minahkaypoh

Today's NY Times notes the importance of considering the net price families pay for college, not the sticker price, using an example from Wisconsin. Specifically, in a column by David Leonhardt, Professor Sarah Turner presents data from the College Navigator tool (which in turn draws on the 2009-2010 IPEDS information) to show that " at the less-selective campuses in the University of Wisconsin system, for example, the average net annual cost for a year of tuition, room, board and fees in 2010-11 was almost $10,000 for families making less than $30,000, Ms. Turner said. At the flagship campus in Madison, by contrast, the equivalent net cost was $6,000. " While I'm certainly friendly to Turner's primary point-- that because of institutional financial aid attending the state's flagship may be effectively less expensive  for needy students than attending another public university-- the recitation of this figure gave me cause for concern. First, as I pointed out h

A couple of months ago, I tweeted an inquiry to find out who was doing thoughtful, critical research on the transformations in education taking place in New Orleans.  After reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine and getting a better picture of the grander aims some people have for New Orleans as a "great experiment," I wanted to gain insights into the lived experiences of parents and children going through it. As usual, Twitter was incredibly helpful: multiple sources directed me to the work of Adrienne Dixson and Sarah Carr .  After reading some of their work, I immediately invited them to participate in Ed Talks Wisconsin , and the Educational Policy Studies conference that followed it. I then began carving out time each evening to work my way through Sarah's new book Hope Against Hope: Three Schools, One City, and the Struggle to Educate America's Children .  After two nights, I found myself genuinely looking forward to reading more, rushing through my evening

A colleague who is skeptical of my argument that students and families are susceptible to sticker shock, and that this particularly affects the choices of those without financial strength, raising a good question: If these students and families don't know about financial aid (or changes in financial aid), why would they know about institutional sticker price (or changes in institutional stick price)? The answer appeared during a trip I took on the New York City subway today. Look at this ad and you tell me-- isn't the message quite clear?  If this is the number you see as you stare at subways ads for an hour commute to work, don't you think it will sink in?  With so many ads all the time telling the buyer "Trust us, big discount! Just file papers!" why would anyone believe another one, let alone one that comes with a long complex set of forms. It's a mistake to focus merely on the question of whether a net price intervention can move the dial a bit, helping so

It seems UW-Madison's system of shared governance may be a new act for Chancellor Rebecca Blank to learn.   An interview conducted with journalists today shows her on the record weighing in on both tuition strategies and the composition of the student body . A word to the wise:  This year the University Committee charged two committees to work on these exact issues.  The tuition committee has been meeting and working hard all year long -- hiking out-of-state tuition and differentiating tuition further by school or college are strategies that come with significant potential consequences.   Reciprocity with Minnesota is costing the university a great deal of money and ending it should not be dismissed out of hand .  Regardless, these are not choices made simply by the chancellor, but by the shared governance system.  In addition, the Committee on Undergraduate Recruitment, Admissions, and Financial Aid was tasked with developing a profile of the ideal freshman class and working on wa

Sunday's New York Times carried a front page story on a crisis in American higher education. I think that's excellent, and I'm thrilled for Caroline Hoxby and Chris Avery, whose research is featured. These economists managed to draw national attention to a major problem-- despite decades of public and private investment, barely 1 in 10 children from low-income families earns a bachelor's degree. And this isn't because they aren't smart, or aren't taking college admissions exams-- plenty of them taking many of the right steps towards college.  But they are not ending up there. Hoxby and Avery begin to help us understand why  by evaluating the merits of several urban legends, two of which are repeated by seemingly every elite college admissions officer in the country: (1) "We don't have more Pell recipients on campus because there are simply too few students from low-income families academically qualified to get in here."  In other words, bright

Paul Fanlund's column today on the process through which Rebecca Blank was selected as chancellor raises some very important questions.  These strike me as the sorts of questions that one should ask regardless of whether or not they agree with the choice of Blank.  After all, these process issues go to the heart of how we select a chancellor at a shared governance institution. 1. How are we to know whom the campus "unanimously" supports? The current practice is that the process of official input from shared governance bodies ends when the search and screen committee names its four finalists. When that committee meets with the Regents special committee, it is to provide input on what people on campus said about all of the candidates.  At no point in the Blank search did the search and screen committee have the opportunity to tell the Regent committee whom the campus "unanimously" chose. Moreover, the search and screen committee did not have a clear selection of

This post is by  Chad Goldberg, Professor of Sociology at UW-Madison and Vice President of United Faculty and Staff , the campus unit of the American Federation of Teachers. As a card-carrying member, I am proud to provide this outlet to Chad to share his thoughts. Chad and Rebecca meet, 2013

This blog is called the Education Optimists  and so it's with great hope and the strong desire to be pleasantly surprised that I am responding to the announcement that Dr. Rebecca Blank is the next chancellor of UW-Madison. First, the good news.  With Blank at the helm, we can expect that the thoughtful scholars of the Institute for Research on Poverty and the La Follette School of Public Affairs will play an important role in the direction of our institution in coming years.  I suspect policy formation on affordability and tuition will be guided by Bob Haveman , Chris Taber , and Karl Scholz , efforts on diversity and access will be led by Bobbi Wolfe , and our interactions with social policies throughout the state will be shaped by  Tim Smeeding . These labor economists are experts in their field, and will undoubtedly constitute a vocal cabinet for Blank.   Second, the Social Sciences will flourish under Blank's direction. As a sociologist, that's nice to know. Third, I e

