- From the Glossary of Magic Terms
I am a fan of James Randi. Spending most of his life as a stage magician, The Amazing Randi retired at age 60 and has subsequently dedicated his life to the art and science of “debunking”, which, simply defined, is the process of discrediting and/or contradicting claims as being false or pretentious. In other words, a debunker is a skeptic with skills.
 |
| From Skeptic Magazine |
Although it has nothing to do with the content of this week’s thought, my fellow language geeks will appreciate this aside; the American Heritage Dictionary lists the first appearance of the word “bunk” in American English in 1923 as a derivation of "bunkum", of which the first recorded use was in 1828, apparently related to a poorly received "speech for Buncombe" given by North Carolina representative Felix Walker during the 16th United States Congress. I must visit Buncombe someday.
Regardless, the point is the fact that James Randi has a Foundation, an “educational” foundation nonetheless. The James Randi Educational Foundation is the sponsor of the “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge”, a fund set up to provide the first person that could provide objective proof of paranormal activity. The website is silent on protocol around a second occurrence.
Allegedly, over 1,000 applications have been filed but no one has passed the preliminary test, which requires that both parties must agree in advance as to what conditions of the test constitute a success and what constitutes a failure.
With that setup, I found two articles that trouble me this week. Neither was written this week, but I just now got around to reading them.
The first article is a defense of the ongoing and growing criticism around the cost of higher education. The second deals with the how bad colleges and universities are in terms of graduation rates. Half of my audience is now gone. I am sorry. Next week, I’ll try to do something more topical.
Here is an excerpt from the first:
In fairness to the authors, this treatment is geared more toward university structure, but they do mention “colleges” a number of times and that makes it relevant to me.
In keeping with the Amazing Randi’s rules, which require advance agreement on the conditions of the test and what constitutes success and failure, I will begin. Unfortunately, I have no paranormal skills and, therefore, cannot know if you will agree with my evidence or argument ahead of time, but that circumstance didn’t deter better people than me.
I will begin with tuition increases. From the mid-1990s through 2003, tuition increase $2 per credit hour each year. From 2003 to present, the increase has been $5 per credit hour. Small, planned, and incremental increases have been and continue to be our philosophy. Parents with children in 5th grade today can, with relative confidence, estimate their tuition costs at Parkland College.
Regardless, the point is the fact that James Randi has a Foundation, an “educational” foundation nonetheless. The James Randi Educational Foundation is the sponsor of the “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge”, a fund set up to provide the first person that could provide objective proof of paranormal activity. The website is silent on protocol around a second occurrence.
Allegedly, over 1,000 applications have been filed but no one has passed the preliminary test, which requires that both parties must agree in advance as to what conditions of the test constitute a success and what constitutes a failure.
With that setup, I found two articles that trouble me this week. Neither was written this week, but I just now got around to reading them.
The first article is a defense of the ongoing and growing criticism around the cost of higher education. The second deals with the how bad colleges and universities are in terms of graduation rates. Half of my audience is now gone. I am sorry. Next week, I’ll try to do something more topical.
Here is an excerpt from the first:
“Another strand of the dysfunction narrative focuses on the gold plating of the college experience. In this view, colleges spend far too much money on lifestyle amenities. The criticisms fall on things as diverse as career advising centers, psychological counseling, and plush exercise rooms.“
“Lax workplace culture at colleges and universities offers yet another fat target. Tenure is a common punching bag. In different tellings of the story, the faculty either does not work hard enough, or alternatively works too hard on the wrong things – research at the expense of teaching. Faculty governance often is fingered as a problem since it supposedly allows the professoriate to dictate the terms of its own employment. These workplace culture arguments often are augmented by politicized attacks on the type of research done by many professors in the humanities and social sciences.”
“Lastly, statistics indicating that administrators and support staff have grown as a percentage of the higher education workforce supposedly offer even more evidence of rising inefficiency. Over the past 20 years, as enrollment has grown by 40 percent, the number of support-staff members on campuses has doubled. This is often taken as prima facie evidence of bloat and inefficiency.”
