The Supreme Court’s decisions addressed issues that originate from a much larger malady affecting colleges across the United States. That is, the erosion of the true function of higher education – the cultivation of polished, well-learned individuals capable of taking on the real world.  

Instead, our universities have become estranged from their intended purpose, sinking more than half of their students into debt in excess of $30,000, and have evolved into liberal hive minds. 

When I graduated in 1985, the annual cost of tuition at a public four-year institution was roughly $1,200. Today, that number is over $9,500. The eye-popping hike in the cost of higher education over the last several decades is due to two primary inputs, with inflation being a tertiary factor.

First, society has hoisted upon younger generations an obligation to attend college to succeed in life. The third-party payment model we employ allows young adults to plunge themselves into debt with little understanding of the tangible value of the degree and the stratified return-on-investment different fields of study confer to graduates. Over 2 million individuals now graduate with a bachelor’s degree each year, and because institutions know that there will always be a buyer, they have no incentive to reduce costs.  

Second, university expenditures have exploded due to the theme park-ification of campuses and administrative bloat. In 2021, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni released a meticulously detailed 52-page report on the runaway spending of colleges and universities. Using data from the Department of Education, the report revealed the drastic growth in spending on student services, which includes amenities, and the number of administrators has significantly outpaced instruction. 

Critics often contest my assertions in two ways that are important to address. First, that the federal government should increase subsidies to colleges and universities to reduce the costs of enrollment. That is a recipe for accelerating the woes we are currently witnessing and is a practical example of Einstein’s definition of insanity.  

And second, that student services are critical to the success of students and their wellbeing. While select services may offer value, such as career counseling, data suggests that there is almost no correlation between spending on student services and graduation rates. 

As a former member of a college board of trustees, I observed not only the steady growth in the cost of post-secondary education, but also the stunning forced progressive ideological shift of the school and others across the nation.  

The college president abused the authority of her office to push her own political views upon faculty and students with adverse repercussions should they not confirm. Since then, it has only gotten worse.  

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies are creeping into every administrative office, free speech on campuses is imperiled, and universities are becoming incubators of un-American, cult-like behavior. 

The disturbing ideological drift of American universities is a threat to this nation’s future, both philosophically and tangibly. The principles and rights enshrined in our Constitution are rapidly becoming incompatible with the progressive dogma proliferating on campuses today. 

And the quality of education students receive suffers when greater attention is given social justice theory than practical instruction. As a physician, I am particularly concerned by medical schools engaging in the woke social experiment by loosening application requirements and requiring diversity statements in the name of equity. 

We can continue to document, report and condemn illiberal radicalization of higher education, but without action, intellectual degeneracy and the ostracization of conservative principles will accelerate. 

I am outspoken about the woke progression of universities, lead on several pieces of legislation to combat the progressive blitz on campuses, and host an annual Congressional Campus Free Speech Roundtable to bring together key lawmakers, supportive outside groups and students to collaborate.

Everyone agrees reform is desperately needed, albeit in different ways, and the appetite for change is high. Conservatives must take our seat at the table and engage on this issue if we want to restore excellence in our universities and avoid losing support from young voters motivated by the enormous cost to attain a college degree. 

If we fail to meet the moment, we will allow the left to take ownership of this issue and define the policy narrative moving forward at great consequence.

This opinion piece appeared on Foxnews.com on August 7, 2023.

The post Supreme Court opens door to real education reform appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

This webinar is part of The American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s Institute For Effective Governance.

The post Student Debt and the Spending Crisis: What Trustees Need to Know to Spend Wisely appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The nation faces a $1.7 trillion student debt crisis. That is bigger than the gross domestic product of Canada, the world’s 10^th largest economy. This sword of Damocles hangs over millions of young Americans who are postponing marriage, buying a home, and starting a family as they confront an average student loan debt of $40,000. This is not only a heavy burden for those in debt, but also a serious drag on the nation’s economy. 

