Changing—The Reporting Of—Numbers

Although part-time students have received some attention within higher education research, they are largely missing from the data which is reported at the state and national level; data which is often used for important policy and funding decisions.

A story in the Inside Higher Ed. newsletter yesterday called attention to a group that is looking at college completion rates (for certificates, 2-year, and 4-year programs/degrees) in a new way. This group, aptly called Complete College America, is looking at what they are calling more complete completion data. The major difference from other completion/degree statistics? They are including part-time student completion rates, along with the rates for full-time students. Although there is no doubt that many institutions include part time students when compiling their own completion rates, this has not (yet) occurred at a national level.

The US Department of Education has largely ignored part time students in their data related to college completion. For example, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which is the post-secondary data collection and reporting mechanism for the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, requires institutions to report enrollment figures annually. Although both full-time and part-time students are included in general enrollment data and the retention reports (retention being defined as “the percentage of students who enrolled in an institution in the fall and returned to that same institution the following year to continue their studies”), only full-time students are included in the data set for graduation rates. A few quick points to illustrate why this omission matters, and why Complete College America’s data could be so important to the future of higher education analysis and subsequent action:

· The data clearly shows that across all institutional types, part time students are retained at a significantly lower rate than full time students (NCES Condition of Education report, 2011);

· Naturally retention rates and completion/graduate rates are correlated (if one does not persist to their second year the likelihood of then returning to complete the degree or program at the same institution is very low);

· Part-time students tend to be from underrepresented student groups. They tend to be older, and according to a 2004 report from the Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences on Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education (admittedly dated--- it seems that they stopped publishing this report after 2004…), they also tend to be less prepared for college than their full-time peers, female, Hispanic, and first-generation college students from low income backgrounds.

· IPEDS statistics show that in 2009 there were over 2.5 million part-time students enrolled in US colleges and universities.

In short, part-time students are not to be overlooked. Not only do they comprise a significant portion of our overall student population, their needs, experiences, and consequently, “results” are different. Although Complete College America has a way to go—to date only 33 states have chosen to report their ‘complete’ completion rates—I am pleased to see their expanded perspective.

My reason for this blog post however was not solely to call attention to the differences in completion rates among full and part-time students. Rather, it was to applaud a group for doing what the federal government has failed to do: Changing the reporting of Numbers. As our numbers change, reporting and related communication must also change to keep pace with the realities we face. With that in mind, given our Changing Numbers, what else do we need to change in our approach to reporting to the general public, to our students, and to other constituencies?

Just within the realm of retention/completion, I would like to see Complete College America, or another similar group, address the following:

· Standardized reporting of the success of transfer students (who are omitted altogether from not only the IPEDS completion/graduation figures, but also the retention figures)

· Standardized reporting of the success of students who begin their studies in the spring or summer academic term (also omitted altogether from the IPEDS data);

We know that transfer students have different needs, and that students who begin their education during an academic term other than the fall term have a different experience. When we start to include these groups of students in our national reports, the knowledge gained could help shape important polices and practices for these students.

And the CC's think their enrollment is booming--Hong Kong's ENORMOUS incoming class of 2012

I can't think of a better category for this blog post.  Changing numbers is the name of the game in the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, China.

Hong Kong is daring to do what the United States is afraid to do--completely overhaul their educational system, from kindergarten through higher education, in the name of a more holistic, competitive, and globally aligned approach.  Over 8 years in the planning, the foresee-ability factor on this one is amazing.  Under the old model, students were on a 3-4-3 model, where they attended just 3 years of higher education for an undergraduate degree.  The new model is being referred to as a 3-3-4, where four years of higher education will be needed to complete an undergraduate degree.  As aforementioned, part of this change is to align Hong Kong with mainland China, and the United States, but also to allow graduates to compete in a global environment.  Students are generally thrilled about the change (or at least this particular sample of students).

While this change is likely to benefit students in Hong Kong for generations to come, institutions like City University are preparing for an incredible influx of students.  This is an implementation challenge at its finest.  The entering class of 2012 is suddenly the entering class of 2012 AND 2013, the original class of 2014 is now 2013, etc.  The entering class of 2011 is still on the old curriculum, as is the cohort of students comprising the two classes above them which means that graduation will essentially skip a year.  What does this mean?  INSANE enrollment boom.  Not making sense?  Here's a handy dandy chart I made to help myself figure this out (let's pretend that every class has a 10% growth, starting with 10,000 students and another 10,000 students graduating each year just to make this simpler):

Now, I know the math isn't perfect, but I hope you get the point.  What institution of higher education is prepared for a 65% percent enrollment boom all in one year only to have it jump again 4 years beyond that and suddenly drop off a ledge the next year?  At least they know it is coming their way.  I have a colleague who directs the residential housing program at City University.  She and I have had a few conversations about how the Special Administrative Region is attempting to handle the beast (and the burst) that is this education overall.  The numbers are staggering and somewhat intimidating for the staff, but they are diligently preparing for their own version of the end of the world (2012).  Mostly, this means building new construction, scrambling for new instructors, and hiring staff at an exponential pace.  The higher education folks seem to be handling this with grace and premeditated calm (at least anecdotally), but it makes me wonder if here in the United States if we would do the same.  Would we whine?  Would our government even dare to go here?  Financially, might the government support such a massive transition via staffing and capital improvements (not to mention the FF&E)?

And we thought U.S. Community Colleges were growing rapidly...