- The Real Cost Equation by Robert B. Archibald and David H. Feldman, published October 19, 2010.
In fairness to the authors, this treatment is geared more toward university structure, but they do mention “colleges” a number of times and that makes it relevant to me.
In keeping with the Amazing Randi’s rules, which require advance agreement on the conditions of the test and what constitutes success and failure, I will begin. Unfortunately, I have no paranormal skills and, therefore, cannot know if you will agree with my evidence or argument ahead of time, but that circumstance didn’t deter better people than me.
I will begin with tuition increases. From the mid-1990s through 2003, tuition increase $2 per credit hour each year. From 2003 to present, the increase has been $5 per credit hour. Small, planned, and incremental increases have been and continue to be our philosophy. Parents with children in 5th grade today can, with relative confidence, estimate their tuition costs at Parkland College.
As far as exotic services like a career center, psychological counseling, and plush exercise rooms, technically we have all three.
The Career Center at Parkland has three staff members assigned. As I mentioned in a previous post, I hear countless tales from thankful students (and parents) about how Parkland College helped a son or daughter, husband or wife, mom or dad, figure out their academic and career goals. And in the College Center, so many of the students I talk with are undecided about what they want to do and are looking for a little guidance, so much so that I think almost every student would benefit from a visit. Whether you are a student choosing a college major, a dislocated worker, career changer, or retiree, there are resources and services designed to help. No sleight of hand here.
The Career Center at Parkland has three staff members assigned. As I mentioned in a previous post, I hear countless tales from thankful students (and parents) about how Parkland College helped a son or daughter, husband or wife, mom or dad, figure out their academic and career goals. And in the College Center, so many of the students I talk with are undecided about what they want to do and are looking for a little guidance, so much so that I think almost every student would benefit from a visit. Whether you are a student choosing a college major, a dislocated worker, career changer, or retiree, there are resources and services designed to help. No sleight of hand here.
We have eight counselors at Parkland that are certified to do personal counseling. Each counselor and advisor has their own style and I found it very interesting to see the different techniques in action when I visited. I view it as a good thing that we have such a diversity of approach in the Center as it allows our students to find a compatible soul and a connection with that person. This type of work with students requires exceptional listening skills and the ability to “translate” what a student is attempting to communicate. Some students provide very little information and other times, it’s a flood. As more students with diagnosed and undiagnosed conditions come to college, our staff is asked to do more.
Advances in pharmaceuticals and better treatment options allow students that once never considered higher education to attend. And our counselor to student ratio is 2,598 students to 1 counselor. If there was ever a need for the “saw the woman in half” trick, here it is.
Our “plush fitness center” is on the way. Today, students, staff, and faculty share a basement hallway that has been walled off to make a “fitness center”. Since 1987, this approximately 1200 square feet has served our community poorly and we are building a new one that will contain over-the-top amenities like open floor space (#6,7,& 8), two offices (#4 & 5), and two classrooms (#3). If that fits your definition of “plush” there you have it. Sound like smoke and mirrors?
Let’s move on to those dastardly faculty members.
The claim is that “the faculty either does not work hard enough, or alternatively works too hard on the wrong things”. I smile as I type this next bit.
The full-time faculty at Parkland College teach between 15 and 16 credit hours per semester. Here is the math: Each credit hour taught requires two clock hours per week of in-class time, preparation, grading, assessing, answering questions, et cetera. The faculty is also required to hold five office hours per week, during which they are available to students for questions, assistance, advising, and the like. And additional five hours per week is allocated to departmental or college service. This includes committee work, curriculum development and coordination, recruitment, research, advisory committee organization, or any number of related activities. That looks like a 40 hour work week to me. No illusions here.
Lastly, there are allegedly “statistics indicating that administrators and support staff have grown as a percentage of the higher education workforce”. I suspect this is aimed largely at the proliferating number of administrators hired to manage the bureaucracy the higher education is. You will find no argument from me on the last part of that sentence. Imposed bureaucracy grows faster than the national debt in the form of state and federally mandated reports, audits, surveys, legal requirements, legislation, and grant pursuits, to name just a very few.
