My motivation to enter public service centered around education excellence. My tenure in public service was focused on education policy and my post-political life has been spent in the education sector. My involvement in my daughters' education -- making sure they were attending the right schools, communicating with teachers, securing the right supports, helping with homework, volunteering, editing papers, helping to select courses, helping with their college search, paying for their college choice, supporting their emerging career aspirations with solid education advice -- has been informed by and has informed my work. So, no surprise that this article on the University of Massachusetts at Amherst efforts to become a more selective and prestigious State University would get my attention and that I would have opinions. Those opinions are too long for a Facebook rant and exactly why I have this Blog! So here is a policy post for the New Year friends!! I will limit this post to three points that are a conflation of observations of mom, CEO and Governor/Political leader.
First the article -- which was thorough and excellent:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2019/01/08/zoomass-more-turning-umass-amherst-into-elite-university-needed/Xt1wgLom5TfKuZ7glLaPiO/story.html?s_camp=bostonglobe:social:sharetools:twitter
As background, my oldest considered the University of Vermont and one of the twins had several flagship Universities (not UMass) high on her list and we visited even more. She will be attending Northwestern University in the fall so she is certainly the type of in-state student (even though I am now a resident of Florida, Chuck has resumed his Massachusetts residency -- tax policy will be a post for another day) that this article indicated UMass wanted to retain. She also has heard the numerous "ZooMass" stories and despite my encouragement could not be persuaded to consider UMass. This was cemented by a Field Hockey tournament during her Junior Year which was held at UMass in a -- shall we say 'dated -- athletic facility.
This article raises some really important issues that parents and policy leaders in higher education and politics need to grapple with and only skirts some others. In general, it seems like at least the Chancellor has a vision, is realistic about what is going on in Higher Education, and is focused and executing on that vision. Kudos.
The issues I want to tackle here are: What is the obligation of a state university to be a feeder for the economic growth of their host state? Can technology play a role in addressing the affordability crisis facing families with traditional college-age students? And should there be better coordination of resources within state higher education systems in general and the Massachusetts system in particular?
What role does the state expect Flagship U to play in their economic development policy?
Does Massachusetts as a state have a vision or does the UMass or the Public Higher Education system have a vision AND the policies and funding aligned to it that align with the UMass Amherst direction that ends up being good for the students and economy of Massachusetts? The answer, I fear, despite great people and leaders in our state in important roles is no. Massachusetts public higher education system is almost as fragmented as our K-12 system AND it doesn't have an overarching funding formula that makes any attempt to drive policy direction -- which, for all the flaws of the K-12 funding formula, at least it tries to drive for equity, excellence and standards. I know the Chair of the Higher Education Board, Chris Gabrieli, (who is a colleague and friend) is trying to build energy and support to do this -- hopefully he will be succesful and I have agreed to help if I can. Why should it matter?
As this article notes, lots more Massachusetts residents attend UMASS than Northeastern. I discovered during my time as Governor that the college graduates MOST likely to stay and work in state are in-state residents who attend in-state colleges and universities. Don't get me wrong, Massachusetts benefits enormously and would not be the economic engine and the phenomenal place to live and work that it is today without Harvard, MIT, Williams, Boston College, Holy Cross .... I could go on and on. But our future workforce and economic vibrancy depends at least as much on the success of our public higher education institution's education of in-state students. Yet -- note that the young man who didn't get in to UMass DID get in to UVM, Quinnipiac and other out of state institutions -- potentially because it is harder to get into the UMass Ahmerst Biology (and they say STEM) programs. Sit on that for a minute. Where are the jobs of the future in Massachusetts going to be? Should the message to this student from his guidance counselor really have been -- well, if you want a STEM degree, you cannot go to your state flagship U. But, if you want to go to (what the Chancellor is aiming for) the best and most affordable University available to you then why don't you apply as an American Studies major? I use American Studies on purpose --- because it is my major and I use it in the 'I can call my sister ugly but you can't' tradition. (My sister IS NOT UGLY ... that was an explanatory phrase!!!). Our Massachusetts innovation economy is thriving in health sciences, biotechnology, computer sciences -- yet we are making it harder for students to get degrees in the very subjects where we will