Last week I shared an overview of a recent series of essays that appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education intended to engage people in discussion about reinventing college. I shared the titles of the essays and the fact that readers have been invited to provide their own creative ideas in a contest entitled, “Invent Your Own College!”

Some of the suggested solutions in the essays by reporters and contributors address specific challenges within higher ed, but not necessarily the central issues of access and affordability. One issue that draws a good deal of attention is the state of the professoriate.

One of the essays in the reinventing college series is entitled, “2 Tracks for Faculty.” Sadly, this idea provides nothing new and suggests a strategy that is both unrealistic and unaffordable for most institutions.

The idea proposed is to establish “two types of faculty members.” One type would be those earning doctorates, who are hired on tenure track appointments with significant responsibilities for research and graduate education. This is the common profile of today’s full-time faculty member. The second track would be those hired as full-time instructors, who are required to earn only a master’s degree and primarily teach and advise undergraduate students. At most institutions, these are part-time faculty members.

At face value, this suggestion regarding “tracks” or “types” of appointments, an idea that has been discussed for decades, makes good sense. Training instructors to be better teachers and appointing them to focus on teaching would likely improve the quality of education at most institutions. Further, the idea is that these faculty might be prepared through master’s level programs that focus on pedagogy and instructional methods within their disciplines. But this notion is connected in “2 Tracks for Faculty” with a proposal to turn current adjunct faculty (part-time) instructors into future full-time instructors.

Part-time faculty are typically under-paid with few benefits and little security. They are most often paid by the course with limitations on the number of courses they are allowed to teach. While some adjunct faculty are hired to bring a specific expertise necessary for certain courses in professional programs, most are qualified to teach a range of courses within a discipline. Many are both qualified and willing to teach full time, but are hired by the course and by the semester or year. And they deserve to be better paid and more secure in their positions.

The fact is that most colleges hire part-time faculty as one way to manage costs. This is the primary problem with this proposal. Most college presidents I know would gladly hire more full-time faculty and would see full-time instructors as both a more equitable employment option for adjuncts and a benefit to the educational experience for students. But the simple fact is that if colleges were to reduce the number of adjunct faculty and hire more full-time instructors, the overall cost would be prohibitive. And if affordability is already an issue for too many students, this would only exacerbate the situation.

The solution to the instructional challenge lies more directly in the redesign of the curriculum and the delivery of instruction (course schedule and course offerings). Whatever the optimum class size, colleges would be more efficient (and effective) if classes were all full and the curriculum was more streamlined with fewer electives.

If this was accomplished, resources would be more available to raise faculty salaries, hire more full-time faculty (tenure track and instructors) and manage costs for students. Until the cost issue is addressed, the number of tracks is unimportant.

What do you think?

(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)

In recent months, both the efficacy and the value of a college degree have been questioned in the media and by the general public. In featured articles and in depth reports, questions have been raised about the quality of higher education, especially in terms of “guaranteeing” a good job after graduation; the increasing costs and the impact on debt; and the transparency of information regarding access, retention and graduation rates. While most people continue to recognize the inherent value of a college education and a degree, the questions and concerns more directly relate to the current model and delivery systems that have not significantly changed in decades.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a highly respected and well-read weekly journal that covers higher education issues. It is equivalent to the many weekly business journals, and provides similar value to those in the higher education industry. In the past few weeks, The Chronicle has launched an interesting series of articles and an international contest.

In response to these criticisms and concerns about higher education, The Chronicle announced a contest called, “Invent Your Own College!” They are inviting any reader to propose his/her ideas in response to the question, “If you could start your own institution of higher education from scratch, what would you build?” Ideas can be submitted “in prose or poetry, a picture, a video, or even a song.” The five best ideas will be published and readers will be asked to vote for the best idea.

To help with the thinking process, The Chronicle has published fifteen essays written by its own reporters and contributing writers providing some of their ideas about how to change/improve higher education. The titles of these essays are:

1. “An Old School Notion: Writing Required”
2. “2 Captains at the Helm of Each College”
3. “Grades Out, Badges In”
4. “Degrees With a Price Tag”
5. “A Student Centered NCAA”
6. “High Tech College Counseling”
7. “School at Age 3: No More 12^th Grade”
8. “Truly Global Campuses”
9. “Ditch the Monograph”
10. “Meet the New-For-Profit: the Low-Profit”
11. “The End of Free Space”
12. “A Kickstarter for Science”
13. “2 Tracks for Faculty”
14. “A Tax for Higher Education“
15. “Community Colleges for the Students They Actually Have”

Over the next few weeks, I plan to share some of these ideas in more detail and include my own reactions and comments. I will also share my own idea for improving higher education which centers on more pervasive collaboration and consolidation between and among colleges. I will need to create a catchy title!

But I would be interested in your ideas and suggestions. I receive many comments about my blog every week. Typically, your e-mails either affirm what I have shared or take issue with a particular aspect of my comments.

Do you think that higher education is “broken?” If so, what aspects of higher education concern you the most? What do you think should be done to fix it?