In 2000, Parkland College employed 39 people that had administrative contracts. In 2010, that number got a little out of control, growing to an amazing (just like Randi) 40 administrators.
The full-time faculty at Parkland College teach between 15 and 16 credit hours per semester. Here is the math: Each credit hour taught requires two clock hours per week of in-class time, preparation, grading, assessing, answering questions, et cetera. The faculty is also required to hold five office hours per week, during which they are available to students for questions, assistance, advising, and the like. And additional five hours per week is allocated to departmental or college service. This includes committee work, curriculum development and coordination, recruitment, research, advisory committee organization, or any number of related activities. That looks like a 40 hour work week to me. No illusions here.
Lastly, there are allegedly “statistics indicating that administrators and support staff have grown as a percentage of the higher education workforce”. I suspect this is aimed largely at the proliferating number of administrators hired to manage the bureaucracy the higher education is. You will find no argument from me on the last part of that sentence. Imposed bureaucracy grows faster than the national debt in the form of state and federally mandated reports, audits, surveys, legal requirements, legislation, and grant pursuits, to name just a very few.
In 2000, Parkland College employed 39 people that had administrative contracts. In 2010, that number got a little out of control, growing to an amazing (just like Randi) 40 administrators.
One might ask what the numbers for support staff look like? I can’t find the number for 2000 at this very moment, but in 2003, there were 258 support staff at Parkland. Today there are 236.
By the way, student enrollment in 2000 was 14,640 per year. Today, we are just over 20,000. No spoon bending here.
The second article, or more accurately, series of articles, has to do with the very popular “completion agenda”.
Most of the national discussion about community college focuses on completion rates. How long does it take a student to complete a two-year degree? This appears to be a very simple, straight forward question. Colleges should be able to count the total number of students enrolled in a given year as well as the number that graduate and calculate the completion rate. In order for this kind of measure to be valid, we need to accurately define the cohort of students to be tracked and we need to define a reasonable timeframe that reflects reality. Let me tell you now that this is nearly impossible. I’ll explain.
One might assume in perfect world in terms of cohort and timeframe, the completion rate would be 50%. That would be a perfect score, assuming all our students enrolled full-time and in 2-year degree programs of 60 to 65 credit hours.
The inset table, generated by our own Institutional Research Office, reviews both number and percentage of ALL students enrolled in CREDIT course at Parkland in a given year. It takes a very simple look at total number of students enrolled versus and how many “graduate” in the various categories.
By the way, student enrollment in 2000 was 14,640 per year. Today, we are just over 20,000. No spoon bending here.
The second article, or more accurately, series of articles, has to do with the very popular “completion agenda”.
“Supporters and critics of community colleges alike question the merits of the primary success metric currently produced by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System: the "federal graduation rate," the completion rate for first-time, full-time students who earn credentials within 150 percent (recently changed to 200 percent) of the generally accepted amount of time it takes to complete. (In other words, four years for a two-year degree, and eight years for a four-year degree.)
Supporters say the current data don't reflect the good work the colleges do, failing to account for the many students who transfer to four-year institutions without degrees, and the many students who come to the institutions for something less than a degree -- a certificate, or even just some retraining -- and get what they wanted. Critics argue that better data would simply provide clearer evidence that community colleges are failing in their mission, reinforcing what are terribly low completion rates at some institutions.”
- Measuring 2-Year Students' Success October 21, 2010
Most of the national discussion about community college focuses on completion rates. How long does it take a student to complete a two-year degree? This appears to be a very simple, straight forward question. Colleges should be able to count the total number of students enrolled in a given year as well as the number that graduate and calculate the completion rate. In order for this kind of measure to be valid, we need to accurately define the cohort of students to be tracked and we need to define a reasonable timeframe that reflects reality. Let me tell you now that this is nearly impossible. I’ll explain.