need graduates to fuel that growth in the very institution that will most guarantee they will stay in the state to work. Shouldn't the question for an in state student who wants to major in Biology be: are your grades good enough and your test scores high enough that you can do the work? In those majors that will drive our future workforce -- nursing, biology, computer science .... shouldn't there be a future workforce consideration to admissions? I am not suggesting letting underqualified students in to the university. But I suspect that those are the majors that are driving the SAT and ACT score averages UP with out of state students. By extension, a better UMass Amherst is allowing more prestigious in-state English graduates but Biology and Computer Science graduates who got a great priced degree and are most likely returning to their home state to fuel that economy. Is that what we want from our flagship U? This isn't just an issue at UMass by the way. Poor Jason Gibbs, the Chief of Staff for the Governor of Vermont has had to receive long email rants from me on the nursing program at UVM which is, I suspect, harder to get in to for an in-state student than an out of state student. And yet, the state of Vermont has such a serious nursing shortage, that some hospitals in the state are forced to pay a premium for travel nurses! Does that make sense? I of course think not. The UMass Chancellor does a great job discussing that changes to in state/out of state enrollment would have real financial impacts on the budget of the institution. But so, too, do nursing shortages and over the long term, shortages of critical labor pool talent. But those are other people's budget problems and gets at a bigger government issue than higher education policy which is it is very hard to do long-term, sytstemic and strategic initiatives which is what I am suggesting here. But, as I always tell my girls, just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try! In fact, it probably means you should. And what better place than Massachusetts?
Technology: Can it be part of the solution to the college affordability crisis?
My second issue is the area of technology. I have met the new UMass hire for online efforts and I am glad that on-line and technology got some notice here as I have worked in and around that issue now for the better part of 15 years. But none of the efforts described by the Chancellor or that I have seen have leveraged technology to get at the biggest challenge for the traditional undergraduate population. The growth of online in post-secondary has been primarily targeted for adults. Despite what you read, it has grown and worked well because it has been a less expensive and more convenient option for young and not-so-young adults who needed post-high school courses or education to survive in our current economy. While there are some traditional post-secondary institutions who have catered to that need, most of them are limited in their flexibility to meet the needs of non-traditional learners either by accreditation or location. Yet, technology and online hold (IMHO) significant opportunity to reduce the cost for traditional 18 - 22 year old students (those like my girls). Because they (or ME!) are the cash cows, no institution that I am aware of has embraced a strategy of using online to reduce the overall cost of a 2 or four year degree for these students. How might you do this? When I was trying to help craft an education policy for Senator McCain's Presidential bid we had the great luxury of starting from basically limited pre-existing policy positions. We also knew parents cared about cost and that the Senator needed an education policy but it would NOT be his area of focus. While I found that a bit discouraging as an ed policy wonk at first, in the end it forced us to be concise, creative and thoughtful. I remember one call in particular that has stuck with me where someone (I am sorry I don't remember who) said -- "At the end of the day, the only real way to bring down the cost of a college degree is to reduce the amount of time it takes to get one. Three years of college is cheaper than four." Some of the most revolutionary ideas are the most simple. Many parents, including me buy in to the reality that living away from home on a college campus is a rite of passage that is critical to growth and maturity. But is there really a difference between 3 years or 4? Or 3.5? My oldest scored a dream job that has her staying in Boston near her college over the summer and imagine my surprise in learning that the cost of an online summer course is significantly less than the cost of a spring or fall course. But the credit counts the same and often the same Professor teaches! She has begun taking summer courses -- for her it has been a strategy to double major but we have considered it as a possible 3.5 year strategy as well. But we figured it out ourselves. When parents are trying to figure out cost for college, they ALWAYS assume that a Bachelors degree at "Johnny's College of Choice" is a four year cost. Why? What if it was 3? And more to the point, what if it becomes 5? Colleges should be working aggressively, using technology as a tool to craft individual study plans for students that fit their needs, educational and degree expectations and budgets. The cost for a biology degree at UMass Amherst should be much easier to manipulate for every student in addition to being much more attainable for every qualified in state student.