Hopefully, your ideas will contribute to the necessary dialogue about improving higher education. You may help to change the way colleges and universities deliver quality education in ways that are both accessible and affordable. At the very least, I know that your contributions will be beneficial to a small Catholic college near Worcester!

(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)

This past weekend, Anna Maria College celebrated its annual Reunion Weekend. The highlight of this weekend every year is the recognition of our 50^th anniversary class … this year it was the class of 1962. These women have lived extraordinary lives and provide a living history of this special College.  As they share their stories of their lives at AMC and the decades after graduation, one is provided with a unique perspective on the changes in the world that they have experienced.

As I reflected on my time with the Class of 1962 and all of our alumni/ae, I was reminded of the fact that these golden anniversary women graduated in the same year that Vatican II was convened. Just a few days ago on October 11, 2012, the Catholic Church commemorated the 50^th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II. These women have lived the experience of the evolution of the Church… and there have been many changes.

One change that really extends beyond the Catholic world is the impact Vatican II has had on ecumenism. As Fr. John O’Malley from Georgetown reminds us,

“Before the council, Catholics were not only forbidden to pray with those of other faiths but also indoctrinated into a disdain or even contempt for them. (This was, of course, a two-way street.) Now, for the first time, Catholics were encouraged to foster friendly relations with Orthodox and Protestant Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims, and even to pray with them. The council condemned all forms of anti-Semitism and insisted on respect for Judaism and Islam as Abrahamic faiths, like Christianity.”

When Vatican II was convened by Pope John XXIII, it was the largest gathering of Catholic leaders to ever take place. When the 50^th Anniversary Mass took place on October 11, 2012, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, were invited to attend.

Fr. O’Malley attributes this clear movement towards openness and ecumenism in the past twenty-five years to the life experience of Pope John Paul II. He suggests that Pope John Paul II’s experience as a Vatican diplomat and papal nuncio helped him to more fully understand and appreciate the “goodness as he found it in people of other faiths and no faith.” O’Malley concludes that this led Pope John Paul II to focus on reconciliation most notably with Jews, but also with Muslims.

While Pope Benedict XVI is more remembered for his ill advised comment about Muslims in 2006 just months after his election, his address at a mosque in Amman, Jordan in 2009 and his visit to the synagogue of Rome in 2010 reflect this same openness to others and a spirit of reconciliation.

Vatican II served as the genesis for many important developments in the Catholic Church. Over the past five decades, there have been significant reforms in the way we worship and celebrate Mass, the opportunities for all people to participate in Church leadership, and a more widespread commitment to education. These changes have really impacted Catholic colleges and universities as we welcome people of all faiths and traditions into the common search for truth.

This past weekend, the Class of 1962 shared their impressions of the changes in AMC over the past decades. But they also shared their experiences of increased opportunities for women and the evolution of the Church they love.

The Catholic Church is not perfect and there is still much to do to achieve the vision of Vatican II. But just as Reunion Weekend celebrates the lives and accomplishments of our distinguished graduates, it is right and appropriate to say, “Happy 50^th Anniversary.” 1962 was a very good year!

(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)

I rarely use my blog for political reasons outside of higher education issues. I also try to take a national perspective since this blog is read by alumni/ae and friends from across the country. But today I want to share some thoughts on an issue that the citizens of Massachusetts will decide in a few weeks. And this issue raises significant moral and ethical questions about which we should all be concerned.

On November 6, the citizens of Massachusetts will vote on Ballot Question 2. A yes vote would legalize physician-assisted suicide in Massachusetts. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, this ballot question not only threatens the dignity of life, but contains flaws, which would have unintended consequences to terminally ill patients and their families.

If passed, a patient who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and given a prognosis of six months or less to live would have the ability to request a doctor’s prescription for medication to end his or her life. Jewish and Christian moral traditions have long rejected the idea of assisting in another’s suicide. Religious organizations are joined by secular groups including the Massachusetts Medical Society, Massachusetts Hospice and Palliative Care Federation, American Medical Directors Association, American Nurses Association, American College of Physicians, American Medical Association, and the Massachusetts Osteopathic Society in opposition to the practice of physician-assisted suicide.

Some of the key flaws in the Massachusetts ballot initiative which have been identified include:

• Doctors agree that terminal diagnoses of six months or less are often wrong. Many with terminal diagnoses live years longer.
• Patients requesting suicide do not need to be examined by a psychiatrist before receiving a prescription to commit suicide. Many terminally ill patients suffer from depression.
• Question 2 does not require a consultation with a palliative care or hospice expert.
•  No doctor is present when the patient takes the lethal prescription. This is not a dignified way to die.
•  There is no requirement that the patient notify family members. Compassionate care at the end of life should involve the     loving support of family members.
•  We should be supporting improved hospice and palliative care statewide, not legalized suicide.

In an open letter calling Question 2 “poorly written, confusing, and flawed,” five past presidents of the Massachusetts Medical Society- Leonard J. Morse, MD; Barbara A. Rockett, MD; Philip E. McCarthy, MD; Francis X. Rockett, MD; and Lynda M. Young, MD have cautioned that if the ballot question is passed, “the doctor/patient relationship will suffer and the way doctors deliver health care will be gravely changed.” Last month, the Massachusetts Medical Society posted,

“We are opposed to Question 2 for these reasons:

• The proposed safeguards against abuse are insufficient. Enforcement provisions, investigation authority, oversight, or data verification are not included in the act. A witness to the patient’s signed request could also be an heir.