One might assume in perfect world in terms of cohort and timeframe, the completion rate would be 50%. That would be a perfect score, assuming all our students enrolled full-time and in 2-year degree programs of 60 to 65 credit hours.
The inset table, generated by our own Institutional Research Office, reviews both number and percentage of ALL students enrolled in CREDIT course at Parkland in a given year. It takes a very simple look at total number of students enrolled versus and how many “graduate” in the various categories.
You can see from the chart that in our best year of the three -- 2009, just 8% of all credit students at Parkland graduated with a degree or certificate.
As a taxpayer and a human being, this figure is disconcerting to say the least. I would contend that the table above is not very useful way of measuring a college. Matter of fact, it’s useless.
Why? Four reasons:
The first issue with this measure is that the vast majority of our students are enrolled in two year programs, meaning that only about half of our students are eligible to graduate any given year. A perfect score for that year would have us graduating (16,780 students /2 years = 8390) 8390 students. If you agree with this logic, our completion rate rises to 17.8%.
Second, as you are aware, the student population enrolling at a community college is far more diverse in terms of age, background, and socio-economic status than a university. The vast majority of undergraduate university students attend full-time, taking 12 or more credit hours each semester. At Parkland, less than half of our students attend full-time. Actually, only 43% of our students attend full-time and the other 56% attend part-time. We also know from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement that 80% of our students work 20 hours a week or more.
For discussion purposes, let’s assume that students that attend college part-time will take 4 years to complete a two year degree. Some take more and some less, but this is as good of a starting point as any.
In 2009, we had 16,780 students enrolled in credit courses. We know 56.3% of that number are attending part-time. That comes to 9,447 part-time students.
If we were to adjust the original table to account for part-time students, how would it affect the “perfect score”? The number is now 6027 and our completion rate becomes 24.8%.
The third difference lies in student intent. Nearly 70% of our students at Parkland consider themselves to be degree-seeking. By the way, even though a student may have declared themselves to be degree-seeking population, some incalculable percentage has no intention of finishing a degree or certificate. There are several reasons why this is the case. First, in order to qualify for financial aid, a student must pursue a degree. For many students, this leads to an arbitrary and meaningless decision.
Regardless, we know that only 70% of our students in a given year are actually pursuing a degree, at best. How does this knowledge affect the “perfect score”? The number is now 4228 and the completion rate becomes 35.3%.
As an aside, the 30% of our students that intend to transfer to a university to finish a 4-year degree, there is little incentive to complete the requirements for an associate degree. Students are most likely to transfer after having completed just 38 credit hours of transferable general education course work. In addition, we enroll approximately 5000 University of Illinois concurrent students each year. By serving these students, by some completion measures, it actual hurts our completion/graduation rate.
Fourth, approximately 9% of the students at Parkland are enrolled in developmental coursework. The “extra” classes that a student may need to complete before enrolling in college-level classes can range from as little as 3 to as much as 30 credit hours for students entering at the lowest levels. I do not have the data on hand to accurately calculate the effect that developmental courses have on completion rates without going into student-level data, but the point is still valid.
Depending on your preference and your faith in the assumptions I made in the calculations, you may or may not agree that 35.3% is a more accurate representation of the graduation rate for Parkland College. With a little bit of discussion, we could probably agree that this (or a reasonable variation) scenario is accurate. My point is that one of the most significant issues in the completion agenda discussion is in defining the cohort of students to be tracked.
To complicate the picture further, we shift focus to the reporting we already perform.
Currently, we report our graduation/completion rates in two ways. The first method is for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and the second is for the Illinois Community College Board/Board of Higher Education.
With respect to IPEDS, there are two measures of significance. The first are data are for full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking student graduation rates within 150% of normal time to program completion. Our latest published rate is 23%. For comparison purposes, IPEDS assigns us to a comparison group of other, similar colleges. The comparison group rate, which included 7 other Illinois community colleges, was 15%.
