Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[spork]

Update on Paul Smith's College:

https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/paul-smiths-college-breaks-with-fedcap

[marshwiggle]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jul/14/rishi-sunak-force-english-universities-cap-low-value-degrees
This is an interesting approach, I do not see it happening here but the trend is clear.

From the article:

Courses will be capped that do not have a high proportion of graduates getting a professional job, going into postgraduate study or starting a business, the prime minister will announce on Monday.

Critics of the move say that it effectively penalises universities and courses with a high proportion of working-class students, who have fewer financial resources or family support and so are more likely to drop out.

"This will effectively act as a red flag to students. Who wants to apply to a 'low value' course?" said one vice-chancellor, who added that universities might also become more cautious over admitting students who might be less likely to graduate or want professional careers.

Why are working-class students being disproportionately recruited into these programs? Is this an example of systemic discrimination?

[Hibush]

Update on Paul Smith's College:

https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/paul-smiths-college-breaks-with-fedcap

A significant, yet foreseeable, sticking point was that "the proposed bylaws and charter changes advanced by Fedcap and the college on May 24 included revisions that are in conflict with the Education Law and the Rules of the Board of Regents."

They need to "think out of the box," but not out of the box that is state law.

[Scout]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jul/14/rishi-sunak-force-english-universities-cap-low-value-degrees
This is an interesting approach, I do not see it happening here but the trend is clear.

From the article:

Courses will be capped that do not have a high proportion of graduates getting a professional job, going into postgraduate study or starting a business, the prime minister will announce on Monday.

Critics of the move say that it effectively penalises universities and courses with a high proportion of working-class students, who have fewer financial resources or family support and so are more likely to drop out.

"This will effectively act as a red flag to students. Who wants to apply to a 'low value' course?" said one vice-chancellor, who added that universities might also become more cautious over admitting students who might be less likely to graduate or want professional careers.

Why are working-class students being disproportionately recruited into these programs? Is this an example of systemic discrimination?

Unlikely actively recruited because they're working class. If true, itd be more likely because they may not have college educated family (first gen) helping them in making these decisions and don't consider the implications of the choices they're making. So they may end up disproportionately enrolling in those programs even though all students are equally recruited.

If working class students are disproportionally represented in these majors, that would be an example of inequitable outcomes despite an equal policy.

However, my best guess is that institutions that have a high working class population overall would then,  by simple math, have more students impacted than a college with fewer working class students.

[ciao_yall]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jul/14/rishi-sunak-force-english-universities-cap-low-value-degrees
This is an interesting approach, I do not see it happening here but the trend is clear.

From the article:

Courses will be capped that do not have a high proportion of graduates getting a professional job, going into postgraduate study or starting a business, the prime minister will announce on Monday.

Critics of the move say that it effectively penalises universities and courses with a high proportion of working-class students, who have fewer financial resources or family support and so are more likely to drop out.

"This will effectively act as a red flag to students. Who wants to apply to a 'low value' course?" said one vice-chancellor, who added that universities might also become more cautious over admitting students who might be less likely to graduate or want professional careers.

Why are working-class students being disproportionately recruited into these programs? Is this an example of systemic discrimination?

Unlikely actively recruited because they're working class. If true, itd be more likely because they may not have college educated family (first gen) helping them in making these decisions and don't consider the implications of the choices they're making. So they may end up disproportionately enrolling in those programs even though all students are equally recruited.

If working class students are disproportionally represented in these majors, that would be an example of inequitable outcomes despite an equal policy.

However, my best guess is that institutions that have a high working class population overall would then,  by simple math, have more students impacted than a college with fewer working class students.

By definition, a bachelor's degree in anything sets a student up for better wages, higher job security and all that good stuff, even if they don't do it immediately or in that field.

And working-class students might be less likely to get that plum job right out of college, but 3-5 years later they are certainly well-positioned to move up in their careers.

This is just dumb policy all around.

[Scout]

Oh, I agree. I think this idea of low performance majors is foolish- college is not simply vocational training and by treating it as such we actually undermine our own profession. Of course employment is part of the conversation, but preparing people to be engaged, thoughtful, mentally nimble, and literate has tremendous value unto itself.

[Wahoo Redux]

Oh, I agree. I think this idea of low performance majors is foolish- college is not simply vocational training and by treating it as such we actually undermine our own profession. Of course employment is part of the conversation, but preparing people to be engaged, thoughtful, mentally nimble, and literate has tremendous value unto itself.

I've posted the same idea above a million times.  But...

Employability is foregrounded in virtually every bit of advertising literature I've ever seen from a college.  We're still doing it.  The brochures always show stupidly smiling young people, of course, but colleges have advertised the financial benefits of a college degree since I was a little kid.  Now that tuition and student loans are really weighing us down, and information on outcomes is at our fingertips, the advertising strategy is backfiring.  Add to that the need to always pay for technologies, student services and amenities, and we've done this to ourselves.

[mythbuster]

So, which ones are the "low performance" majors in Britain? Do they give a list or a metric for determining this? Or is this just hot air rhetoric to stir the base?
My money's on it being hot air.

[marshwiggle]

So, which ones are the "low performance" majors in Britain? Do they give a list or a metric for determining this? Or is this just hot air rhetoric to stir the base?
My money's on it being hot air.

