Blog

  • September 11, 2014 04:16 PM Jennifer Lawrence and the Sins of Animal House

    Remember Animal House? The insane debauchery of John Belushi and his Delta brethren? That was some crazy, hilarious, make-a-Roman-emperor-blush behavior. I love that movie. Everyone does.

    Except you don’t remember Animal House. Not really. No other book, film, or TV show has done more to shape American higher education. But it’s not what you think it is. The difference between the Animal House of your imagination and the actual movie is a matter of cultural influence so profound and malign that it has become all but invisible. It’s the story of how we all became Deltas now, and why we should start trying to become something else.

    If Friday Night Lights is a parable of internal migration, Animal House is the tale of the immigrant’s first year in the New World. It starts with newly-arrived freshmen walking across the campus landscape. There are two, because movies need dialogue, and that way they can make observations to one another about what they see and feel. We follow them on a journey of discovery, meeting strange people and seeing incredible things as they join the legendary Delta House and do battle with rival Omega House and the university administration. We also experience their moral development as they’re faced with choices that define who they are.

    If this sounds familiar, that’s because (A) this is textbook Hollywood screenplay structure, and (B) Animal House established the mold for almost every other college movie made in the last four decades. You haven’t just seen the original a bunch of times on cable; you’ve seen the many variations on the theme: social outcasts (Revenge of the Nerds), delayed adulthood (Van Wilder), restored childhood (Old School), middle-aged guy (Back to School), children’s cartoon characters (Monsters University), a capella singers (Pitch Perfect), stoners at Harvard (How High), smart bimbo at Harvard (Legally Blonde), fake black guy at Harvard (Soul Man), and so on. 22 Jump Street was released three months ago and has already made $300 million. Thirty-six years after it opened, Animal House is going strong.

    What does Animal House teach us about college? First, that academics are peripheral to the core experience of socialization. (Arum and Roksa’s Aspiring Adults Adrift has a good summary of the sociology literature here). Faber College’s motto, “Knowledge is Good,” is a joke. There is exactly one member of the faculty in the film: Donald Sutherland’s hapless, pot-smoking English lit professor. He’s only there because the producers needed a big-name movie star to get the film made. We meet him standing in the well of a lecture hall in a scene that appears roughly 20 minutes into every college movie. He says a few things about Milton that resonate with the movie’s larger themes (Animal House is smarter than nearly all of its successors) before the bell rings and the students leave, ignoring his warnings about incomplete assignments. “I’m not joking!” he says, pleading. “This is my job!”

    Sincere, unimportant, slightly absurd–this is every movie professor since. Patton Oswalt reprises the role, beat for beat, in 22 Jump Street. Same lecture hall, same establishing sequence, with the camera switching from the student’s-eye view down onto the professor and his view up toward the students, sitting impassively behind desks. And the same kind of futility in conclusion: “I have tenure, ha ha! I can do whatever I want!” In Back to School, Sam Kinison is the variant of professor as deranged weirdo. They exist only to amuse.

    College administrators play a more important role. They are always villains. The Animal House score was written by the composer Elmer Bernstein, who made a career with movies including The Ten Commandments and The Magnificent Seven. Director John Landis told Bernstein to score Animal House in the same dramatic style. So when an exterior shot of Dean Wormer’s office in the administration building first appears at the 12 minute mark, the musical cue drops from light to ominous and low: duh duh DUH….

    John Vernon is fantastic in this role. The evil dean (never the president, always the dean) invariably gets some of the best lines. See Jeremy Piven’s Dean Pritchard in Old School (“absolutely not, it’s been good seeing you guys”), or Lisa Kudrow’s Dean Gladstone in Neighbors (“The way I do my job is, I’m always thinking about the headlines, right? So, ‘Duke Lacrosse Team Rapes Stripper’? Bad headline.”). Helen Mirren’s Dean Hardscrabble is a terrifying monster. Ted McGinley is the only man to play both of the iconic college movie hate figures, staring as the rival fraternity president in Revenge of the Nerds and returning as the evil dean in Revenge of the Nerds 3. And, of course, “That foot is me.”

    The dean is the villain because Animal House, set in 1962 but released in a very different 1978, is structured around conflict with traditional authority, both institutional (college, local government) and class-based (Omega House is full of fascist WASPs). Delta’s position is best summarized by Otter, their smooth-talking leader, at a campus disciplinary trial:

    Classic. Especially when he says, “The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female party guests. We did. (Wink.) But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals!”

    Hold on. What?

    “A few liberties with our female guests?” What’s that supposed to mean, exactly? Sick and perverted how? Because honestly, that sounds messed up and possibly criminal. Tell me why these are the good guys again?

    This is the problem with Animal House.

    In his book, Fat, Drunk, & Stupid: The Inside Story Behind the Making of Animal House, the movie’s producer, Matty Simmons, explains that he ordered all of the truly offensive elements of Delta House excised from the script. He understood that in order for the movie to become a big, profitable hit (it made almost $500 million in 2014 dollars, on a tiny budget), the audience needed to see the Deltas as unambiguous heroes.

    Take the infamous “toga party,” which Neidermeyer (dead!) describes at the trial as featuring “individual acts of perversion so profound and disgusting that decorum prohibits us listing them here.” The actual toga party is nothing like that. Here’s how it goes: As guests arrive, a keg flies out the window. Some girls are welcomed in by Otter, who then drops their coats on the ground. Flounder and his date arrive, dodging a thrown drink. John Belushi comes down the stairs and destroys a folk singer’s guitar. Everyone goes to the basement and dances to a joyful rendition of “Shout” by Otis Day and the Knights. Mrs. Wormer shows up drunk and is seduced by Otter in his super-tricked-out senior crash pad, which would be copied by Zac Ephron’s frat president in Neighbors ($266 million gross on an $18 million budget since it was released in May.) Pinto’s date passes out and, after a brief bout of conscience, he decides to do the right thing and leave her be.