In comparison to all community colleges in Illinois, which is not an apples to apples comparison, Parkland ranks 28th of 48 campuses, with the highest rate at 46% (Frontier CC) and lowest at 3% (Olive Harvey CC).
The second significant IPEDS measure has to do with graduation rates of full-time, first-time, degree-seeking students at three different points: 100%, 150%, and 200% of normal time to completion. Using this measure, Parkland College consistently outperforms its 26 peer colleges.
Our numbers for 2009 with comparison group rates in parenthesis:
With respect to the Illinois Board of Higher Education’s Data Book on Illinois Higher Education, the measure of graduation/completion rates is slightly different. Community Colleges are judged on the proportion of first-time, full-time freshmen who complete their degree with 150% of catalog time, transfer, or are still enrolled at the college. Obviously, this is a much broader measure. Using the most recent data, Parkland College shows 75.2%. When using this measure, Parkland ranks 2nd in the state, after Rend Lake Community College.
In summary, Parkland College appears to be in the middle of the pack with respect to some measures (that don’t take into account significant difference between colleges) to nearly the top performer when other measures (IBHE) are applied.
Clearly, there is lack of agreement among those we are accountable to with respect to what the cohort of students should be as well as the timeframe that makes sense. The completion agenda, as it sits today, is a mess. There are several competing models, funding sources, and interests with no clear picture as to which model, if any, will be the winner.
As a taxpayer and a human being, this figure is disconcerting to say the least. I would contend that the table above is not very useful way of measuring a college. Matter of fact, it’s useless.
Why? Four reasons:
The first issue with this measure is that the vast majority of our students are enrolled in two year programs, meaning that only about half of our students are eligible to graduate any given year. A perfect score for that year would have us graduating (16,780 students /2 years = 8390) 8390 students. If you agree with this logic, our completion rate rises to 17.8%.
Second, as you are aware, the student population enrolling at a community college is far more diverse in terms of age, background, and socio-economic status than a university. The vast majority of undergraduate university students attend full-time, taking 12 or more credit hours each semester. At Parkland, less than half of our students attend full-time. Actually, only 43% of our students attend full-time and the other 56% attend part-time. We also know from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement that 80% of our students work 20 hours a week or more.
For discussion purposes, let’s assume that students that attend college part-time will take 4 years to complete a two year degree. Some take more and some less, but this is as good of a starting point as any.
In 2009, we had 16,780 students enrolled in credit courses. We know 56.3% of that number are attending part-time. That comes to 9,447 part-time students.
If we were to adjust the original table to account for part-time students, how would it affect the “perfect score”? The number is now 6027 and our completion rate becomes 24.8%.
The third difference lies in student intent. Nearly 70% of our students at Parkland consider themselves to be degree-seeking. By the way, even though a student may have declared themselves to be degree-seeking population, some incalculable percentage has no intention of finishing a degree or certificate. There are several reasons why this is the case. First, in order to qualify for financial aid, a student must pursue a degree. For many students, this leads to an arbitrary and meaningless decision.
Regardless, we know that only 70% of our students in a given year are actually pursuing a degree, at best. How does this knowledge affect the “perfect score”? The number is now 4228 and the completion rate becomes 35.3%.
As an aside, the 30% of our students that intend to transfer to a university to finish a 4-year degree, there is little incentive to complete the requirements for an associate degree. Students are most likely to transfer after having completed just 38 credit hours of transferable general education course work. In addition, we enroll approximately 5000 University of Illinois concurrent students each year. By serving these students, by some completion measures, it actual hurts our completion/graduation rate.
Fourth, approximately 9% of the students at Parkland are enrolled in developmental coursework. The “extra” classes that a student may need to complete before enrolling in college-level classes can range from as little as 3 to as much as 30 credit hours for students entering at the lowest levels. I do not have the data on hand to accurately calculate the effect that developmental courses have on completion rates without going into student-level data, but the point is still valid.