The blame for this situation lies squarely at the feet of the higher education establishment. For decades, runaway spending on administration and student services, plus profligate spending on frivolous projects like rock climbing walls and lazy rivers, have been paid for by continuously raising tuition. Since 1990, the average in-state tuition and fees at a four-year institution nearly tripled on an inflation-adjusted basis—snowballing faster than the cost of health care.

That results in the sticker price at four-year institutions increasing by 178% since 1990.

The Biden administration is today poised to forgive billions of dollars in student debt with the stroke of a pen and will enact no meaningful changes to the broken system currently in place. This action will only serve to deepen the crisis and permit the dysfunction in higher education to continue. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s (ACTA) report, The Cost of Excess: Why Colleges and Universities Must Control Runaway Spending, found that in the years following the Great Recession, as state and philanthropic revenue suffered, rather than cut costs, colleges and universities increased spending across the board. They left students holding the bag in the form of higher tuition bills, with no meaningful benefit to graduation rates. As we wrote in our 2021 report:

“The solution cannot be debt forgiveness, which is merely a way of shifting the burden to the American taxpayer. More importantly, debt cancellation is but a temporary solution that treats the symptom and not the disease.”

Are we surprised that the higher education industry stands quietly by? Decades and political administrations from both parties have come and gone, and all turned a blind eye to this unfolding catastrophe.

Today, the higher education establishment will once again dodge accountability and critically important reform, and will continue raising tuition, bloating their administrative budgets, and spending more money on ancillary items that do little to improve student outcomes. Four-year graduation rates remain abysmal, under 40%, and the college diploma has become a devalued commodity. Our political and higher education elites have failed us. The consequences of that failure will haunt taxpayers, students, and their families for decades to come.

ACTA will continue to be the leading voice in calling for accountability in higher education spending. Thank you for your support.

The post Statement by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni on President Biden’s Loan Forgiveness Plan appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The post Inside Academe Vol. XXVI No. 4 appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Washington DC, July 28, 2021 – American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) President Michael Poliakoff is scheduled to testify before the House Higher Education and Workforce Investment Subcommittee on Thursday, July 29, 2021, at 10:15 a.m. on supporting the success of Pell Grant students. The following is a synopsis of President Poliakoff’s testimony:

“The Pell Grant has been the cornerstone of America’s investment in college financial aid for nearly 50 years. But for Pell Grants to fulfill their promise going forward, additional layers of accountability must be applied. There is little evidence to suggest that increasing the amount of federal funds available to students will solve problems plaguing higher education. Attempts to tackle college affordability must first recognize that the student debt crisis is fundamentally a spending crisis. A significant portion of this spending goes to non-instructional sources at universities and colleges, such as student services, administration, and construction. Growth in tuition has outpaced aid, forced families to pay more to send their children to college, and increased student loan debt held by the average borrower. The absence of Pell Grant Program oversight at the institutional level has been shocking. ACTA recommends increased oversight and particular scrutiny of the completion rates at institutions that receive Pell Grant students.”

Who: ACTA President Michael Poliakoff
What: House Subcommittee Hearing on the Pell Grant Program
When: Thursday, July 29, 2021, at 10:15 a.m.
Where: via Zoom
https://edlabor.house.gov/hearings/keeping-the-pell-grant-promise-increasing-enrollment-supporting-success

ACTA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to academic freedom, academic excellence, and accountability in higher education. We receive no government funding and are supported through the generosity of individuals and foundations

The post American Council of Trustees and Alumni President Michael Poliakoff is to Testify Before House Higher Education and Workforce Investment Subcommittee appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The post Wade Eyerly: Ensuring That Students Get What They Paid For appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Several of President Biden’s first executive orders addressed issues related to higher education and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. One executive order granted further reprieve for student loan repayment until the end of September 2021. Another executive order directed the acting secretary of education and the acting secretary of health and human services to provide further guidance to institutions of higher learning on safely reopening for in-person learning.

Student loan relief and Title IX enforcement are also likely to be at issue: Before the November election, President Biden committed to exploring options to make college more affordable, or even free, while also forgiving a portion of existing student debt. He is also planning to roll back the Trump administration’s Title IX policies.