What does a State System of Higher Education look like and do we have one in the Commonwealth?
Last point -- and here I will be brief -- YES -- UMass Amherst should be coordinating with other State Universities and Colleges to serve those students who don't get accepted to the Flagship University. In the many states we visited and at the great state U's (UNC, UVA, Alabama -- yes, Alabama) every one of them had a very easy to understand strategy that included improving academic excellence, attracting out of state students, serving in-state students and contributing to the local, regional and state economy. I have a few issues (from a distance) with the approach by Amherst to the Mt Ida situation. Why not work WITH UMass Boston if you want a Boston/inside 495 presence? Why couldn't the President of UMass who does has political skills a plenty force that? Wouldn't that have better served BOTH campuses? Boston needs dorms, and more support and credibility. If a UMass Amherst student had to enroll at UMass Boston for one or two semesters to live on the Mt Ida campus and perhaps they split the tuition or something creative ... wouldn't that have been a better outcome? Same for the students but better for the University system? And -- has anyone told the local town and regional folks in Amherst and the Pioneer Valley that the reason for Mt Ida is so fewer, younger talented faculty and staff have to live in Western Massachusetts? I suspect for the neighbors who put up with all the students and what that entails, being told they still won't get the tax dollars and they won't get the employment and other benefits of bringing to the region talented young professors and staff -- well, I represented the Berkshires long enough to suspect that reveal in this article might not have gone down so well in the 4-1-3. I am guessing the Chancellor's Congressional campaign won't be in the 1st Congressional District.
On balance, it seems to me the Chancellor is doing a lot right and more right than most. The policy challenges facing higher education today are not for the faint of heart! But there has never been a greater need for innovation and strategic solutions. Lucky for the residents of Massachusetts we have always been a bastion of both.
First the article -- which was thorough and excellent:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2019/01/08/zoomass-more-turning-umass-amherst-into-elite-university-needed/Xt1wgLom5TfKuZ7glLaPiO/story.html?s_camp=bostonglobe:social:sharetools:twitter
As background, my oldest considered the University of Vermont and one of the twins had several flagship Universities (not UMass) high on her list and we visited even more. She will be attending Northwestern University in the fall so she is certainly the type of in-state student (even though I am now a resident of Florida, Chuck has resumed his Massachusetts residency -- tax policy will be a post for another day) that this article indicated UMass wanted to retain. She also has heard the numerous "ZooMass" stories and despite my encouragement could not be persuaded to consider UMass. This was cemented by a Field Hockey tournament during her Junior Year which was held at UMass in a -- shall we say 'dated -- athletic facility.
This article raises some really important issues that parents and policy leaders in higher education and politics need to grapple with and only skirts some others. In general, it seems like at least the Chancellor has a vision, is realistic about what is going on in Higher Education, and is focused and executing on that vision. Kudos.
The issues I want to tackle here are: What is the obligation of a state university to be a feeder for the economic growth of their host state? Can technology play a role in addressing the affordability crisis facing families with traditional college-age students? And should there be better coordination of resources within state higher education systems in general and the Massachusetts system in particular?
What role does the state expect Flagship U to play in their economic development policy?
Does Massachusetts as a state have a vision or does the UMass or the Public Higher Education system have a vision AND the policies and funding aligned to it that align with the UMass Amherst direction that ends up being good for the students and economy of Massachusetts? The answer, I fear, despite great people and leaders in our state in important roles is no. Massachusetts public higher education system is almost as fragmented as our K-12 system AND it doesn't have an overarching funding formula that makes any attempt to drive policy direction -- which, for all the flaws of the K-12 funding formula, at least it tries to drive for equity, excellence and standards. I know the Chair of the Higher Education Board, Chris Gabrieli, (who is a colleague and friend) is trying to build energy and support to do this -- hopefully he will be succesful and I have agreed to help if I can. Why should it matter?