Depending on your preference and your faith in the assumptions I made in the calculations, you may or may not agree that 35.3% is a more accurate representation of the graduation rate for Parkland College. With a little bit of discussion, we could probably agree that this (or a reasonable variation) scenario is accurate. My point is that one of the most significant issues in the completion agenda discussion is in defining the cohort of students to be tracked.
To complicate the picture further, we shift focus to the reporting we already perform.
Currently, we report our graduation/completion rates in two ways. The first method is for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and the second is for the Illinois Community College Board/Board of Higher Education.
With respect to IPEDS, there are two measures of significance. The first are data are for full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking student graduation rates within 150% of normal time to program completion. Our latest published rate is 23%. For comparison purposes, IPEDS assigns us to a comparison group of other, similar colleges. The comparison group rate, which included 7 other Illinois community colleges, was 15%.
In comparison to all community colleges in Illinois, which is not an apples to apples comparison, Parkland ranks 28th of 48 campuses, with the highest rate at 46% (Frontier CC) and lowest at 3% (Olive Harvey CC).
The second significant IPEDS measure has to do with graduation rates of full-time, first-time, degree-seeking students at three different points: 100%, 150%, and 200% of normal time to completion. Using this measure, Parkland College consistently outperforms its 26 peer colleges.
Our numbers for 2009 with comparison group rates in parenthesis:
100% of normal time: 10% (7%)
150% of normal time: 23% (16%)
200% of normal time: 30% (22%)
With respect to the Illinois Board of Higher Education’s Data Book on Illinois Higher Education, the measure of graduation/completion rates is slightly different. Community Colleges are judged on the proportion of first-time, full-time freshmen who complete their degree with 150% of catalog time, transfer, or are still enrolled at the college. Obviously, this is a much broader measure. Using the most recent data, Parkland College shows 75.2%. When using this measure, Parkland ranks 2nd in the state, after Rend Lake Community College.
In summary, Parkland College appears to be in the middle of the pack with respect to some measures (that don’t take into account significant difference between colleges) to nearly the top performer when other measures (IBHE) are applied.
Clearly, there is lack of agreement among those we are accountable to with respect to what the cohort of students should be as well as the timeframe that makes sense. The completion agenda, as it sits today, is a mess. There are several competing models, funding sources, and interests with no clear picture as to which model, if any, will be the winner.
The community college equivalent of the James Randi Foundation exists several times over as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Lumina, and others offer financial incentives to create the mutually agreed upon test.
It appears to me that Parkland College is performing well in general, but when our data is disaggregated, we know we have work to do. Examples are minority student completion and retention rates and certificate completion rates, due in large part to a small number of certificate programs available at Parkland.
It appears to me that Parkland College is performing well in general, but when our data is disaggregated, we know we have work to do. Examples are minority student completion and retention rates and certificate completion rates, due in large part to a small number of certificate programs available at Parkland.
Yes, we have work to do and readily embrace that challenge every day. You expect it of us.
In order to do this job, some tools are required. We need well-trained and dedicated staff, faculty, and yes, administrators. The endeavor requires a physical campus (somewhere between spartan and plush) that isn’t embarrassingly on consignment from the 1970’s in terms of décor and technology. And finally, we should be held accountable for our performance using measures that make sense.
(4924)
Great post, Tom. Will the day ever come when two-year colleges are not grouped in with huge public research-oriented universities?
ReplyDeleteIn general, so much of what we do is help students move from where they are to the next step, whatever that step may be. And we do a pretty good job of it.
I'm coming to the conclusion that if we create a set of measures applicable to what we do (or don't do) at Parkland and earn the buy-in of our Trustees, transfer institutions, and our community, we will know exactly what work we have to do. We aren't there yet, but agreement on what constitutes "doing a good job" is a great start.
ReplyDeleteOur new simplified mission statement should lead us to the definition of "a good job." The satisfaction of our community as we engage them in learning should be the benchmark for our success. If we remain in the excellent standing we have earned within our community, and adjust accordingly to their learning needs, we are successful. Therefore, numbers are not the proof of our success, our community is.
ReplyDelete