Transparency can cut college costs

By Michael Bugeja

----

Higher education believes in sustainability to such extent that at Midwestern universities, like my own, we advocate for ingredients on food labels. The biggest issue in sustainability, however, is not a green environment as much as the greenbacks it takes to earn a college degree.

University presidents are trying with moderate success to lower burgeoning student debt, more than $29,000 on average per student at my institution with similar amounts at other public colleges and universities. The conventional wisdom is to raise more scholarships from alumni (many of whom are still paying off debt), raise legislative awareness about the importance of higher education (been there, done that) and, more recently, raise students' financial acumen about the cost of a degree (some 13 percent of Iowa State University students with loans didn't realize they had debt).

WHAT TUITION BUYS

Of all consumer economic sectors, higher education can do a better job in providing information about what tuition dollars buy. To mitigate that effect, the Iowa State Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, which I direct, has assembled a fact sheet for students, informing them how long it takes to earn a journalism or advertising degree, the availability of scholarships and financial aid, enrollment figures, recruitment and retention rates, placement data within six months of graduation, and average starting salaries in advertising, journalism and public relations. ...

Starting salaries in a desired field should at least equal average student debt so that graduates pay off loans in about 10 years while working in their chosen professions.

In our disciplines, jobs are readily available with sufficient entry-level salaries to offset debt. But that assumes we can graduate students within four to five years (about 60 percent at Greenlee do) and place them (we place 97 percent within six months of commencement).

This is why transparency is vital if we ever hope to enlist faculty and administration (with oversight by legislatures and regents) in the collective effort to reduce tuition.

In October, we began providing transparent data on our school website that goes beyond that recommended in President Barack Obama's 2013 State of the Union address. Each institution's “score card” is supposed to provide information about default and graduation rates, average debt, cost of tuition and job prospects after graduation.

The score card has been criticized. There is concern that students at prestigious private colleges may not need to borrow as much as counterparts at less wealthy public institutions. Prospective students viewing average loan debt might be misled by such a statistic. The liberal arts also might come off poorly because technical and professional degree-holders earn more in entry-level positions.

RULES OF TRANSPARENCY

Those persuasive arguments have little to do with transparency, which has three rules:

l Transparency requires data. No data, no transparency.

l Transparency requires sunshine. No sunshine, no transparency.

l Transparency requires assessment. No assessment, no solution.

In other words, you not only must gather facts, you need to display those facts for all to see and then assess how to address problem areas. The real challenge is collecting data down to the degree level and then showcasing that information on each department's website.

In September, the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications informed us that by next fall accredited colleges like ours must post graduation and retention statistics clearly on our websites, with data updated annually.

Upon further investigation, we found that the new requirement was inspired by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, which advocates self-regulation of academic quality through accreditation.

Data on student debt per academic discipline is an essential criterion of this effort. When coupled with placement, retention and graduation rates, along with job opportunities, that information can help prospective students and their parents make smart consumer choices.

However, typical institutions collect debt data only at the college and university levels. Thus, generating statistics for each academic unit can overload financial aid offices, which already have significant reporting obligations. If any office needs expanding to help offset student debt, financial aid should be a top priority.

RESULTS, BENEFITS

Imagine, though, the benefit of supporting that office and the utility of the data that it can generate, particularly if the information is posted on websites. What would be the effect in the public, legislative and regents' arenas if every academic unit was obligated to do this for institutional reaccreditation?

Faculty can streamline curriculums with a focus on rigor rather than pedagogical expansion. Chairs can put more emphasis on recruitment and retention. Directors and deans can emphasize fundraising. Provosts can revise budget models to reward units that recruit, retain and graduate students in a timely manner.

Presidents can tout access to education to regain the public's trust, which just may be the key to higher levels of fundraising and legislative support.

Internally, we also would have additional criteria to evaluate the performance of chairs, deans, provosts and presidents and to focus the faculty on areas of public service and access to education.

Michael Bugeja, director of Iowa State University's Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, chairs the Contemporary Leadership Committee of the Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication. He wrote this for Inside Higher Education, where the full article is available at www.insidehighered.com/. Comments: bugeja@iastate.edu