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, elected officials in Congress are exploring measures to optimize the federal government’s role in working with postsecondary education institutions. Last month, Representative Greg Murphy (R-N.C.), in a floor speech and a related op-ed published in the Washington Examiner, called attention to administrative spending in higher education and its impact on the student debt crisis. Also in December, Congress unanimously passed legislation introduced by Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Representative Alma Adams (D-N.C.), the HBCU PARTNERS Act, which will strengthen partnerships between federal agencies and the country’s more than 100 historically black colleges and universities.

It is too early to tell whether Congress will seek to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, last updated in 2008, to address serious problems in the accreditation system that hinder institutional governance. A growing bipartisan consensus is emerging that substantive accreditation reform is necessary to lower costs and create greater accountability to taxpayers for student outcomes. Click here to view ACTA’s resources for trustees on accreditation as well as our policy guidance.

The post New Administration. New Congress. New Priorities. appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

For decades higher education has been digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole. From 1986 to 2018, the average total tuition, fees, room and board rose 128% at four-year public universities and 105% at four-year private universities after adjusting for inflation. The picture is not much better for two-year colleges, with costs going up by 51% for public and 72% for private institutions during the same period. Add to the equation fallout from the pandemic and you have lots of promising students postponing if not canceling their college plans.

And then there is the mater of the $1.6 trillion of outstanding student debt that such costs have caused.

President-elect Joe Biden’s plan would make a two-year degree free and do the same for a four-year degree for families whose income is below $125,000. Mr. Biden calls for a “a federal-state partnership, with the federal government covering 75% of the cost and states contributing the remaining obligation.” This could solve longstanding problems of access to higher education. How affordable it is—or ultimately how wholesome it would ultimately be for American higher education—is far less certain.

Under this plan, what incentive would colleges have to maximize education quality and operational efficiency and hold costs down with such a secure stream of revenue from the government? Clearly, admitting and retaining students would be in their interest, keeping the revenue stream robust. Colleges might race to gain and keep as many students as possible, paying less attention to the academic rigor on which career success rests.

Private institutions other than HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) and MSIs (minority-serving institutions) would be at an extreme competitive disadvantage, so much so that the survival of the uniquely American phenomenon of the small liberal arts college would be in grave peril, except for the most prestigious schools. In 2018, the Economist wryly noted that what makes the American system of higher education so effective is that it is not a system. “Free” college could well put an end to the brilliant diversity of our institutions.

In October 2019, the Biden website estimated a cost of $750 billion for his higher education reforms, which also include student loan forgiveness, institutional support, and other benefits. This dollar figure was derived and then removed from Biden’s website before the Biden campaign added free college to the platform. Other estimates go past the trillion-dollar mark. Bowen’s Law, developed by the late economist and president of Grinnell College, Howard Bowen, states that colleges will raise as much money as possible and spend it all, without saving adequately or passing savings onto students or taxpayers. Under the Biden plan, what is to dissuade schools from frivolously hiring an even bigger roster of administrators and starting yet more non-instruction related campus programs, if they can depend on endless revenue from the government?

The Bennett Hypothesis of 1987 posits: “If anything, increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.” Effectively, with the availability of federal funds, expenditures soar, schools raise prices, and students take out ever more loans to meet the cost of tuition, fees, room, and board. Richard Vedder suggests that for every dollar of federal aid, tuition prices rise approximately 35 cents. Other economists put that figure closer to 60 cents. The theory has drawn supporters and detractors, and although the size of the impact is in dispute, the connection of federal money and price to students seems clear. College will be a great financial deal for those eligible for the Biden plan, but the hammer of rising tuition will fall ever more heavily on students over the $125,000 cutoff, as the cost of attendance rises.

To what extent does the infusion of money benefit students? The conventional wisdom is that more money spent equals better service provided. Yet, according to data from a 2018 report by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States already spends 95% more per pupil in higher education than the average of the other 36 OECD nations, while its graduates rank slightly below international average on measures of the core collegiate skills that matter for career success.