    That’s it. Nobody hurts themselves or anyone else, except for Bluto and the guitar, which I think we can all agree was an act of civic heroism. It’s all good fun, albeit not clean, because a big part of Animal House’s sleight-of-hand is substituting physical degradation for moral turpitude. Delta House is filthy. Coats are dropped, drinks thrown, beer sprayed, and the fake sound of breaking glass is a recurring aural theme. When Belushi stuffs his face with food in the cafeteria and Babs says “That boy is a P-I-G pig!” she can only mean it literally. When he gets drunk, he pours mustard on himself, nothing worse. Beneath the layer of stale beer, the Deltas are all good boys.

    Animal House instructed two generations of students that college was all about getting drunk and committing disgusting acts of perversion. But because it doesn’t actually show anything of the sort (with one exception), the viewer isn’t forced to acknowledge the actual human and moral consequences of those choices. We’re allowed to be completely on the Delta side, with no reservations or strings attached.

    This creates a weird separation from reality. Remember when Belushi, clad in his iconic “College” sweatshirt, downs a whole bottle of Jack Daniels in front of Delta House and says, refreshed, “Thanks–I needed that” before tossing the bottle aside? (Cue sound of broken glass.) Every year, scores of college kids do the same thing and end up dead of alcohol poisoning, drunk driving and misadventure. Belushi himself was in the grave within four years. Drunk Mrs. Wormer crashes her car in the Delta parking lot and emerges without a scratch, flask in hand. Other people aren’t so lucky.

    In the real world, “taking a few liberties with our female party guests” means an 18-year-old freshman, three weeks into college, drunk and incapacitated after a party at the Kappa Sigma house, “bent over a pool table as a football player appeared to be sexually assaulting her from behind in a darkened dance hall with six or seven people watching and laughing.” This happens over and over again to thousands upon thousands of college women every year.

    Why do men treat women this way, as less than fully human? In part, because movies like Animal House tell them to. The film is supposed to be about standing up to authority. The Deltas are rebels and free spirits, and Belushi is always described as “anarchic.” But how do they fight authority, exactly? Not by doing anything that actually changes the balance of power. Mainly, they stick it to the Man by having sex with his women.

    This happens no less than three times in Animal House. First, off-screen, when Otter sleeps with Babs, girlfriend of the Omega House president. Again, when Otter has sex with Mrs. Wormer. And again, when Pinto deflowers the mayor’s 13-year old daughter. Because it’s all consensual, we’re supposed to think it’s okay.

    The strategy of using women as vessels for petty revenge is repeated over and over in Animal House’s many successors. In Revenge of the Nerds, Robert Carradine’s head nerd tricks the Babs-equivalent character into having sex with him by pretending to be her boyfriend. Naturally, they fall in love and eventually marry. In Old School, Luke Wilson’s blonde young one-night stand turns out to be his evil boss’s daughter, a high school senior. In Neighbors, Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne use Dave Franco as their proxy, setting him up to sleep with Zac Ephron’s girlfriend as part of their escalating residential war. Exactly no one is surprised to learn that Jonah Hill’s improbably beautiful dorm room hook-up in 22 Jump Street is the daughter of Ice Cube, his authoritarian boss. This is so awesome — not for her, but who cares — that Hill’s partner, Channing Tatum, runs around the police station for five minutes, cackling with glee.

    These conquests accomplish nothing real. They happen because Animal House was the first movie born out of National Lampoon, which was staffed by writers from the Harvard Lampoon circa 1975. Sleeping with your rival’s daughter or girlfriend is the petty anti-authoritarianism of white male privilege. It’s what you do when the stakes are low because, regardless of who wins and who loses, everyone ends up in charge. Animal House concludes with Belushi grabbing Babs against her will, forcing her into a stolen car, and driving away. Ten minutes later, we see her contentedly in his embrace, under the where-are-they-now caption, “Senator and Mrs. John Blutarsky.” Of course.

    And let’s not forget Belushi’s famous NSFW peeping tom scene, where he climbs a ladder to stare into a sorority house at night. After leering at a purely fantastical R-rated pillow fight, he moves over to watch Babs undress through her bedroom window. She relaxed and softly lit, dressed all in white. Because we know she slept with Otter, we’re allowed to enjoy her as both Madonna and whore. Then, at the height of it, Belushi turns around and breaks the fourth wall, looking right into the viewer’s eyes, eyebrow raised. It’s all good, he’s telling us, c’mon, join the fun. Women don’t mind. She’ll belong to me someday.

    Revenge of the Nerds ups the ante with an elaborate closed-circuit nude video surveillance system. Today, the sorority house window is an iPhone pane, the movie screen is a device of your choosing, and Belushi has been replaced by a bunch of dudes on Reddit and 4chan. But nothing is really different. Stolen pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, and dozens of other celebrities, all women, are leaked online, and the entire Internet stops to stare.

    The comedic appeal of Animal House is so total that large parts of the movie operate in a kind of night-is-day inversion. Otter’s next line in the disciplinary trial is, “For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system?” Well, yes, we should in fact blame the whole fraternity system. Systematized cheating on exams and serial non-attendance are perfectly valid grounds for kicking people out school. Fat, drunk, and stupid really is no way to go through life.

    Animal House and its brethren have taught millions of students how to think about college: Professors are fools, women are objects, and administrators are evil incarnate. Drink as much as you want and nothing bad will happen. In fact, you’ll be the hero. After 36 years of this and counting, college movies should find something better to say.