This is an important week for UW System and not only because of the UW-Madison chancellor search but also because the search for a new chancellor of Eau-Claire has also been wrapped up. The media indicates an announcement naming that new leader will come Monday . With sincerest apologies to our sister school, I've been focusing on Madison while apparently fires are burning over at Eau-Claire.  Contrary to the media account just referenced,  5 candidates were not  under consideration this week-- instead, there were just 2.   All three female candidates for chancellor of UW-Eau Claire pulled out of the search.   Where there's smoke like that, there's usual fire.  Why in the world did these three women withdraw their applications? 1. Pam Benoit, executive vice president and provost at Ohio University 2. Kathryn Cruz-Uribe, provost and vice president for academic affairs at California State University, Monterey Bay 3. Anne E. Huot, provost and vice president for academic affair

Two letters from students are circulating on campus this morning. Here they are.

There is an ongoing and reasonably interesting debate about the Obama Administration's College Scorecard that I'd like to weigh in on, in order to draw out what's gone unsaid. On one side of the debate are a set of elite college presidents who think the Scorecard's narrow focus on economic returns to the degree miss the mark; the college-going decision should be about more than getting a job. For example, Harvard President Drew Faust writes that " the focus in federal policy making and rhetoric on earnings data as the indicator of the value of higher education will further the growing perception that a college degree should be simply a ticket to a first job, rather than a passport to a lifetime of citizenship, opportunity, growth and change ... Equating the value of education with the size of a first paycheck badly distorts broader principles and commitments essential to our society and our future. " On the other side are people like the Brookings Institutio

My email inbox has been filled today with notes from upset colleagues who seem to feel I've misjudged Rebecca Blank's capacity for leading UW-Madison.  They don't understand, I'm told, how I can overlook her clear talents, deep commitments to social justice, and great scholarship. I don't think I am.  I don't doubt any of those things.  This isn't about whether I like her or think she  can  do the job. The question is for which candidate -- Michael Schill or Rebecca Blank-- do we have the best evidence of success  at UW-Madison . I'd like to lay out more data for your consideration.  These are the types of things that led to my assessment, and so I encourage you to look for yourself, and then provide your input by tonight! (The committee will vote in the morning). Write to:  Chancellor-search@secfac.wisc.edu The Badger Herald posed direct questions to the candidates. Here is how they responded. How would you balance UW’s status as an elite institut

As a social scientist engaged in poverty research, I wanted very much to like and welcome Rebecca Blank to campus. When the list was announced, I immediately expressed positive feelings-- she was well-liked the last time she came to campus. Her colleagues and friends adore her, and came out in droves to meet with her today. People whom I respect immensely, including Bobbi Wolfe, Bob Haveman, Chris Taber, Karl Scholz and Tim Smeeding, are very supportive of her. Should she come, she'd join them as economists and colleagues at the Institute for Research on Poverty, and undoubtedly help to grow that part of the university. Unfortunately, given that my first priority is not my corner of campus but rather helping to ensure that Wisconsin's great public flagship university is led by someone who wants it to serve all  of the people of Wisconsin, I cannot support the candidacy of this undoubtedly outstanding researcher and public servant.  I gave her the same litmus test I used with Mi

I like my son's public school. I really do. He's in kindergarten this year. I find his school to be a nurturing environment with a solid focus on learning and a similar focus on community and respect for others. His school was recently recognized by the state for its overall academic achievement and for being in the top 10% of state Title I schools for achievement growth in math and reading. But his school - and the entire school district - made a curious decision last Friday. As a result of the high school boys' basketball team making it into the state tournament, school was released early (just after lunch), eliminating about 150 minutes of academic time. Parents were given four days notice that this was going to happen. I think it this was an attempt to encourage community pride. A note came home in my son's folder and an email was circulated encouraging families to support the high school athletes by attending the state championship game mid-afternoon on Friday. But

Working on some shared governance tasks this evening, and time with this data  really got me thinking. For the first time, probably in UW-Madison's history, we are enrolling more legacy students than first-generation students.   Enrollment of Wisconsin residents is at an historic low, while enrollment of international students is at an historic high. Enrollment is a function of applications, admit rates, and yield. Arguably, changes in policies around cost and campus climate (e.g. the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates-- see below) most often affect the yield. So let's look at the yield rates-- the percent of students who accept the admissions offer and choose to attend Madison.  They are quite stable for some groups, but declining for others. By the numbers, of the 6,279 new freshmen who enrolled at UW-Madison in 2012: 1,119 are children of parents who attended UW-Madison 1,033 do not have a college-educated parent    609 are not from the United States    269  are Hispanic

It is long past time to make college free, and thankfully the Atlantic writer Jordan Weissman just laid out the case very nicel y. Jordan points out that the money invested in our financial aid system could instead be invested in appropriations to public colleges and universities to drive down costs.  Yes, aid to private colleges would end. Oh well!  Why do we pay for private colleges when we don't pay for private high schools? (Well, we are starting too but we should stop.)  And yes, we need to cover costs of attendance for the poorest students too and we can do that by charging very low tuition to rich kids to give to poor kids (for whom tuition is free)-- and that's a progressive tuition structure rather than this incredibly deceptive price discounting scheme we now have in place. As I've been pointing out in talks around the country on the subject "When America Goes to College ," our current system of affordability was developed at a time when the college-goin