• Assisted suicide is not necessary to improve the quality of life at the end of life. Current law gives every patient the right to refuse lifesaving treatment, and to have adequate pain relief, including hospice and palliative sedation.

• Predicting the end of life within six months is difficult; sometimes the prediction is not accurate. From time to time, patients expected to be within months of their death have gone on to live many more months — or years. In one study, 17 percent of patients outlived their prognosis. ”

Lynda M. Young, MD, MMS past president, testified about the MMS policy at a hearing of the Massachusetts House Judiciary Committee on March 6, 2012: “Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer. “Instead of participating in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. ... Patients must continue to receive emotional support, comfort care, adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy, and good communication.”           

Dr. Joseph Gravel, president of the Massachusetts Academy of Family Physicians has been quoted as saying the ballot initiative does not include adequate safeguards to protect poor people suffering from a terminal disease who may want to end their lives rather than become a financial burden to their families. (Eagle-Tribune). In a statement he issued on behalf of the more than 1,000 family doctors who are part of the academy, he announced the group’s opposition to Question 2. “The role of family physicians is to provide compassionate, high quality health care to all the patients, in each stage of life.”

He continued, “This certainly includes end-of-life care. It is clear that we need to continue to work to provide those suffering from serious illnesses, depression, and other conditions that can lead to hopelessness highly effective palliative and hospice treatments that are now available. To really address this patient need, we also need to work to assure that everyone has access to a pre-existing, trusting, personal relationship with a primary care physician that can be enormously important during these very difficult situations.” (State House News Service)

The question of legislation by referendum has also been called into question given the complexity of the legal, ethical and moral issues involved. If the ballot question passes in November, there will be no other steps or requirements to be fulfilled and the flaws and unintended consequences will be part of a new law. If passed by the voters, physician-assisted suicide will be legal in Massachusetts on January 1, 2013.

As you can see, this is more than a religious issue … it is a legal issue … it is a medical issue … and it is a fundamental moral issue related to all people of all faiths and traditions. For those in Massachusetts, I would hope that much thought and reflection would precede a decision on how to vote on November 6. For those outside of Massachusetts, issues like these need our attention and concern.

(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)

Last week I shared some information about student debt. Student debt is a serious issue and affording college is a significant challenge for most American families. But as I tried to demonstrate last week and will do so again this week, the perceptions about the student debt issue are not clearly understood.

Last week I shared the statistics about the levels of debt incurred by students. I also shared the affordability data related to family income levels. Today I want to focus on financial aid opportunities and the actual tuition paid by students.

One of the misperceptions related to college affordability and student debt is the issue of financial aid. It is often reported, albeit erroneously, that it is very difficult to receive financial aid, especially at private, independent colleges. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are the facts:

1. A vast majority of college students at all types of institutions receive some form of financial aid, including loans (92% at for-profit institutions; 89% at independent institutions; 82% at public institutions).

2. More students receive financial aid (grant or scholarship aid) at private, independent colleges than at other types of institutions (84% at independent institutions; 81% at for-profit institutions; 67% at public institutions).

3. Most important, however, students at private, independent colleges are twice as likely to receive grants (not loans) as students at public institutions and three times more likely than those at for-profit institutions (79% at independent institutions; 39% at public institutions; 24% at for-profit institutions).

What is even more alarming is the lack of growth in federal grant programs for students seeking a college degree. Simply said, our national leaders speak eloquently about the need for increased education, but fail to support it for those in financial need. In 1984-85, the federal government awarded $1.3 billion in federal grants to college students. In that same year, private, independent colleges awarded $1.4 billion in grants.

Over the next decade, that number for federal grants increased only slightly ($1.5 billion in 1996-97). But private, independent colleges had increased their financial aid programs to $6.0 billion. Most recently, the federal grants program has increased to $2.9 billion. But the private, independent colleges awarded $19.3 billion in grant, more than six times as much grant aid as the federal government. Tuition fees have risen at private, independent colleges, but so have grants and financial aid.

Finally, there remains much confusion about the actual cost of an education. The total tuition and fee amount is typically reported and then it is inferred that all students are asked to pay this same rate. In fact, the actual amount that a student pays for college correlates with their family income. The lower the income, the lower the percentage of the total cost. On average, the actual amount a student is asked to pay (after financial aid is awarded) is less than 60% of the total cost for tuition, fees, room and board (59% at independent institutions; 67% at public institutions; 85% at for-profit institutions).

Over the past ten years, tuition rates at private, independent colleges have grown less than at public institutions. It is also important to note that graduation rates for all students are higher at private, independent colleges. And students at private, independent colleges graduate on average 10 months sooner than at public institutions and 89 months earlier than at for-profit institutions.

Access and affordability are real issues. But at least when we discuss these issues, we should have the facts!

(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)