Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[marshwiggle]

The catch is already having a sufficient number of majors.  Electives mostly matter by their absence.  No or few electives is very bad.  However, what the specific electives are is usually not a driver for enrollment. 

The annual Stephen King workshop (capped at 15 students) alone is worthless in terms of attracting fulltime, enrolled majors.

The annual Stephen King workshop being on a list of 10- 20 such workshops offered every year a!omg with excellent fulltime faculty to have 20 great electives every term in a curriculum with room for electives may be a great program.  However, any one offering matters much less to overall student enrollment than the overall experience of being in a fabulous program.

Your electives, no matter how fabulous, are not driving enrollment of the relevant majors to your institution.  Those courses don't pay for themselves, but are worth running to contribute to the overall student experience.

I get your point, and it raises an interesting question: Is there some sort of metric that could be created to reflect the proportion of "freely chosen" electives to "method of execution" electives? (For instance, where a program requires students to take "two of A,B, and C" and B and C are each only offered in alternate years, the "choice" is a myth.) It would seem the *health of an institution (or even discipline) would be higher if the proportion of freely chosen electives is higher, even if the enrollment is the same. To put it another way, a place with lots of "forced choice" may decline much faster in bad times than a place with more unforced choice.

*or stability, perhaps?

[spork]

I don't really know what you're asking. The frequency with which a course is offered is in part determined by a university's total enrollment. With 20K students, the Pre-Corinthian Baskets 302 course that fulfills a requirement in the Basketweaving major can be offered every semester and it fills every time. With 2K students, it can be scheduled at most once every two years.

The small schools are too small to offer every academic major to all people; they end up doing almost all of them badly. And you end up with a curriculum (and instructional labor force) devoted to gen ed courses that don't attract new students and upper-level courses in majors that don't attract new students either.

Given the above, I would say a possible metric would be total undergraduate FTE divided by number of different majors offered in the curriculum. But making FTE/# majors increase still won't save no-name tiny schools in the rural/suburban Northeast and Midwest.

[marshwiggle]

I don't really know what you're asking. The frequency with which a course is offered is in part determined by a university's total enrollment. With 20K students, the Pre-Corinthian Baskets 302 course that fulfills a requirement in the Basketweaving major can be offered every semester and it fills every time. With 2K students, it can be scheduled at most once every two years.

The small schools are too small to offer every academic major to all people; they end up doing almost all of them badly. And you end up with a curriculum (and instructional labor force) devoted to gen ed courses that don't attract new students and upper-level courses in majors that don't attract new students either.

Given the above, I would say a possible metric would be total undergraduate FTE divided by number of different majors offered in the curriculum.

It's often been said on here that "box-checking" isn't a good thing. What I was trying to get at is that if there were two schools, one with lots of box-checking and the other with none, even if they had the same total enrollment and faculty size, the one without box-checking would probably be much more viable in the long run. I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to capture that difference objectively.

[Hibush]

It's often been said on here that "box-checking" isn't a good thing. What I was trying to get at is that if there were two schools, one with lots of box-checking and the other with none, even if they had the same total enrollment and faculty size, the one without box-checking would probably be much more viable in the long run. I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to capture that difference objectively.

If one school is optimizing the things that the metrics are supposed to reflect, and another that is gaming the metrics themselves, how do you use those same metrics to determine which is which?

That is hard!

Still the tension between yield and net tuition is going to cause some useful signal about the value "new customers" see in the program.

[polly_mer]

The big question isn't requirements versus free electives so much as student view of the necessity and value of the activities in a given institution.

Very few engineering programs have many free electives; it's just not a thing, unlike many humanities programs.  Thus, prospective engineering students who do their research won't be choosing based on variety of electives; those prospective students should be looking at opportunities and integration of co-ops, internships, undergrad research and similar activities beyond projects.

In contrast and problematic for the tiny colleges, prospective humanities students who do their research should be looking for a variety of small-section electives offered every term that include upper-division electives sufficient to specialize in an area.  Having only the gen ed electives and the "humanities" cohort upper-division requirements is not going to be a good experience. 

For perspective, some of these tiny LACs only have 10ish total humanities faculty to cover English and other languages, philosophy, history, and anything else.  Thus, each professor may only offer one elective every year in addition to required courses.  That means the handful of English majors end up taking all the required-for-other-majors  upper-division history and philosophy courses as many of their "free" electives because otherwise there aren't enough credits to take.  People are generally locked out of upper-division courses in other majors like organic chemistry because of the prerequisites. 