    [Cross-posted at Ed Central]

  • September 11, 2014 11:30 AM Harvard Business School Does Occupy Wall Street

    And this time not just, you know, by taking the good jobs on Wall Street.

    We’ve started to understand that inequality in America is becoming a serious problem for the economic heath of the country in general.

    Last month Standard & Poor’s warned that “extreme income inequality [was] a drag on long-run economic growth and the ratings organization “reduced our 10-year U.S. growth forecast to a 2.5% rate. We expected 2.8% five years ago.”

    According to a piece at Al Jazeera, Harvard Business School’s annual survey of American business competitiveness showed something else that’s pretty disturbing:

    [The survey] reveals a troubling divergence in the U.S. economy. Large and midsize firms have rallied strongly from the Great Recession, and highly-skilled individuals are prospering. But middle- and working-class citizens are struggling, as are small businesses. While HBS alumni saw strengths in elements of the business environment that influence firms’ success, the weaknesses in elements that drive prosperity for the average American indicate that the American economy requires a strategy in order to do its full job. As a start, business leaders must take action to address the structural problems that linger for the nation, even as the cyclical recovery continues. The survey delves into three elements of the business environment that play a key role in restoring U.S. competitiveness: K-12 education, workplace skills, and transportation infrastructure.

    More specifically, “Labor force participation in America peaked in 1997 and has now fallen to levels not seen in three decades. Real hourly wages have stalled even among college-educated Americans; only those with advanced degrees have seen gains.”

    This provides a rather interesting facet of a problem about which education reformers have worried for decades. There is a highly paid technocrat elite in America that is doing quite well in today’s economy (the engineers, many doctors and lawyers, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs) but we are not doing a very good job at all training people to become those with good working class jobs (nurses’ assistants, electricians, plumbers) that also still exist in the country.

    As the survey indicates, this is a problem not just because of the inequality it promotes and justifies, but also because the system is simply not producing enough people to do the things we need to keep the country functioning effectively.

    Can this problem be fixed with K-12 education, workplace skills, and transportation infrastructure? Well, they look like good places to start. Such suggestions make a little more senses than the “just education” improvement strategy recommended by S & P.

    The survey is here.

  • September 10, 2014 06:00 PM The New Maryland Football Uniforms Seem to Have Been Designed by an Old Lady History Teacher

    There’s a lot of really bad news coming out about football lately. We don’t really need to be reminded of that, do we?

    But at long last we’ve got something to restore our faith in the glory of the good old American sport. And this time it’s not just a good game or a wholesome player. According to an article in the Washington Post, the University of Maryland has introduced its new special uniform:

    Maryland, which… announced a 10-year partnership extension with Under Armour, will wear football uniforms inspired by the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Baltimore and the writing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” when it hosts West Virginia at Byrd Stadium on Saturday at noon.
    That is to say the Terps will wear uniforms with the cursive script of Francis Scott Key’s poem “Defence of Fort McHenry,” which later became our national anthem, emblazoned on its helmets and jersey sleeves. Key composed the poem after watching American troops defend Fort McHenry against the British Royal Navy’s bombardment on the night of Sept. 13, 1814, during the War of 1812.

    If this sounds a little ridiculous, that’s because it is a little ridiculous. The new duds will look something like this:

    Pods

    Wow.

    Maryland captains will wear red belts as American military captains did during the Battle of Baltimore, and players’ names will be replaced by the word “TRIUMPH” on the back of their jerseys. The team’s base layers will include the phrase “Conquer We Must,” which was included in Key’s “Defence of Fort McHenry,” but left out of “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

    Really, guys? That’s taking this a little too far. The Terps, after all, will never actually be facing the enemies of freedom on the football field. They’ll mostly just be playing schools like West Virginia University and Ohio State.

    The school is known as the Maryland Terrapins, or Terps. A terrapin is a term for several smaller species of turtle living in fresh or water in the United States. The school has a mascot, it’s sort of cute.

    This new Battle o’ Baltimore uniform has nothing to do with the humble turtle but, as Adam Weinstein points out in his hilarious write-up of the new uniform over at Gawker, “The turtle. Meh. But Maryland also has an alumnus benefactor, and that benefactor is the creator of Under Armor, which has enriched itself greatly by selling shlubs on skivvies that make them feel like gamers.”

    So, you know, they’ll have the lamest football uniforms in the Big Ten Conference but they’ll be Under Armour uniforms!

  • September 10, 2014 10:05 AM Service Loan Forgiveness: Big Benefits, Bad Incentives

    Many critics have sounded the alarm on expensive graduate and professional degrees that are neither necessary nor worthwhile in terms of increased salary and job placement. But consider that for many students who pursue a master’s in education, the federal government will finance the entire cost, without limit, including all living expenses during enrollment. That’s one of the findings from our new paper out today, Zero Marginal Cost: Measuring Subsidies for Graduate Education in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

    The paper presents an analysis of the benefits that the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program provides to graduate students—and the schools they attend. It shows the point at which students pursuing various careers could borrow more in federal loans without having to pay more during repayment. It also shows how those debt levels compare to what students are already borrowing to attend graduate school.

    We conducted our analysis using income projections in 10 different professions for individuals who hold graduate and professional credentials. While some of these professions are more likely than others to align with qualified employment under PSLF, the definition of qualified employment is very broad and the nature of the job is irrelevant for eligibility. Employment at any 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit qualifies, as does any government position (state, federal, local, and tribal).

    We then calculated what borrowers with these income profiles would repay on their federal student loans if they used IBR and PSLF using combined undergraduate and graduate debt levels at low, typical, and high levels as reported in the U.S. Department of Education’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey for 2012. Most importantly, we calculated the point at which a borrower with a projected income in a certain profession could borrow more in federal student loans but not have to repay any of it—all remaining debt would all be forgiven. We call this the Zero Marginal Cost Threshold (ZMCT).

