Qualify for your MOJO ribbon by reading a Planning article this fall, then commenting on it. Find out more. Sign up now.

At This School, You Must Incorporate to Graduate

[The] global training program called the Founder Institute, which was started in 2009. For tuition of less than $1,000, students attend classes with one goal in mind: to create a fully operational company. In fact, they are required to incorporate before they can graduate.

To be accepted, students don’t need to have a fully baked idea, but they must take a test that the institute says can predict their entrepreneurial success. They can keep their day jobs while attending class, but that does not mean the program is easy. The workload is grueling, and 60 percent of the students fail to graduate.

 ^{Go directly to the original of the resource described below.}

Academe is worth a regular bi-monthly look. The AAUP provides quality content. Access is not restricted. In the current issue, using its own words:

 ^{Go directly to the original of the resource described below.}

This video is from 2–3 years ago, ahead of the very real timeliness of this issue. Sandy Shugart is president of Valencia College (formerly Valencia Community College, which name change he refers to in this presentation) and is the Sunday evening plenary speaker at SCUP–47 in Chicago, July 7–11, 2012; higher education's premier planning event. In this video he asks and addresses the question, “Can Our Institutions Accommodate to People Who Don't Believe In Them.” 

Shugart is an accomplished poet and musical artist, as well as the man who recently accepted on Valencia’s behalf, the designation of the Top Community College in the United States. If you just want the talk, skip ahead to about 30 minutes. But you’ll be missing a really good singing performance, with commentary. We very much hope that he brings his guitar to Chicago for SCUP–47.

Monday, July 25, 2011, 8:30 AM–9:45 AM

We have admired for years the work of the California Community Colleges Research and Planning Group (RP Group). Willard Hom of Chancellor's Office, often posts very nice 1-2 page abstracts on research and articles of use to community college planners, but we're not certain how often those get shared outside of California.

So, continuing a trend of posting more in this SCUP Links blog about Hispanic students, here are a couple of Hom's latest abstracts.

Location Matters (PDF): Geography and Hispanic Community College Enrollment: This abstract summarizes many point of interest, among which are:

Geographic considerations should be of special interest to researchers studying Hispanics’ higher education aspirations. More research is needed to explain the effects of geography on their postsecondary attendance. More than either comparison group (Black, White), Hispanic students show a tendency/desire to stay at home while pursuing postsecondary goals. This is especially true for Hispanic students who do not live in strong Hispanic states. [p. 830] Despite their awareness of the advantages of entering through a four-year institution if they aspire to a Bachelor’s degree, these Hispanic students tend to reside in greater proximity to two-year colleges and place importance on living at home during college, which increases the likelihood of two-year attendance. The greater likelihood of attending a two-year institution due to geographic factors contributes to a lower likelihood of entering a four-year institution and achieving a four-year degree.

Hispanic Students (PDF): Acculturation, Expectations, Support, and Perceived Barriers:

The findings by FBRTP may help college counselors, faculty, and administrators to expand their awareness of students whose expectations, kinship affiliation, acculturation status, and perceptions of barriers increase their vulnerability to negative academic situations. The college’s institutional culture and practices should encourage success and create a sense of belonging for all students, but this appears to be especially important for Hispanic students. Differences within the Hispanic population (by gender and generational status) can make a difference in the efficacy of targeted resources and counseling for retention and success.

You could not write a better lead-in paragraph for this article:

In August, 60 years after the University of Texas admitted its first black student, the school welcomed the first freshman class in which white students were in the minority.

For a related, classic article, see The New Demographics of Higher Education by George Keller. More quotes from the current article, below.

Stan Jones, former Indiana commissioner of higher education and the current president of Complete College America, a national nonprofit group dedicated to boosting the number of college graduates, said the numbers have been telling the story for years. “But it hasn’t necessarily gotten through to policy-makers that this was going on, and clearly not to the general public,” Mr. Jones said. “All of us are seeing it happening faster than we had expected.”

For example, although their birth rate is growing at a significant clip, Mr. Jones said, Hispanics do not graduate from high school, go on to college or graduate in the same numbers as white students. “If you look at the freshman class everywhere in this country, it is more representative than it’s ever been,” he said. “But in four years, if you look at the graduating class, it is not going to be representative of the country, because many of those students from the underrepresented groups won’t make it to graduation.”