Thus, instead of being an English lit or history or philosophy major at a tiny LAC, one is a humanities major taking the courses offered this term.  The official major will still be English lit, but the experience definitely is not.  Therefore, the prospective student pool is a much smaller category of people than those wanting a good liberal arts education at a smaller college (1000-2000 Primarily Undergraduate Institution PUI) in a specific humanities major. 

Even the people who want a broad humanities education are often better served by a Great Books integrated curriculum like that at St. John's College over the random assortment pack of courses by individual faculty whim at the tiny LAC.  St.John's College graduates tend to go on to a solid middle-class life.  The random tiny LAC graduate may go back home to take the same job their HS peers took four years ago and most of a hundred thousand dollars ago.

[apl68]

Henderson State University has been approved for a $1 million interest-free state loan to fix the roofs and HVAC systems in its buildings. 


https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/jan/30/1m-zero-interest-loan-okd-for-hsu-dip-seen-in/


Meanwhile they are still in the process of joining the Arkansas State University system.  ASU System President Chuck Welch speaks of "a multiyear turnaround plan."

[polly_mer]

It's often been said on here that "box-checking" isn't a good thing. What I was trying to get at is that if there were two schools, one with lots of box-checking and the other with none, even if they had the same total enrollment and faculty size, the one without box-checking would probably be much more viable in the long run. I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to capture that difference objectively.

If one school is optimizing the things that the metrics are supposed to reflect, and another that is gaming the metrics themselves, how do you use those same metrics to determine which is which?

That is hard!

Still the tension between yield and net tuition is going to cause some useful signal about the value "new customers" see in the program.

In addition to yield and net tuition, I would consider:

* Qualified applications versus planned slots.  A huge problem is having only approximately the same number of qualified applicants as number of new students needed.  That tends to result in heavy tuition discounting to get enough yield to matter for the room and board revenue stream.

* Percentage of qualified applicants to total applicants.  A huge problem is the poor reputation indicated by having a large percentage of the applicants not be college ready.  A 100% yield of people who will leave within the first three terms is not a win for the college.

* Percentage of transfer students to full-time, first-time students and how that aligns with current faculty staffing and revenue streams.  Having a lot of transfer students taking mostly expensive upper-division major courses instead of mostly first-year students taking cheaper gen ed courses can be a budget problem.  Having mostly commuter students living 10 minutes off campus is instead of mostly students in the dorm with meal plans can be a budget problem.

* Percentage of students who want a college degree as a business transaction versus students who want a college experience versus students who want a college education.  Being misaligned between faculty and students is problematic for retention on all sides and then for alumni fundraising.

* Percentage of the budget that is dependent on direct payments by individual students versus revenue streams outside tuition, fees, and room and board.  For example, facilities rentals, fundraising, grants, state appropriations, and endowments are all additional revenue streams that often are too small at tiny private colleges and even many regional comprehensive.

[polly_mer]

In summary, focusing on the electives and gen ed part of the curriculum without knowing the budgetary aspects means being underinformed on the relevant issues.  Some programs have zero electives and are turning away applicants in droves.  Some programs have very flexible requirements and few takers because the overall value is perceived as low by people who would have to pay money, time, and effort.

[polly_mer]

One more thought: the one Stephen King workshop can make real money for the college if the workshop is offered through an extension program.

$5k * 15 persons who would not otherwise be paying the college anything = $75k
$20k to Professor King
$5k in overhead expenses

gives $50k in new income to the college

A robust extension program open to the community with many starts per year and modest fees for modest workshops can bring a tidy sum that justifies the additional overhead expenses and administrative staff.

An adjunct teaching in the extension program is usually making money for the institution, even with a nice paycheck that usually is a solid fraction of the tuition each enrolled student pays for the course.

My employer spends about $5k for me per year to take short courses and workshops.  That's not even counting the employees who must maintain professional credits.  The adjunct helping maintain professional credits for current workers is also making money for the university.

[pgher]

Very few engineering programs have many free electives; it's just not a thing, unlike many humanities programs.  Thus, prospective engineering students who do their research won't be choosing based on variety of electives; those prospective students should be looking at opportunities and integration of co-ops, internships, undergrad research and similar activities beyond projects.

I am an engineering professor. I have two kids in college, one in humanities at an Ivy and one in pre-med at a public R1. We looked at a bunch of different colleges of various kinds, and in the process I realized just how different an engineering program is from, well, everything else.