    The results suggest that the most recent version of IBR and PSLF provide benefits that are large enough that it could become common for the government to pay for a student’s entire graduate education via loan forgiveness under PSLF, especially in some professions, like K-12 teachers. That is because the debt levels at which borrowers bear no incremental cost in borrowing more when using IBR and PSLF are low relative to what many graduate and professional degrees cost and to what students already borrow in federal loans. Even typical levels of debt will result in substantial amounts of loan forgiveness for borrowers earning more than most of their peers.

    For example, teachers, social workers, and speech pathologists who go on to earn at the 75th percentile of their peer groups reach the ZMCT before they have accumulated $32,000 in federal loans. That is well below the median amount of debt students accumulate when pursuing master’s degrees for those fields (of those who borrow). For most of these borrowers, then, the marginal $5,000 or even $20,000 they borrow beyond a $32,000 balance is effectively grant aid. Similarly, lawyers who earn median wages for their age cease to incur incremental costs in borrowing once their loan balances hit $54,500. Well over three-quarters of today’s law school graduates who borrow accumulate more than $54,500 in federal debt by the time they leave school. More importantly, the ZMCT equates to only about one year’s tuition and living expenses for law school, implying that the remaining two years of costs could be borne completely by the government through loan forgiveness.

    Debt Levels for Zero Marginal Cost Threshold (ZMCT)

    Degree-Profession
    Profile
    50th Earnings
    Percentile
    75th Earnings
    Percentile
    Accountant$37,500$71,500
    Engineer$51,500$74,500
    Journalist $20,500$41,000
    Lawyer$54,500$117,000
    Nurse
    $33,500$49,500
    Pharmacist$70,000$82,500
    Social Worker$17,500$28,000
    Speech Pathologist $22,000$31,500
    Teacher (K-12)$16,500$26,000
    Veterinarian$31,500$76,500
    Source: New America. How to read this table: When a student pursuing a master’s degree in teaching accumulates $16,500 in federal student loans, borrowing an additional dollar does not increase his total loan payments if he earns a typical income for his age and profession. If he earns at the 75th percentile, the debt level at which borrowing more does not increase his total payments is $26,000.

     

    These findings imply that Income-Based Repayment and PSLF provide a clear incentive for graduate and professional students to borrow more rather than less, particularly for some professions. It may also factor into graduate students’ decision as to whether to attend a questionably useful graduate program and decrease their price sensitivity, allowing institutions to charge higher tuition, especially for certain programs like healthcare, social work, education, and government, where borrowers would go on to qualify for PSLF.

    Some form of Income-Based Repayment is a vital option for anyone with federal student loans, but in light of the findings from our analysis, lawmakers would be wise to place greater limits on the benefits and the types of jobs that qualify borrowers for PSLF. At a minimum, lawmakers should cap loan forgiveness under PSLF at $30,000, aligning it with the limit for Pell Grants to low-income undergraduate students. (There is currently no limit.) The federal government should not provide more in loan forgiveness to graduate students than it is willing to provide in grant aid for a low-income student to pursue an undergraduate education.

    There is also a case for eliminating PSLF altogether. Because IBR makes any loan size affordable, PSLF isn’t a necessary component of the insurance IBR provides. Rather, it makes IBR do double duty as generous graduate school tuition assistance for those who want to work in non-profit or government jobs—even high-paying ones.

    If lawmakers want to subsidize the wages of individuals working in certain jobs, they should do so explicitly and directly. If they want to provide tuition assistance for graduate school, they should also do so explicitly and directly. Instead, with PSLF they’ve done both implicitly and circuitously. That’s how the program ended up providing perverse incentives and delivering inequitable benefits.

    [Cross-posted at Ed Central]

  • September 9, 2014 10:48 AM Rankings, Rankings, and More Rankings!

    We’re finally reaching the end of the college rankings season for 2014. Money magazine started off the season with its rankings of 665 four-year colleges based on “educational quality, affordability, and alumni earnings.” (I generally like these rankings, in spite of the inherent limitations of using Rate My Professor scores and Payscale data in lieu of more complete information.) I jumped in the fray late in August with my friends at Washington Monthly for our annual college guide and rankings. This was closely followed by a truly bizarre list from the Daily Caller of “The 52 Best Colleges In America PERIOD When You Consider Absolutely Everything That Matters.

    But like any good infomercial, there’s more! Last night, the New York Times released its set of rankings focusing on how elite colleges are serving students from lower-income families. They examined the roughly 100 colleges with a four-year graduation rate of 75% or higher, only three of which (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Virginia, and the College of William and Mary) are public. By examining the percentage of students receiving Pell Grants in the past three years and the net price of attendance (the total sticker price less all grant aid) for 2012-13, they created a “College Access Index” looking at how many standard deviations from the mean each college was.

    My first reaction upon reading the list is that it seems a lot like what we introduced in Washington Monthly’s College Guide this year—a list of “Affordable Elite” colleges. We looked at the 224 most selective colleges (including many public universities) and ranked them using graduation rate, graduation rate performance (are they performing as well as we would expect given the students they enroll?), and student loan default rates in addition to percent Pell and net price. Four University of California colleges were in our top ten, with the NYT’s top college (Vassar) coming in fifth on our list.

    I’m glad to see the New York Times focusing on economic diversity in their list, but it would be nice to look at a slightly broader swath of colleges that serve more than a handful of lower-income students. As The Chronicle of Higher Education notes, the Big Ten Conference enrolls more Pell recipients than all of the colleges ranked by the NYT. Focusing on the net price for families making between $30,000 and $48,000 per year is also a concern at these institutions due to small sample sizes. In 2011-12 (the most recent year of publicly available data), Vassar enrolled 669 first-year students, of whom 67 were in the $30,000-$48,000 income bracket.