Where will the new money go? We have already seen a continual growth in the higher ed administrative class. The American Association of University Professors reported in 2008 that the median presidential salary at a public doctoral institution was $338,228. In 2020, the median was $495,813, a 47% increase. Growth in non-instructional spending is a longstanding issue. According to a Delta Cost Project report, between 2000 and 2012, professional workers—business analysts, HR, admissions staff, etc.—came to make up one quarter of on-campus jobs at public research universities, outnumbering full-time faculty. As campuses add bureaucrats and the inevitable compliance professionals who come with increased federal money, the university must find revenue for these salaries. Some universities, such as the University of Akron, have found the money by slashing their instructional budgets.

The Biden plan could end up costing far more than ever expected, even with such a substantial initial price tag. A precedent has been set that countries who have provided free college eventually have to start rationing it because they cannot afford the cost. Potentially tighter admissions restrictions or funding limits will be a roadblock for students.

It is highly ironic that plans to make higher education more accessible could result in making a quality college education harder to achieve than ever before. Proceed with caution.

The post What Does “Free College” Really Mean? appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

From a student’s perspective, the massive amount of loans put us at a disadvantaged position and deferred our chances of enjoying the economic benefit that higher education can bring. To alleviate financial pressure, students often have to spare efforts on part-time jobs while studying, which is very likely to bring negative impacts on learning outcomes. According to a research from Georgetown University, over 70 percent of college students have worked while in college and the group of working students is becoming larger as tuition grows (Rapacon) . Nevertheless, the truth is that even if students choose to work full-time, the wages we earn could not fully cover the amount of debt due to the ballooning cost to attend college these days. Meanwhile, for some graduates, the insurmountable college debt has a long-lasting after effect that diminishes their lifetime plans such as marriage and retirement. The survey result from Student Debt Crisis, a non-profit advocating for student loan reform, reveals that 19% of respondents delay their marriage and 26% put off the plan of having a child due to their college debts (Hembree). It is evident that a large group of people would live a higher-quality life if they do not need to worry about the money they borrow for college. The student loans are currently holding back their level of consumption and they could have contributed more to America’s economic growth.

To solve the current student loan crisis, universities should take on their responsibilities and play the central role. At first, what they can do is to revise their budget structures comprehensively and find out the crux that drives the rapid tuition increase. The size of college debt an individual has to take positively correlates with the level of tuition. Therefore, universities must carry out effective cost control so that students do not have to take on more debt. According to How Much is Too Much? published by ACTA, colleges’ administration costs deserve special attention amid the growing tuition because they have been increasing faster than instructional spending. Meanwhile, the ratio of faculty and staff positions per administrator also declined from 3.5 in 1990 to 2.2 in 2012 (ACTA). The growth of administrative expenditure is partly resulted from the ongoing trend to build a 24/7 learning experience on college campuses. By hiring more staff in the student life office, universities have the resource to educate students even in residential halls and club activities. However, although extracurricular activities are an integral part of students’ college experience, university leaderships should still keep their focus on teaching and try to be economical on expenses that would not bring direct advancements for education qualities. Sometimes, it is not worth it to extend education beyond classrooms when students have to worry about paying for their courses in classrooms.

Reviewing and changing the spending patterns from administration-oriented to academic-oriented may be a time-consuming process for colleges, but the crisis of student loan urgently needs a solution. Under such a circumstance, universities can also consider the re-allocation of their student life resources. One option is to develop college debt counseling programs that help students to plan their finance wisely. Nowadays, many students do not have a clear idea about the amount of loan they borrowed and how the debts are going to affect their lives. Based on my personal experience, some graduates even don’t know the procedures to begin their repayments after getting a job. A research from Journal of Financial Education finds that only 62% of the business college students have debt literacy (Nonis). For students in other majors, the situation might be even worse. As a result, the debt counseling service offered by the university becomes critical because it is the most direct resource students can take advantage of if they have any questions about their debts.