Educators give several reasons for the disparity, including economic differences, the comparative quality of college preparation at urban, rural and suburban schools, and a sense of isolation among those who are the first in their families to go to college.

The Chronicle of Higher Education's "Tech Therapy" section interviews Freeman Hrabowski, president of the University of Maryland Baltimore County, about the value of analytics for higher education leaders. (We recommend moving the slider over and beginning to listen to the podcast at 15 minutes in unless you want to hear a couple of ads and some talk about iPads.)

The first story Hrabowski tells is about a discussion with a senior faculty member in engineering who, anecdotal information, was firm in his belief that everyone who started after a PhD in that program got one. Hrabowski notes that he had hard data that it was more like 50 percent, and was able to get data-informed decisions made. Why did the professor think everyone finished? Perhaps because the students who did not finish were not very visible to him as they slipped through the cracks. With the data, the school was able to better address retention issues.

Jeff Wendt interviews Robert Tucker of InterEd, who says that - to him - it is seems that the Department of Education has decided that for-profits are an impediment. Tucker has some interesting ideas and perspectives.

[T]he flaws in the Department of Education's regulatory formulation are critical. ED's disclosures tell prospective students who are interested in certain applied degree programs that their degree, earned at a particular institution, is likely to land them the job they seek. However, they are told nothing about time and cost to degree. There is no mention of the opportunity costs of delays. There are no requirements for disclosure if the school is non-profit. Meanwhile, in addition to the possible outcome, does it matter what the buyer may want during the actual educational experience — facilities, amenities, fellowship and a host of other considerations? ...

A one-year delay to degree is typical among public colleges and universities. It can cost the student foregone earnings of say $40,000, plus extra tuition, plus possible additional downstream costs. Such transparent disclosures could eliminate the need for unintelligent regulation and expensive compliance. Since a consumer is likely to be shopping throughout the higher education marketplace for himself and family members, this disclosure, as well as all the others, should apply throughout the marketplace, regardless of the corporate charter of the education provider.

An education panel in Utah, sets a goal for 66 percent of Utah residents to hold at least a postsecondary certificate by 2020 - that's the percentage of jobs in that state that are expected to require such credentialing by that time. Here's a Salt Lake Tribune article about that, and here is another - from two days later - that take a look a enrollments and retention in Utah.

The commission, which includes education leaders, lawmakers and members of Utah’s business community, approved that goal Tuesday after months of work. State Superintendent Larry Shumway said about 35 percent of Utah adults now have postsecondary degrees and about 10 to 15 percent have certificates, earned through training in areas such as diesel mechanics or medical assistance.

“We believe it’s an attainable goal without a huge investment,” said William Sederburg, Utah’s commissioner of higher education and a commission member. “We, frankly, don’t have a choice not to do it. If we don’t try to meet these needs, Utah is going to slide down. The economy is going to demand we step up and do this … .”

and

It’s a watershed moment for the institution and our role within the state system,” said a statement from UVU President Matthew Holland. “These numbers bear out what we’ve been feeling for a long time. UVU offers a uniquely attractive educational option for students from Utah Valley and from around the state. The big story is that they are staying. Our biggest jumps come in our junior and senior class.”

Daniel F. Sullivan, president of St. Lawrence University, looks for the hidden costs of low retention rates, from the student perspective. He notes that four years of attendance at a public institution costs less than at a private institution -... however, given the higher risks of not graduating in 4 years at the public institution, the eventual overall costs might really be closer or even favor private colleges.

In this time of special financial stress for so many American families, the cost of college attendance may seem especially daunting. Prospective students and their families should, therefore, consider the implications of this analysis as they weigh the differences between public and private higher education options—and between high-four-year-graduation-rate and low-four-year-graduation-rate options, whether public or private. It is clear from all the scenarios presented in figure 1 that if a student manages to graduate in four years from a public institution, the total cost of attendance will be lower than at a private institution. On the other hand, the risk of not graduating in four years is much higher at a public institution. In the event that a student attending a public institution does not graduate in four years, but could have done so by attending a private institution, the cost savings of the public choice remain only if the student is non-aided and attending an in-state public institution.

To return to where I began, the single most important step colleges and universities—especially public colleges and universities—can take to lower the student and family cost of college attendance is to improve retention, thereby increasing the four-year graduation rate. With the exception of the rates for highly selective institutions (and these can be higher, with work, as well), the four-year graduation rates of both public and private colleges and universities in America are embarrassingly low.