    The U.S. News & World Report college rankings also came out this morning, and not much changed from last year. Princeton, which is currently fighting a lawsuit challenging whether the entire university should be considered a nonprofit enterprise, is the top national university on the list, while Williams College in Massachusetts is the top liberal arts college. Nick Anderson at the Washington Post has put together a nice table showing changes in rankings over five years; most changes wouldn’t register as being statistically significant. Northeastern University, which has risen into the top 50 in recent years, is an exception. However, as this great piece in Boston Magazine explains, Northeastern’s only focus is to rise in the U.S. News rankings. (They’re near the bottom of the Washington Monthly rankings, in part because they’re really expensive.)

    Going forward, the biggest set of rankings for the rest of the fall will be the new college football rankings—as the Bowl Championship Series rankings have been replaced by a 13-person committee. (And no, Bob Morse from U.S. News is not a member, although Condoleezza Rice is.) I like Gregg Easterbrook’s idea at ESPN about including academic performance as a component in college football rankings. That might be worth considering as a tiebreaker if the playoff committee gets deadlocked solely using on-field performance. They could also use the Washington Monthly rankings, but Minnesota has a better chance of winning a Rose Bowl before that happens.

    [ADDENDUM: Let’s also not forget about the federal government’s effort to rate (not rank) colleges through the Postsecondary Institution Ratings System (PIRS). That is supposed to come out this fall, as well.]

    [Cross-posted at Kelchen on Education]

  • September 9, 2014 10:41 AM Americans Say They Support Federal Dollars for Pre-K

    A new Gallup poll released this morning brought good news for early education advocates: Seventy percent of Americans say they support using federal dollars to increase funding to provide universal, high-quality pre-K. That’s a startling number, given the fight early education programs have seen even to maintain funding from year to year in the face of federal belt-tightening and the sequester. But the survey could offer hope to supporters of early education programs–and to candidates in the field ahead of November’s midterm elections.

    Americans’ Views of Using Federal Money to Expand Preschool Programs

    Favor70%
    Oppose28%
    No Opinion3%
    ‘Would you favor or oppose using federal money to increase funding to make sure high-quality preschool programs are available for every child in America?’
    Source: Gallup

     

    The poll found broad support for federal funding. More than half of Republicans (53 percent) and 87 percent of Democrats, as well as 70 percent of independents surveyed, said they would support using federal dollars for such a program. Eighty-five percent of non-white respondents supported federally funded pre-K, as compared to 63 percent of white respondents.

    Those figures suggest that, even though Republicans are less supportive of federally funded pre-K on the whole, there’s probably plenty of room for moderate Republicans to join the debate, particularly where they’re attempting to reach out to Hispanic and other minority voters. Maggie Severns of Politico wrote about this phenomenon last month, noting that a number of red-state governors (such as Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder) have joined calls to expand pre-K. She noted that Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign adviser, found merit in the campaign policy for Republican candidates:

    “Democrats have gone head-first into this economic inequality or economic opportunity argument,” Madden said. “Republicans feeling a need to engage can look at this — at the education issue and at early childhood development — as an area where they can have an impact.”

    All this is indicative of a growing interest in expanding access to pre-K programs. As we noted in a recent report, Beyond Subprime Learning: Accelerating Progress in Early Education, “[d]oing early education right—ensuring that children have opportunities for engaged learning and interactions with well-trained teachers—will require a large investment in human capital. It is wrong to call for broad increases in quality and access without acknowledging the costs.” We recommended that states take on a larger share of the costs for pre-K over time, with additional federal funds available for other early learning efforts. And with the significant public support for pre-K that the Gallup poll confirmed, new federal and other funding sources may be more attainable than expected.

    Of course, it would be a mistake to assume public support in a poll will translate to policy, or even to actual political support from voters who typically prioritize other issues above education. Aside from the political implications of an expanded federal role in providing pre-K (for example, it could fan the flames of activists who oppose an expanded federal role in anything), there are plenty of practical implications. Unlike other surveys, Gallup didn’t test how much survey respondents would support spending, and funding high-quality universal pre-K would undoubtedly cost billions more than the $8.5 billion currently spent on Head Start, the federal government’s largest early education program. And the survey also found that all categories of respondents–regardless of education, party affiliation, race, income, or family circumstances–rated pre-K as less important than K-12 and postsecondary education in determining children’s future success. That suggests that early education advocates have much more work to do in persuading Americans that high-quality early learning can create the foundation for lifelong success.

    Nonetheless, candidates in the 2014 elections–and even presidential candidates who will surely announce their platforms in the coming year–can take heart in the fact that, at least on principle, the vast majority of Americans want more federally funded high-quality pre-K classrooms.

    To read more from Beyond Subprime Learning: Accelerating Progress in Early Education, click here.

    [Cross-posted at Ed Central]

  • September 8, 2014 01:17 PM College-Rating Proposal Shines Spotlight on Powerful Lobby

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The annual meeting of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities this year had the tone of a revival meeting.

    “We have been under steady, unrelenting pressure,” declared the organization’s president, David Warren, who spoke of “an overreaching executive branch” he said sought to use unreliable statistics to measure the effectiveness of higher-education institutions that are vastly different from each other.

    Warren was talking about proposed ratings of colleges and universities the White House says would help consumers see what they’re getting for their tuition dollars. He said these would fail to capture “the specific mission of an institution at whose core is where value can be found.”