Women and Higher Education: A Personal Reflection

Last week I attended a retreat for women in higher education. The retreat was in Vail, Colorado – not a bad start for two days of activities and lectures on women and leadership in higher education. On the morning of our second day I had the privilege of sitting with one of the guest speakers. She was bright, inquisitive and humble. We enjoyed an easy conversation over coffee and yogurt. When she got up to speak her easy presence remained but she spoke with the passion of someone who had committed her life to advancing women in higher education. Donna Shavlik challenged those of us in the room to recognize how far we had come and how much work was yet to be done.

Dr. Shavlik served as the Director for the Office of Women in Higher Education at the American Council on Education (ACE) for 15 years – her tenure with the office was 24 years. While ACE has had a hand in advancing women in higher education, from 9.5% of college presidents in 1986 to 23% today, we are still a long way from realizing the dream of many who began this work nearly three decades ago. In her speech she made a point to mention Dr. Ruth Simmons, as a woman whose leadership in higher education was paving the way for others still to come.

Dr. Ruth Simmons

A few days later I read that Ruth Simmons, the first African American University president, recently announced her retirement from Brown University. Simmons became the first African American University president when she took the presidency at Smith College in 1995. She came to Brown in 2001 and will have served 11 years as Browns president when she retires in 2012.

These two events prompted to me to stop and consider just how far we had come in advancing women in leadership roles within higher education. While much work has been done to advance women in higher education there is still a lot of work to be done. The attached chart from, Women in Higher Education, provides a look at the salary discrepancies still very much a part of the academy from the 2010 – 2011 academic year. For women in student affairs the salary discrepancy ranges from $1,700.00 to $10,000.00 between men and women working in similar positions.  We also find that while women are enrolling in college at higher rates than men (57.4% of college going student in 2007) and earning bachelors degrees at higher rates than men (57.4% in 2007) they are not finding their ways into faculty and leadership roles at the same rates as their male counterparts. Data from 2003, while admittedly dated, provide a starting place for this conversation – women comprised 38.1% of full time faculty positions, 27% of deans’ positions and 15% of provost level positions.

The raw data is only a starting place for further dialogue about women in higher education. Some have suggested that the small number of women we see working in the top levels of our institutions might be because women are making choices to balance work with family and home decisions. Others have suggested more blatant gender discrimination. Yet conversations about what men and women contribute to work in higher education based on their gender identity go largely un-discussed.

I feel a great sense of privilege to have worked with and for a number of remarkable women and men, who took seriously their work of role modeling, mentoring, leading from within and opening doors of opportunity for others. Knowing how much has been done to allow me the opportunity, as a woman, to work full time in a fulfilling career, be a mother and earn an advanced education keeps me motivated to continue the work in gender equity.

Graduation Rates - What are Other Countries Doing Better?

Today’s edition of Inside Higher Education included an article about matriculation of students into, and degree completion from, US institutions within the next decade. These figures appear to be linked to our country’s changing demographics, so some of the projections are to be expected. For instance, the rate of increase of college enrollment for Latino and Hispanic students outpaces that of any other ethnic group (46% compared to the nearest “competitors” which are African American students whose growth rate is expected to be 25%) whereas the rate of increase of White students is expected to hover around 1%. One reason to be leery about such data is that the article does not clearly state the current enrollment of the groups (in numbers), so it could be that the rapid increases of certain groups are partially because their current representation is relatively low. Another key issue is the actual retention of students to graduation.

Last year, President Obama stated a goal of increasing the college graduation rate by 50%, from the current level of 40.4% to 60% by the year 2020. If we are to believe his rhetoric from August 2010, Mr. Obama believes that America is “failing” college students and seems embarrassed that our country’s worldwide ranking for graduating students with at least an associate degree has dropped from first place to 12^th place within one generation. Looking at the rankings, we are behind some countries that seem obvious such as Australia and New Zealand, both of which have nearly 5 additional expected years of education according to the United Nations Development Programme’s 2010 Human Development Index (HDI) Trends from 1980-2010 (see the excel document available from http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/trends/) . However, some of the higher ranked countries seem less obvious.

For example, Korea’s college graduation rate outpaces the United States’ rate by 15% (55.5% vs. 40.4% as of August 2010) although that country’s current expected years of education is only slightly higher than ours (16.82 vs. 15.75 years). Looking further into data available online, there are two striking differences between the higher educational systems of the United States and that of the Republic of Korea. First, during the past 30 years, Korea has increased its expected years of education by 45% (from 11.57 to 16.82 years) whereas that same figure has risen only 11% within the United States (from 14.21 to 15.75 years). Second, according to an article published in October 2006 in Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning by Sunwoong Kim and Ju-Ho Lee, “the Korean higher education system had to rely heavily on the private sector” (p. 558). In fact, at the time that these authors originally wrote their article, approximately 95% of college students enrolled in Korean institutions of higher education were in private institutions. Loosening of government regulation (which I would characterize as micromanagement at its finest) in 1995 allowed for the development of a range of institutions that matched the range of academic preparation for Korean students. In other words, as seems to be the growing situation here in the US, if a student wants to attend college, there is an institution with appropriately rigor and reputation (or lack thereof). Now, 15 years later, Korea's college graduation rate has put the US to shame.

I believe that this topic warrants further investigation regarding what is being done in countries with high graduation rates (such as Canada and the Russian Federation) and what level of academic rigor has led to such high numbers of graduates in certain countries. Based on my experience with individuals who have earned graduate degrees (in engineering) from universities in Russia, I question whether or not their graduation rate is a true metric of success or simply an outcome of an ingrained system that passes people along irrelevant of performance. From a national perspective, it seems appropriate to attempt to emulate systems that appear successful, but only as long as the success is genuine.