Where I teach, all of our engineering degrees are 128 hrs. Of that total, something like 100 are pretty well prescribed, either specific requirements or choose-N-of-M requirements. Even the humanities and social sciences are pretty well prescribed: English comp, choose-one-of-these history, that sort of thing. In my particular degree program, there are only 12 hours with basically total freedom. Based on my informal survey of other colleges, I think a similar structure is widespread in engineering.

So when I see people like Matt Reed over at IHE propose that all universities in a state agree on "the first two years," I don't know what that could even mean. If an engineering student were to fill their first two years with classes that would universally satisfy requirements in any degree program, they could not possibly graduate in less than five years total (due to pre-req sequences), and EVERY course they took after the first two years would be in-major or in adjacent fields (math or science).

I realize that my perspective is different from most people here. I appreciate hearing how other fields and institutions work. Just wanted to chime in so people understand that there are different ways to organize a degree program. These differences will impact student behavior at comprehensive universities that have both traditional arts & sciences programs and engineering programs.

[dr_codex]

Very few engineering programs have many free electives; it's just not a thing, unlike many humanities programs.  Thus, prospective engineering students who do their research won't be choosing based on variety of electives; those prospective students should be looking at opportunities and integration of co-ops, internships, undergrad research and similar activities beyond projects.

I am an engineering professor. I have two kids in college, one in humanities at an Ivy and one in pre-med at a public R1. We looked at a bunch of different colleges of various kinds, and in the process I realized just how different an engineering program is from, well, everything else.

Where I teach, all of our engineering degrees are 128 hrs. Of that total, something like 100 are pretty well prescribed, either specific requirements or choose-N-of-M requirements. Even the humanities and social sciences are pretty well prescribed: English comp, choose-one-of-these history, that sort of thing. In my particular degree program, there are only 12 hours with basically total freedom. Based on my informal survey of other colleges, I think a similar structure is widespread in engineering.

So when I see people like Matt Reed over at IHE propose that all universities in a state agree on "the first two years," I don't know what that could even mean. If an engineering student were to fill their first two years with classes that would universally satisfy requirements in any degree program, they could not possibly graduate in less than five years total (due to pre-req sequences), and EVERY course they took after the first two years would be in-major or in adjacent fields (math or science).

I realize that my perspective is different from most people here. I appreciate hearing how other fields and institutions work. Just wanted to chime in so people understand that there are different ways to organize a degree program. These differences will impact student behavior at comprehensive universities that have both traditional arts & sciences programs and engineering programs.

My state system tried "systemness". (Their word, not mine.) The idea wasn't that every kind of degree would be the same in the lower division. The idea was that the various kinds of programs would be exchangeable, and transferable. So, 2 years in any designated ENGR program would be the same, or would at least satisfy the same requirements.

In practice, it hasn't worked out perfectly. But it isn't fundamentally different than what we do in-house as a colege. We have 5 different ENGR programs, the curriculum for all of which are identical for the first two years.

[Hibush]

I am an engineering professor. I have two kids in college, one in humanities at an Ivy and one in pre-med at a public R1. We looked at a bunch of different colleges of various kinds, and in the process I realized just how different an engineering program is from, well, everything else.

So when I see people like Matt Reed over at IHE propose that all universities in a state agree on "the first two years," I don't know what that could even mean. If an engineering student were to fill their first two years with classes that would universally satisfy requirements in any degree program, they could not possibly graduate in less than five years total (due to pre-req sequences), and EVERY course they took after the first two years would be in-major or in adjacent fields (math or science).

I realize that my perspective is different from most people here. I appreciate hearing how other fields and institutions work. Just wanted to chime in so people understand that there are different ways to organize a degree program. These differences will impact student behavior at comprehensive universities that have both traditional arts & sciences programs and engineering programs.

Your kids' experience shows how important it is to have distinctive undergraduate programs. How much did they realize that they wanted different things from college? Clearly they had the chops to be pretty choosy about where to go.

Matt Reed is coming from the perspective of a CC administrator. One function of a CC is to provide the first two years of a four-year undergraduate program. That would be worlds easier if there were standardization among CCs and expectations by four-years. I can understand the desire. We all want our metaphorical ponies. The needs of too many others stand in the way, which means that feature cannot be optimized without compromising the whole system of undergrad education.

A higher ed system that can accommodate lots of needs is great for the country. The many ways of organizing a major has a lot of value for students. It also provides opportunity for colleges to figure out what they can do well. This thread features a lot of colleges who have trouble figuring that out.