    Then the tall, silver-haired former Ohio Wesleyan University president with a booming voice and a divinity degree from Yale dispatched his congregation out into a drizzle and toward the mist-shrouded U.S. Capitol, a few blocks away, to deliver the same message to their congressional representatives.

    “Tell your story to your member of Congress, why this is an ill-conceived notion,” Warren charged them. “No congressman wants an ugly rating for an institution in his district.”

    It was a rare glimpse at a lobbying operation that even its critics say has been as effective as it is little known: the one that represents the interests of American colleges and universities.

    “Big Higher Education,” one calls it, in a comparison to the lobbyists who safeguard the political interests of Big Oil and Big Banking.

    “The higher-education lobby is doing what lobbyists do, which is protecting its members,” said Art Rothkopf, a Washington lawyer and a former president of Lafayette College. “It’s no different from the automakers’ lobby, the big pharmaceutical companies. There’s a lot of money involved.”

    Nearly $200 billion a year in federal funding, to be exact, in the form of financial aid, tax breaks, and grants for research and development and other purposes.

    It’s a vast sum that speaks to the longstanding success of the Big Six, as the principal Washington-based associations of colleges and universities are known.

    But questions about the return on that investment are pushing Big Higher Education into the unaccustomed spotlight.

    “There are more dollars at stake, and congresspeople are starting to say they want to tie some strings to them,” said Amy Laitinen, deputy director for Higher Education at the New America Foundation.

    The higher-education associations, Laitinen said, would prefer that Congress “give them the money and leave them alone and trust them to do their thing. They’re guarding the gates.”

    Even as the White House puts more pressure on colleges and universities, foundations such as New America are taking more of a role pushing for reform in higher education, which has previously enjoyed political consensus and support with little public scrutiny.

    The lobby “was less visible in the past than it is today because what happened stayed behind closed doors,” said David Bergeron, vice president for postsecondary education at the Center for American progress and a former acting U.S. assistant secretary for postsecondary education.

    Representatives of the college and university associations agree that they have had to come up from under the radar.

    “The visibility of public policy decisions about higher education policy has increased dramatically, there’s no question about that,” said Terry Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the biggest, the American Council on Education, or ACE.

    But they also say their influence is nowhere near as great as their critics suggest.

    “People think of the guy in the raincoat and the cash. They don’t understand what lobbying is. Lobbying is using First Amendment rights to talk to members of Congress,” said Sarah Flanagan, vice president for government relations at the National Association for Independent Colleges and Universities, or NAICU.

    “I’m always amused at the descriptions of our enormous power,” Hartle said. “We don’t have PACs, we don’t do fundraisers, we can’t deliver votes. All that colleges and universities have is that they are constituents, and because they tend to be important organizations in the states and congressional districts where they’re based, they will be listened to, but not always.”

    He added: “Given what people think of as powerful organizations in this town, higher education doesn’t look like any of them.”

    Spending on education lobbying at all levels has risen just as federal spending on higher education has. It’s grown from about $30 million a year in 1998 to $70 million in the presidential election year of 2008 to a peak of $110 million in the congressional midterms of 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The figures do not include political spending by teachers’ unions.

    Education interests spend the eighth most of any industry on lobbying, the Center for Responsive Politics reports.

    The Big Six — ACE, NAICU, the American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Association of American Universities, and Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities — had combined expenses of $110 million in 2011, the last year for which the figures are available from documents they are required to file with the Internal Revenue Service, though only a portion of it went to lobbying. ACE, for instance, which has a $60 million annual budget and 243 employees, lists its government-relations work as coming to about $5.2 million.

    The associations are based not on K Street, famous home to other Washington lobbies, but in Dupont Circle, orbiting ACE’s headquarters at One Dupont.

    They’re like those other lobbies in some ways, though. For one thing, they have hired officials away from the government agencies that regulate them. As one of its top lobbyists, ACE in February brought aboard Dan Madzelan, for instance, former acting assistant secretary for postsecondary education at the Department of Education.

    The ratings proposal is what seems to have most galvanized the groups. It calls for making available such things as student debt and graduation rates, by campus.

    One of the objections colleges and universities have made to the idea is that federal data about student success isn’t good enough to judge them on, based as it is only on the number of students who enter and the number who earn degrees within a particular time — without counting those who transfer in or out.

    That’s because the higher-education lobby in 2008 successfully blocked letting the government track individual students, their opponents angrily retort, which would have provided a much more accurate picture of how many graduate.

    Several of the college and university associations said the idea, called student-unit recordkeeping, would violate people’s privacy. They found allies in Congress, which not only failed to approve it, but went out of its way to prohibit it.

    “They’re brilliant,” Laitinen said. “Step One, make sure you can’t collect good data. Step Two, complain that the data isn’t good enough to base any policies on. They say it with a straight face. They bemoan the lack of data, but they’re the reason the data is bad.”

    Sour grapes, responded Hartle. “The notion that higher ed can just say, ‘We don’t think it’s a good idea,’ and that stops it, is just wrong,” he said. “It’s a convenient argument for people who have not been able to win a policy debate.”

    But Rothkopf, the former Lafayette president, who has also served as vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said: “The truth is that the associations want all of this to be as opaque as possible. They don’t want you to be able to compare the outcomes of Williams compared to Podunk U. They’d just as soon say, ‘Trust us.’”

    If there ever was complete consensus about blocking student-unit recordkeeping, it may be starting to crack. Public universities and community colleges, whose graduation rates will likely look better if they’re tracked more accurately, are now for it.

    Colleges and universities are also fighting back against the plan on the grounds that it creates more regulation, and they’ve found particular friends among regulation-averse Republicans, with whom they share something else: unhappiness about the Obama administration, which proposed the ratings.