Recently, my classmates and I did a survey within New York University, trying to figure out the students’ opinions on college debt counseling programs currently offered at NYU. We collected responses from 33 students and alumni from all three campuses (New York, Abu Dhabi, Shanghai) but our findings are a bit apprehensive. According to our survey results, only 36.4% of the students received financial counseling from NYU and the average satisfaction towards NYU’s financial advising service is 3.05/5. When answering the question “Do you feel that NYU offered sufficient counseling concerning repayment, financial planning, and general preparedness for post-graduation?”, none of the debt-takers gave a positive response. There are two respondents even mentioning that the federal government (FAFSA) provided better financial advising programs than NYU. However, we should be aware that compared with students attending public universities, the financial challenges some NYU students facing are more substantial because of the high tuition and the huge cost of living in downtown Manhattan. Quite a few students and alumni reported they had to borrow over $100,000 only for their undergraduate study. Relying on the advisory materials from the federal government is not enough to address every NYU students’ financial stress because the financial commitment of attending NYU is very different from an average university. This being the case, we can interpret the data to conclude that many students would benefit from the reform of the current debt counseling program at NYU and additional resources intended to better provide aid in the process of paying for college.

As for the origins of the problems with NYU’s debt counseling program, we identified that the current solutions provided by the university administration are mostly technical. No matter it is self-paced seminars or work-study programs, they could not settle everyone’s question considering various family backgrounds and economic standings they come from. Meanwhile, the current culture of creating a “safe” environment dismissed the possibility of publicly discussing economic differences between students. I believe that besides NYU, many other universities are facing the issue of ineffective student loan counseling as well. With the current trend that universities are willing to invest more in administration than instruction, student life staffs should notice students’ demand for financial advising and make more effort to equip them with necessary knowledge to deal with their debts. After all, the living qualities of young professionals who just got their degrees are directly related to the amount of debt they have to take, and no one would like to defer their marriage plans because of student loans.

*Special Thanks to my group members Claudia Ameijeiras, Adele Purdy, and Meredith Chaffin for conducting the survey and writing reports for reference*

Luke Yang is an intern at ACTA and a junior at New York University. 

The post Solving the Adaptive Challenge of Student Loans in the US appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Annual in-state tuition fees for Georgia’s three best-ranked universities are lower than in Alabama but steeper than Florida. Despite the annual differences, Georgia’s college graduates have a bigger incentive for turning the tassel in the Peach State.

Earlier this month, the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association recognized Georgia’s University System for its higher education policy and administration. Georgia received the 2019-2020 Exceptional Agency of Excellence in part for its affordability.

“USG is a national leader in delivering on the dream of an affordable college education,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson in a statement on July 19. “I’m so proud of the work our university system has done on behalf of our students and congratulate USG on this distinction.”

It costs about an average of $9,000 to attend undergraduate school at the University of Georgia, Georgia Institute of Technology and Georgia Southern University, the state’s top-ranked public schools according to niche.com. In-state students at Alabama’s top three colleges pay about $700 more for their tuition, while Floridians spend $3,000 less for the best public post-secondary education in the state, according to howcollegespendmoney.com. 

The average total undergraduate loans for the three Georgia universities is about $27,000. Graduates from Florida State University, the University of South Florida and the University of Florida, it’s about $29,000. 

Undergraduates at the University of Alabama, Auburn University and the University of Alabama at Birmingham have more of a financial burden with loans averaging at $33,000.

Georgia officials said that they have been working to bring down costs over the past five years.

“Undergraduate in-state tuition increases are at an average of 1.7 percent with two years of no increase at all,” according to a statement from the governor’s office. 

GSU saw a 1.5 percent increase in its inflated-adjusted tuition between its 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school year, according to howcollegesspendmoney.com. The number then decreased by 1.2 in the following school year. GSU tuition ranks low when compared to the total average cost of all the schools in its peer group, such as Boise State University and Louisiana Tech University.

University of Alabama’s inflated-adjusted tuition jumped by 7.1 percent between 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. It decreased by 1.1 percent in 2016-2017. It also ranked higher in cost over other comparable schools in the nation.

Georgia Tech also had a higher increase in inflated-adjusted tuition between 2014 and the beginning of 2016 with a 7 percent spike. 

The post Georgia’s best colleges carry less of a cost burden than neighbor appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.