As this article notes, lots more Massachusetts residents attend UMASS than Northeastern. I discovered during my time as Governor that the college graduates MOST likely to stay and work in state are in-state residents who attend in-state colleges and universities. Don't get me wrong, Massachusetts benefits enormously and would not be the economic engine and the phenomenal place to live and work that it is today without Harvard, MIT, Williams, Boston College, Holy Cross .... I could go on and on. But our future workforce and economic vibrancy depends at least as much on the success of our public higher education institution's education of in-state students. Yet -- note that the young man who didn't get in to UMass DID get in to UVM, Quinnipiac and other out of state institutions -- potentially because it is harder to get into the UMass Ahmerst Biology (and they say STEM) programs. Sit on that for a minute. Where are the jobs of the future in Massachusetts going to be? Should the message to this student from his guidance counselor really have been -- well, if you want a STEM degree, you cannot go to your state flagship U. But, if you want to go to (what the Chancellor is aiming for) the best and most affordable University available to you then why don't you apply as an American Studies major? I use American Studies on purpose --- because it is my major and I use it in the 'I can call my sister ugly but you can't' tradition. (My sister IS NOT UGLY ... that was an explanatory phrase!!!). Our Massachusetts innovation economy is thriving in health sciences, biotechnology, computer sciences -- yet we are making it harder for students to get degrees in the very subjects where we will need graduates to fuel that growth in the very institution that will most guarantee they will stay in the state to work. Shouldn't the question for an in state student who wants to major in Biology be: are your grades good enough and your test scores high enough that you can do the work? In those majors that will drive our future workforce -- nursing, biology, computer science .... shouldn't there be a future workforce consideration to admissions? I am not suggesting letting underqualified students in to the university. But I suspect that those are the majors that are driving the SAT and ACT score averages UP with out of state students. By extension, a better UMass Amherst is allowing more prestigious in-state English graduates but Biology and Computer Science graduates who got a great priced degree and are most likely returning to their home state to fuel that economy. Is that what we want from our flagship U? This isn't just an issue at UMass by the way. Poor Jason Gibbs, the Chief of Staff for the Governor of Vermont has had to receive long email rants from me on the nursing program at UVM which is, I suspect, harder to get in to for an in-state student than an out of state student. And yet, the state of Vermont has such a serious nursing shortage, that some hospitals in the state are forced to pay a premium for travel nurses! Does that make sense? I of course think not. The UMass Chancellor does a great job discussing that changes to in state/out of state enrollment would have real financial impacts on the budget of the institution. But so, too, do nursing shortages and over the long term, shortages of critical labor pool talent. But those are other people's budget problems and gets at a bigger government issue than higher education policy which is it is very hard to do long-term, sytstemic and strategic initiatives which is what I am suggesting here. But, as I always tell my girls, just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try! In fact, it probably means you should. And what better place than Massachusetts?
Technology: Can it be part of the solution to the college affordability crisis?
My second issue is the area of technology. I have met the new UMass hire for online efforts and I am glad that on-line and technology got some notice here as I have worked in and around that issue now for the better part of 15 years. But none of the efforts described by the Chancellor or that I have seen have leveraged technology to get at the biggest challenge for the traditional undergraduate population. The growth of online in post-secondary has been primarily targeted for adults. Despite what you read, it has grown and worked well because it has been a less expensive and more convenient option for young and not-so-young adults who needed post-high school courses or education to survive in our current economy. While there are some traditional post-secondary institutions who have catered to that need, most of them are limited in their flexibility to meet the needs of non-traditional learners either by accreditation or location. Yet, technology and online hold (IMHO) significant opportunity to reduce the cost for traditional 18 - 22 year old students (those like my girls). Because they (or ME!) are the cash cows, no institution that I am aware of has embraced a strategy of using online to reduce the overall cost of a 2 or four year degree for these students. How might you do this? When I was trying to help craft an education policy for Senator McCain's Presidential bid we had the great luxury of starting from basically limited pre-existing policy positions. We also knew parents cared about cost and that the Senator needed an education policy but it would NOT be his area of focus. While I found that a bit discouraging as an ed policy wonk at first, in the end it forced us to be concise, creative and thoughtful. I remember one call in particular that has stuck with me where someone (I am sorry I don't remember who) said -- "At the end of the day, the only real way to bring down the cost of a college degree is to reduce the amount of time it takes to get one. Three years of college is cheaper than four." Some of the most revolutionary ideas are the most simple. Many parents, including me buy in to the reality that living away from home on a college campus is a rite of passage that is critical to growth and maturity. But is there really a difference between 3 years or 4? Or 3.5? My oldest scored a dream job that has her staying in Boston near her college over the summer and imagine my surprise in learning that the cost of an online summer course is significantly less than the cost of a spring or fall course. But the credit counts the same and often the same Professor teaches! She has begun taking summer courses -- for her it has been a strategy to double major but we have considered it as a possible 3.5 year strategy as well. But we figured it out ourselves. When parents are trying to figure out cost for college, they ALWAYS assume that a Bachelors degree at "Johnny's College of Choice" is a four year cost. Why? What if it was 3? And more to the point, what if it becomes 5? Colleges should be working aggressively, using technology as a tool to craft individual study plans for students that fit their needs, educational and degree expectations and budgets. The cost for a biology degree at UMass Amherst should be much easier to manipulate for every student in addition to being much more attainable for every qualified in state student.