    At their Washington conference — called “Securing Our Futures” — representatives of NAICU colleges and universities gave an award and a sustained standing ovation to Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, former president of the University of Tennessee and ranking Republican on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, who told them regulation “wastes much-needed dollars that should be used for students.”

    Alexander, along with another Republican and two Democrats, has set up a task force to review higher-education regulation. It’s co-chaired by the chancellors of a university and a state university system, with 14 college and university presidents and higher education experts as members and “organizational assistance” from ACE.

    After the senator left with his award, Warren raised one last objection to the White House ratings push. It was an example of the executive branch usurping authority that rests with Congress, he said — a violation of the principle of the separation of powers — and his members should tell their congressmen about that.

    A few days later, Republicans Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and John Kline of Minnesota, who chair House committees and subcommittees on education and higher education, respectively, echoed this complaint in a letter to the president blasting his “repeated threats to circumvent Congress” in making higher-education policy.

    “It shows how smart they are strategically,” said Laitinen. “What’s going to get Congress fired up? And right now there’s huge tension between the legislative and executive branches, so let’s get them fired up.”

    Alexander has since said he plans to attach an amendment to an appropriations bill to black the Education Department from using federal funding “to develop, refine, publish or implement a college ratings system.” And two congressmen, Republican Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Democrat Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, have separately introduced a bill opposing the ratings plan.

    “They’re so good,” Laitinen said of the higher-education groups. “They are incredibly effective lobbyists. But ultimately I don’t think it’s very good for families or students.”

    [Cross-posted at The Hechinger Report]

  • September 7, 2014 09:05 AM Increase in Student Transfers Worrying Alumni Offices

    Maya Gunaseharan spent her first year in college at American University, then transferred to Cornell. And that was after 12 years at a private school in New Jersey.

    Now all three ask her to contribute money.

    “I do feel a pull, because I had a really great first year at American,” said Gunaseharan, who is 24. “But I’ve seen a very clear return as a result of my degree from Cornell. So I absolutely feel the tension about who to give to.”

    Universities and colleges are feeling it too. Already dealing with financial problems on many fronts, they’re worried that the large proportion of students transferring from one school to another will make it harder to solicit alumni donations.

    Today, one-third of all students change schools at least once in five years, and a quarter at least twice, according to the National Student Clearinghouse, which tracks this. Of those who ultimately earn degrees, nearly a quarter finish somewhere other than where they started.

    alumnidonations

    “What motivates alumni to give is a sense of loyalty, an indebtedness that ‘I am who I am because of my education,’ and a fondness for their time at an institution,” said Shaun Keister, vice chancellor for development and alumni relations at the University of California, Davis. “What we don’t know from this generation that jumps around a lot is: Are they ever going to have that warm and fuzzy feeling for the campus?”

    That’s a $34 billion question — the annual amount of charitable donations to U.S. colleges and universities, according to the Council for Aid to Education, a nonprofit higher-education research organization that annually surveys universities and colleges about alumni and other giving.

    Those contributions increased last year by a healthy 9 percent to the highest level ever. But within the otherwise glowing statistics was the one that is keeping alumni directors awake at night: The proportion of alumni who give is steadily declining, down from 13 percent in 2003 to less than 9 percent last year. Only because the rest donated more, on average, has the total risen to such high levels.

    Those participation rates keep falling “even though we have more sophisticated programs, bigger programs, more options” to encourage alumni giving, said Brian Kish, senior vice president for central development at the University of Arizona Foundation. “Everyone is trying to figure out why. Every school is trying to buck that trend but we still see it going down.”

    Keister, Kish and other alumni executives and consultants say the transfer phenomenon is one likely reason for this.

    “We know the heartstring is attached to the purse string,” Kish said. “So let’s say you went to three different places undergrad, and then to grad school — because we have more people going to grad school, too. Now you’ve been to four schools. Where’s your love? Where’s your affinity? Where’s your passion?”

    The problem isn’t likely to affect elite universities and colleges, whose students almost all graduate on time, and fewer of whom transfer, said Chris Marshall, vice president for alumni relations practice at the consulting firm Grenzebach Glier and Associates.

    “It’s those mid-tier or lower-tier schools where that 25 percent” — the proportion of graduates who transfer — “is going to be hard to engage if they don’t have that four-year experience with some continuity,” Marshall said. “If kids are coming and going from these places, it’s going to be a lot harder to do that.”

    Those alumni who do give seem to be choosing to support the university or college from which they received their degrees. Slightly more of them gave to those institutions than to others they attended along the way, the Council for Aid to Education reports. The participation rate is declining even for those graduates, however, said Ann Kaplan, who conducts the council’s annual fundraising survey.

    Another source of worry: Community colleges, where many students start, are also beginning to go after financial contributions from their alumni. Most historically haven’t done this.

    “It’s one more organization coming after the same pool of people,” Keister said. “There’s such a huge, huge percentage of students who transfer in from community colleges. So the question becomes: Where is the loyalty?”

    Not necessarily with traditional universities and colleges any more, said Lawrence Henze, managing director of the fundraising technology company Blackbaud’s Target Analytics division.

    “The consensus in the industry right now is that it’s harder to get people to engage when their route through higher education is less than traditional,” Henze said.

    Nor have many university and college alumni offices reached out to transfer students while they’re still enrolled, as they often do with conventional freshmen.

    “That probably is not happening as much as it ought to, quite candidly,” said Keister.

    Gunaseharan, meanwhile, is mulling the requests for money she’s received from Cornell and American — which has another pull on her because her mother went there — but putting them aside while she plans to go to graduate school.

    “I’m not really in a position to be giving loads to any of my alma maters,” she said. “I’m still saving money for the next degree.”