[marshwiggle]

So when I see people like Matt Reed over at IHE propose that all universities in a state agree on "the first two years," I don't know what that could even mean. If an engineering student were to fill their first two years with classes that would universally satisfy requirements in any degree program, they could not possibly graduate in less than five years total (due to pre-req sequences), and EVERY course they took after the first two years would be in-major or in adjacent fields (math or science).

It means that the high school system has totally failed. High school should be synonymous with "the education that everyone needs". Post-secondary education should be specific to individuals' goals.

(Just make high school go to grade 14 and be done with it, if that's what's needed.)

[dismalist]

So when I see people like Matt Reed over at IHE propose that all universities in a state agree on "the first two years," I don't know what that could even mean. If an engineering student were to fill their first two years with classes that would universally satisfy requirements in any degree program, they could not possibly graduate in less than five years total (due to pre-req sequences), and EVERY course they took after the first two years would be in-major or in adjacent fields (math or science).

It means that the high school system has totally failed. High school should be synonymous with "the education that everyone needs". Post-secondary education should be specific to individuals' goals.

(Just make high school go to grade 14 and be done with it, if that's what's needed.)

Europe works differently. Ten years of general education for everyone, then vocational specialization. Or for the academic types, 13 years of general and academic education. Then, four years of specialized study.

[pgher]

Very few engineering programs have many free electives; it's just not a thing, unlike many humanities programs.  Thus, prospective engineering students who do their research won't be choosing based on variety of electives; those prospective students should be looking at opportunities and integration of co-ops, internships, undergrad research and similar activities beyond projects.

I am an engineering professor. I have two kids in college, one in humanities at an Ivy and one in pre-med at a public R1. We looked at a bunch of different colleges of various kinds, and in the process I realized just how different an engineering program is from, well, everything else.

Where I teach, all of our engineering degrees are 128 hrs. Of that total, something like 100 are pretty well prescribed, either specific requirements or choose-N-of-M requirements. Even the humanities and social sciences are pretty well prescribed: English comp, choose-one-of-these history, that sort of thing. In my particular degree program, there are only 12 hours with basically total freedom. Based on my informal survey of other colleges, I think a similar structure is widespread in engineering.

So when I see people like Matt Reed over at IHE propose that all universities in a state agree on "the first two years," I don't know what that could even mean. If an engineering student were to fill their first two years with classes that would universally satisfy requirements in any degree program, they could not possibly graduate in less than five years total (due to pre-req sequences), and EVERY course they took after the first two years would be in-major or in adjacent fields (math or science).

I realize that my perspective is different from most people here. I appreciate hearing how other fields and institutions work. Just wanted to chime in so people understand that there are different ways to organize a degree program. These differences will impact student behavior at comprehensive universities that have both traditional arts & sciences programs and engineering programs.

My state system tried "systemness". (Their word, not mine.) The idea wasn't that every kind of degree would be the same in the lower division. The idea was that the various kinds of programs would be exchangeable, and transferable. So, 2 years in any designated ENGR program would be the same, or would at least satisfy the same requirements.

In practice, it hasn't worked out perfectly. But it isn't fundamentally different than what we do in-house as a colege. We have 5 different ENGR programs, the curriculum for all of which are identical for the first two years.

For a decade or more, all of our engineering programs had a shared first year and lots of similarities throughout the curriculum, thus reducing the cost of switching majors (in terms of credits lost). Over the past few years, those similarities have eroded, but freshman year is still pretty much uniform. Still much different from what either of my kids took.

Your kids' experience shows how important it is to have distinctive undergraduate programs. How much did they realize that they wanted different things from college? Clearly they had the chops to be pretty choosy about where to go.

Matt Reed is coming from the perspective of a CC administrator. One function of a CC is to provide the first two years of a four-year undergraduate program. That would be worlds easier if there were standardization among CCs and expectations by four-years. I can understand the desire. We all want our metaphorical ponies. The needs of too many others stand in the way, which means that feature cannot be optimized without compromising the whole system of undergrad education.

A higher ed system that can accommodate lots of needs is great for the country. The many ways of organizing a major has a lot of value for students. It also provides opportunity for colleges to figure out what they can do well. This thread features a lot of colleges who have trouble figuring that out.

Yes, my kids definitely did their homework, especially the first one. My main contribution was to let them take the lead. I had to realize that they are different from me, and from each other, and accept that I don't necessarily know that much more than any random parent when it comes to e.g. choosing a SLAC.

Campus visits were definitely important. In both cases, we visited a bunch of campuses to get the "feel" of them, plus to find out the real story behind the curricular offerings.