From the article:

Courses will be capped that do not have a high proportion of graduates getting a professional job, going into postgraduate study or starting a business,

"This will effectively act as a red flag to students. Who wants to apply to a 'low value' course?" said one vice-chancellor, who added that universities might also become more cautious over admitting students who might be less likely to graduate or want professional careers.

The administration of the student numbers cap will effectively go to the higher education regulator for England from 2024-25. The Office for Students' (OfS) "B3" conditions currently measure individual university courses on a variety of metrics, including the pass rate, dropout rate and the proportion of students who go on to "graduate-level" or professional jobs.

The OfS can penalise individual courses where fewer than 60% of students go on to further study, professional work or similar "positive outcomes" within 15 months of graduating. The B3 conditions also require at least 80% of full-time students to continue their studies, and 75% of full-time students to complete their courses.

Setting aside the debate about post-graduation outcomes, I think there's an important discussion to be had about programs with very high attrition rates and low graduation rates.  Opening the floodgates to students who have no realistic chance of finishing is just taking their money and wasting their time.

[Hegemony]

Setting a requirement of 80% of students to continue will simply mean that courses will lower their standards so no one fails out before graduating. However, a number of students do drop out because they can't afford to continue, and the UK government's goal of continuing to increase the cost of degrees is going to interfere with that one.

The whole initiative is completely wrong-headed, for reasons I'm sure I don't need to explain.

[jimbogumbo]

Has anyone encountered something like this? Is it a pause?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/business/financial-health/2023/07/19/kings-college-cancels-classes-says-it-wont-close

[ciao_yall]

So, which ones are the "low performance" majors in Britain? Do they give a list or a metric for determining this? Or is this just hot air rhetoric to stir the base?
My money's on it being hot air.

From the article:

Courses will be capped that do not have a high proportion of graduates getting a professional job, going into postgraduate study or starting a business,

"This will effectively act as a red flag to students. Who wants to apply to a 'low value' course?" said one vice-chancellor, who added that universities might also become more cautious over admitting students who might be less likely to graduate or want professional careers.

The administration of the student numbers cap will effectively go to the higher education regulator for England from 2024-25. The Office for Students' (OfS) "B3" conditions currently measure individual university courses on a variety of metrics, including the pass rate, dropout rate and the proportion of students who go on to "graduate-level" or professional jobs.

The OfS can penalise individual courses where fewer than 60% of students go on to further study, professional work or similar "positive outcomes" within 15 months of graduating. The B3 conditions also require at least 80% of full-time students to continue their studies, and 75% of full-time students to complete their courses.

Setting aside the debate about post-graduation outcomes, I think there's an important discussion to be had about programs with very high attrition rates and low graduation rates.  Opening the floodgates to students who have no realistic chance of finishing is just taking their money and wasting their time.

Well then you would have to get rid of STEM degrees, because they have the highest rate of transferred-out majors.

[apl68]

Has anyone encountered something like this? Is it a pause?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/business/financial-health/2023/07/19/kings-college-cancels-classes-says-it-wont-close

Sounds like they're about to close and just can't quite bring themselves to make the final decision.

[marshwiggle]

So, which ones are the "low performance" majors in Britain? Do they give a list or a metric for determining this? Or is this just hot air rhetoric to stir the base?
My money's on it being hot air.

From the article:

Courses will be capped that do not have a high proportion of graduates getting a professional job, going into postgraduate study or starting a business,

"This will effectively act as a red flag to students. Who wants to apply to a 'low value' course?" said one vice-chancellor, who added that universities might also become more cautious over admitting students who might be less likely to graduate or want professional careers.

The administration of the student numbers cap will effectively go to the higher education regulator for England from 2024-25. The Office for Students' (OfS) "B3" conditions currently measure individual university courses on a variety of metrics, including the pass rate, dropout rate and the proportion of students who go on to "graduate-level" or professional jobs.

The OfS can penalise individual courses where fewer than 60% of students go on to further study, professional work or similar "positive outcomes" within 15 months of graduating. The B3 conditions also require at least 80% of full-time students to continue their studies, and 75% of full-time students to complete their courses.

Setting aside the debate about post-graduation outcomes, I think there's an important discussion to be had about programs with very high attrition rates and low graduation rates.  Opening the floodgates to students who have no realistic chance of finishing is just taking their money and wasting their time.

Well then you would have to get rid of STEM degrees, because they have the highest rate of transferred-out majors.

It's not clear from the article whether transferring to another program counts as "continuing" their studies or "completing" their courses. (Although I wouldn't be opposed to flagging any programs, including STEM, where a high percentage transfer out. Recruiting and/or admissions aren't doing a good job if students don't have a good idea of whether a particular program is a good fit for them. Filling seats with warm bodies isn't responsible behaviour.)

[FishProf]

Although I wouldn't be opposed to flagging any programs, including STEM, where a high percentage transfer out. Recruiting and/or admissions aren't doing a good job if students don't have a good idea of whether a particular program is a good fit for them. Filling seats with warm bodies isn't responsible behaviour.

Why flag the program then?

Lot's of people wash out of "pre-med" majors b/c they can't handle it.  I don't see that as a failure of the program.  That's not a bug, that's a feature.