    [Cross-posted at The Hechinger Report]

  • September 5, 2014 11:32 AM In Illinois, Preschool Access is Worst for Latinos

    How to break the vicious cycle of poverty and academic failure is one of the most troublesome questions of our time, but this much we know: High-quality preschool helps children from poor families prepare for kindergarten and beyond. Yet as the child poverty rate is climbing, those are the kids least likely to attend such programs.

    A new report by the research and advocacy group Voices for Illinois Children provides insight into the extent of the disparities in that state, along racial and economic lines. The findings are particularly stark for Latino children, only 40 percent of whom attended preschool in Illinois at most recent measure, compared with 58 percent of white children and 55 percent of black children. In Chicago, preschool enrollment was lowest on the northwest and southwest sides, both predominantly Latino, and highest on the affluent north side.

    Given national concerns about Latino preschool access, “it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s important that people be aware of it,”said Larry Joseph, one of the report’s two authors. He and co-author Lisa Christensen Gee write that Latina mothers are in the workforce less than other groups, and children are more likely to live in households with extended family to care for them. That might be a reason they stay home at a time when research shows it would be beneficial for them to be in school. Other barriers include inconvenient program locations and immigration-related problems. Nonetheless, the authors note national surveys of Latino parents saying the most common reason they didn’t enroll their children in preschool was that they didn’t know what programs were available. Children who are native Spanish speakers particularly benefit from the language exposure in preschool, they say, but among Latinos, those with American-born parents are more likely to enroll than children of immigrants. State officials have been trying to provide more opportunities with new preschool construction and bilingual programs, but outreach is still needed and budget cuts are blocking progress.

    Also in the important-but-not-surprising camp: Forty-four percent of young children in low-income Illinois homes attended preschool in 2012, compared with 60 percent in wealthier households. When the authors looked at different geographic regions, the gap extended across the entire state.

    And that’s just access. Quality is another matter entirely, one much harder to measure, and not quantified specifically in the new report. But a national rating scale estimates that only about a third of preschool programs anywhere, public as well as private, qualify as “good.”Once again, look at class and race, and children from wealthier homes are more likely to attend good programs. African-American children are least likely to attend quality programs.

    Illinois was a state celebrated when, in 2006, it set a goal of providing free quality preschool to any 3- or 4-year-old whose parents wanted it. But that never quite happened, the program title Preschool for All notwithstanding. Funding peaked at $327 million in 2009, with 95,000 children from low- and moderate-income families enrolled. Since then, budget cuts have wiped out the gains, and enrollment statewide dropped to 70,000 kids, targeting the neediest. Last year, the budget was down to $241 million. Annual spending per child declined from $4,018 in 2009 to $3,153 in 2013.

    Grim though the situation may be, Illinois fares better than the nation at large in a few key areas. Fifty-four percent of all its 3- and 4-year-olds were enrolled in school in 2012, versus 48 percent nationally. The state’s 44 percent preschool enrollment rate in low-income families is better than a national rate of 37 percent. When Joseph and Christensen Gee compared the 12 largest states, Illinois also did well in terms of its policies to promote preschool quality: the maximum class sizes and minimum teacher qualifications mandated, for instance. How closely those mandates are followed in practice, particularly in times of budget cuts, again is another matter. (The state is using federal Race to the Top money to improve quality control.)

    And Illinois got low marks for cutting its preschool budget the past few years, rounding out the bottom of the 12-state rankings for per pupil spending with Florida and Texas. Those two states did poorly for both their preschool-friendly policies and funding while New Jersey topped both categories. In New Jersey, reform was spurred by a lawsuit. In Illinois, advocates are still asking for change.

    [Cross-posted at The Hechinger Report]

  • September 5, 2014 11:01 AM Jerry Brown: Fighting Back on Vergara

    Back in June Rolf M. Treu of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the judge in an education lawsuit, Vergara v. California, determined that the state’s policies on teacher tenure constituted a civil rights violation against students.

    The legal, and factual, validity of this thinking was a little questionable. Many argued that this was really an attempt to undermine labor protections, though even many pundits sympathetic to labor rights admitted that the state’s policy of granting tenure to teachers after only 18 months on the job did seem misguided.

    Well last week California Governor Jerry Brown indicated he’s going to bat for the unions. According to a piece in the New York Times:

    In a one-page appeal filed late Friday afternoon, Mr. Brown and the state attorney general, Kamala D. Harris, argued that a decision of such scope needed to be made by a higher court, and that the judge in this case had declined a request by the governor and attorney general “to provide a detailed statement of the factual and legal bases for its ruling.”

    Granted, Brown is a lawyer and this may just be a way of dragging the case out to appeal to the unions, but he’s bringing up a rather important point.

    The judge, in his opinion, said, in effect, that union rules and the 18 month tenure policy “result in grossly ineffective teachers obtaining and retaining permanent employment, and that these teachers are disproportionately situated in schools serving predominantly low-income and minority students.”

    The accuracy of this is debatable. While the judge wrote that “the evidence is compelling… indeed, it shocks the conscience,” the evidence is actually inconclusive.

    It’s true that poor children often have teachers who don’t appear good at promoting high student achievement, but it’s not at all clear that teachers are the cause of low achievement. It may be that being poor causes low achievement and teachers, even very good ones, can’t do much to change that in a large-scale sense. As Joshua Pechthalt and Dean Vogel wrote at USA Today: “Do we really believe we can fire our way to academic excellence?”

    It’s also not clear (OK, it’s just not true) that this has much to do with unions. The plaintiffs argued that California’s worker protections for teachers caused low achievement, but states with fewer legal protections, particularly in the South, don’t have higher achievement. Indeed, most of them have lower achievement.

Recent Blog Posts