What does a State System of Higher Education look like and do we have one in the Commonwealth?
Last point -- and here I will be brief -- YES -- UMass Amherst should be coordinating with other State Universities and Colleges to serve those students who don't get accepted to the Flagship University. In the many states we visited and at the great state U's (UNC, UVA, Alabama -- yes, Alabama) every one of them had a very easy to understand strategy that included improving academic excellence, attracting out of state students, serving in-state students and contributing to the local, regional and state economy. I have a few issues (from a distance) with the approach by Amherst to the Mt Ida situation. Why not work WITH UMass Boston if you want a Boston/inside 495 presence? Why couldn't the President of UMass who does has political skills a plenty force that? Wouldn't that have better served BOTH campuses? Boston needs dorms, and more support and credibility. If a UMass Amherst student had to enroll at UMass Boston for one or two semesters to live on the Mt Ida campus and perhaps they split the tuition or something creative ... wouldn't that have been a better outcome? Same for the students but better for the University system? And -- has anyone told the local town and regional folks in Amherst and the Pioneer Valley that the reason for Mt Ida is so fewer, younger talented faculty and staff have to live in Western Massachusetts? I suspect for the neighbors who put up with all the students and what that entails, being told they still won't get the tax dollars and they won't get the employment and other benefits of bringing to the region talented young professors and staff -- well, I represented the Berkshires long enough to suspect that reveal in this article might not have gone down so well in the 4-1-3. I am guessing the Chancellor's Congressional campaign won't be in the 1st Congressional District.
On balance, it seems to me the Chancellor is doing a lot right and more right than most. The policy challenges facing higher education today are not for the faint of heart! But there has never been a greater need for innovation and strategic solutions. Lucky for the residents of Massachusetts we have always been a bastion of both.
I'm at a bit of a loss here because Boston Globe won't allow me to open the aricle, but I still would like to comment. Shouldn't a public education cost less than a private? I think that has been a common assumption for some time, but we found with UMASS that it would be considerably more. Even with the addition of a John and Abigail Adams Scholarship, tuition is only reduced about $1500 yearly which to me in today's day and age isn't putting a dent in things. We did not get an official offer from UMASS because he didn't apply, but net price calulators put it at about 5k more per year on average than any of the private schools we costed out. Confirmation from a friend that the net prices were pretty close. For me the flagship concept is lost if it's not affordable, because to me state colleges should be accessible to all. For us the only advantage to a state college would be the peace of mind that it wouldn't suddenly close in the dark of night, sending us off looking again...
ReplyDeleteI think this is the crux of the issue. You don't really know what price any school is till you apply and the public universities have added so many fees that the tuition price for in state is even misguided. But the peace of mind about not closing is real. One of the issues that has to be openly debated is: what is the purpose of the flagship university to a state and its residents? access? affordability? training for careers and therefore support for economic growth? It is no longer clear to most middle and upper income families what the value of a State University degree is -- especially if it becomes so selective that there are more out of state than in state students. I look at UVA and UNC that are very selective but still 80 percent in state .... that makes more sense to me. It isn't clear that is what UMass Amherst if aiming for ...
Delete