Marketing swallows up academia

Never mind that financing is elusive and access uneven in higher education. A much larger menace looms, according to a new report from The Futures Project: The ideal of higher education for the common good is being consumed by market trends and competition.

As institutions advertise razzle-dazzle computer labs, luxury dorms, gourmet cafeterias and new stadiums to attract the best and brightest students, they often leave the neediest behind. “Unhealthy competition ... does not necessarily lead to increased access, better instruction, lower costs or greater efficiency,” reads the report, “Correcting Course: How We Can Restore the Ideals of Public Higher Education in a Market-Driven Era,” released in February. “Today, many academic leaders feel compelled to chase revenues and rankings rather than to focus their efforts on providing a high-quality education to an ever-expanding share of the population. Colleges and universities have intensified their competition for students, research dollars, donations, athletic championships and prestige of all kinds.”

To address the problem, authors Lara Couturier and Jamie Scurry recommend state control of educational mission, and institutional autonomy to fulfill it. In contrast, they note, Colorado recently directed tuition funds to students rather than institutions—which are expected to use marketing techniques to lure undergraduates—and Virginia legislators voted to grant more autonomy to state colleges and universities feeling constrained by state initiatives.

Other signs that market forces must be tamed include inadequate financial aid for low-income students, low graduation rates, graduates who are ill-prepared for the workplace, and institution-sponsored research compromised by corporate funding. Rising costs driven by a “war of amenities” is another serious issue—a corresponding rise in tuition once again outpaced inflation in 2004, when tuition rose 10.5 percent at public, four-year institutions and 8.7 percent at public community colleges.

Colleges and universities can work to reverse the market-based trend in higher ed. “Measure what is valued,” the report advises—learning, retention, graduation, and workforce and civic outcomes. Elevate teaching to the status of research. Make sure research is not compromised by corporate sponsorship conflict of interest. Work to improve preparation at primary and secondary schools. Follow through with students once they’ve been enrolled, with academic support throughout their course of study. Attend to efficiency with existing funds. And lead public dialogue on society and politics to engage students and graduates in civic involvement.

State lawmakers should define the benefits of a higher education, create accountability systems to track them, and demand not only access but learning and attainment, says the report. They also should provide the funds necessary to meet these goals and support programs that will improve learning at the college level. And acknowledge that “higher education is not a business.”

The Futures Project is an education policy group based at Brown University and started by the late Frank Newman.

To work, accountability must be democratic

A new report on accountability calls the concept “imperative” for higher education. But according to the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education (NCAHE), organized by the State Higher Education Executive Officers organization, current accountability programs are tangled up in too many disparate statistics, suffer from competition between public agencies and individual institutions, and lose sight of their common goal: better results from colleges and universities. The report calls for a more coordinated and cooperative approach, with clearly delineated responsibilities for all stakeholders and specific measures for improving instruction, research and productivity.

While postsecondary education is already accountable to the student market, trustees and donors, the report notes a lack of general accountability. A “battleground” between policymakers and educators creates an atmosphere of distrust, making it difficult even to set goals. A more democratic process, with clear priorities, measured progress, and motivation toward a shared vision would be more effective. Less emphasis on ratings and more on learning, student achievement, research and service would be one signal of success.

To achieve it, NCAHE suggests dividing responsibilities but maintaining collaboration within the higher education community. Business and civic leaders are urged to serve on education policy boards; legislators should articulate regional needs, goals and priorities, require learning assessments through the certification process and admissions exams, and maintain affordability with financial aid. The federal government could increase financial aid, track students more closely to accurately reflect their progress through academia, and provide better information about higher ed to prospective students. For institutions, establishing goals associated with public priorities (rather than with fundraising), creating the conditions to meet those goals, and monitoring and assessing progress are among the report’s recommendations. Deeper engagement from faculty and students, whose perspectives, advice and feedback the report calls “fundamentally important,” must be persistent and focused on both personal and national goals for higher ed.

But how does one measure success? Part of the report divides the answer in three: instruction, closing performance gaps and research. Instruction should develop tenets set forth by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, including analytical skills, integrative thinking, discipline-based knowledge and responsibility. These should be measured not by standardized tests, which lower expectations, but by faculty assessment of students’ work (“meaningful educational projects”) and rigorous external accreditation—much of which already exists.

To close performance gaps among minority and low-income students, the report suggests early outreach and support systems, rigorous preparation, high-quality teaching and dependable financial aid. Research, essential if the United States is to remain competitive in a global economy, must be balanced with instruction, and could be more effectively linked to practice, policy and industry. The report also recognizes the importance of allowing institutions to control their financing and budgeting decisions to make the most of often limited funding.