This is a guest post by Jim Farmer.
Vance Fried may change the conversation about the costs of higher education. Critics of higher education have repeatedly pointed out the costs of higher education—often referring to tuition and fees—have increased faster than the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Higher education has claimed education is “labor intensive” and students and their parents pay only a portion of the cost of instruction. All are true.
Fried, Professor of Management at Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, developed a “pro forma” business plan for a residential undergraduate college. The results yield an annual full cost of instruction of $7,376—60% less than current baccalaureate and 50% less than masters institutions.
Enrollments of students age 14-24 are expected to increase 1.5 million students by 2016 with more than 21% living on campus. If this increase were accommodated by Fried’s colleges, then 100 new campuses would be needed with cost savings as high as $2.8 billion compared to current tuition and fees—a number Fried would consider both speculative and unachievable.
Fried’s model was first presented June 6th at American Enterprise Institute’s session “New Approaches to Higher Education: Solutions or Fads?” (Audio and video are available.) On July 8th InsideHigherEd published his essay “Better-Than-Ivy Education: $7,376 a Year.” In his plan, a study to be published soon by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, Fried teaches in classes of 10 or 100 depending upon the most appropriate teaching methodology and technology. He uses full-time faculty with salaries comparable to research universities. He includes Division III athletics and, perhaps because he is from Oklahoma, a Jumbotron for the football playing field. (According to Wikipedia: “A JumboTron is a large-screen television technology developed by Sony, typically used in sports stadiums and concert venues to show close up shots of the event. … The Western Hemisphere’s largest high-definition display is … at the University of Texas.)”
Center Director Richard Vetter describes the plan’s low cost:
How does Vance do it? Universities that are inexpensive cannot be all things to all people, and Vance sharply limits the number of majors and the number of courses taught. A proliferation of electives is one reason instructional costs are high. Vance hires (in his mind) relatively few teachers, gives them reasonable teaching loads, but has pretty large classes –low student-teacher ratios wreak havoc with costs. Vance has a lean and mean administrative structure. He uses technology intelligently. And so on.
The discussion may quantify the extent of cross-subsidization of subjects such as the arts and classics, the research results of the teaching faculty, and service to the community—all omitted in Fried’s model.
The next time higher education executives testify before Congress or state legislatures, they may be asked to explain the differences between the results of Fried’s “pro forma” college and current practices. Because of the falling state tax revenues, Fried’s model could also become a rationale for reduced funding of public 4-year universities and colleges. According to the Rockefeller Institute, inflation adjusted state tax revenues have declined 5.3%; reduced contributions to state supported public institutions for 2008-2009 are likely.
The complex relationship between curriculum and costs was incorporated in the NCHEMS RRPM (Resource Requirements Prediction Model), model and cost finding principles in the 1970s and subsequent Andrew W. Mellon-funded projects at George Mason University, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Cape Town. These and similar studies may provide methodology and examples.. The textbook publishers have provided some evidence, such as the Plato and Pearson case studies. Their performance metrics are frequently cited in presentations of the value of instructional technology. With these kinds of results, the conversations about curriculum and teaching methods could then include “appropriate technology”—the impact of instructional technology on student performance and completions and teaching productivity
Assessment was the theme of the recent Portal 2008 Conference at Gettysburg College keynoted by ANGEL Learning’s Ray Henderson and the informal discussions at the 2-3-98 Conference at SUNY Delhi and JA-SIG UK. Assessments is also the major track at this week’s Blackboard World. This follows Blackboard’s May 2007 forum “Are America’s Students Left Behind” that explored the results of the U.S. Department of Education’s study of instructional effectiveness.
The instructional technology communities—Sakai, Moodle, ANGEL, Blackboard, and others—may now be able to provide evidence of the benefits of instructional technology. A special initiative may be needed to have results and documentation available before this public conversation turns to general budget reductions. It appears a worthwhile effort.
3 Comments
The problem is the model of education that we use. It is a model of selection rather than a model of learning. I suggest reading De-Schooling America by Ivan Illich. Astounding book!
The success of the GeorgiaVIEW project has been in no small part to annual stagnation of money from the state to public higher education. With booming student populations and no where to put them, online classes is the only way some schools are able to stay afloat.
I almost made a post in response to this article. Alas, half done it is aging like wine in the cellar that is my hard drive.
Three things:
1) I watched costs go up at my own university and it was entirely due to haphazard expenditures in hopes of getting more students to apply and to matriculate, mostly in hopes of moving up the standings in pop magazines (US News and World Reports comes to mind). Things like new dorms with island kitchens come to mind.
2) These expensive superficial amenities might actually work because high school students are so ineptly guided through the process of choosing a college. So, factors like island kitchens and a weak offering in “post-colonial African ethnography and design” might actually be enough to sway the little boogers to apply.
3) Offering majors willy-nilly is a silly use of funds, especially when the number one predictor of matriculation is the “perceived strength of intended major.” Perhaps less efforts should go to the shotgun approach and more should go into building solid core programs and their facilities.