectively, for their online graduate programs in education.
Below are the top public university online MBA programs:
1. Washington State
2. Arizona State
3. Indiana
4. Florida
7. Auburn
8. Connecticut
9. UT Dallas
17. Nebraska
22. Massachusetts Amherst
27. Rutgers
28. Temple
29. West Virginia
37. Oklahoma State
42. North Carolina State
44. Mississippi
77. Alabama
The leading major public universities with online graduate programs in engineering are the following:
2. Penn State (World University)
4. Purdue
5. Michigan
6. Auburn
7. NC State
8. Wisconsin
11. UCLA
12. Mississippi St
13. Virginia Tech
15. Ohio State
21. Texas A&M (Kingsville)
22. South Florida
23. Arizona State
25. Arkansas
26. Florida
27. Alabama Birmingham
28. South Carolina
30. Ohio University
33. Washington St
34. Alaska Anchorage
37. Kansas State
39. Clemson
42. Illinois
44. Arizona
47. Alabama Huntsville
49. Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
50. Texas Tech
More about the ranking methodology:
Unlike the popular Best Colleges rankings, the online rankings do not over-emphasize financial factors, focusing instead on “outputs.” This approach is much friendlier to public universities and is fairer overall. For the online rankings, graduation rates are extremely important (deservedly so), as are retention rates, class size, time-to-degree, faculty quality and training, use of best practices, and student indebtedness.
GRE math scores and acceptance rates are used in the engineering rankings, and GMAT scores and acceptance rates are used in the business rankings.
