Tag: Colleges

  • Credulous Nonsense on Colleges from the CBC

    Credulous Nonsense on Colleges from the CBC

    There are a lot of things to be furious about these days but let me tell you, one of the things to be upset about is the CBC taking crapulous pot-shots at the college sector for no reason whatsoever. I refer to the story posted between Christmas and New Year’s entitled India’s trafficking claims against Canadian colleges reveal ‘exploited’ immigration, experts say, which was a continuation of an earlier story entitled India alleges Canadian colleges linked to trafficking foreign students over the Canada-U.S. border.

    In a word: no, India’s claims do nothing of the sort. And the stories that CBC has been running on the issue border on journalistic malpractice.

    All of this coverage is an outgrowth of the so-called “Dingucha” case in which a family of four from the village of Dingucha in Gujarat died while trying to cross the Canada-US Border illegally near Emerson Manitoba in 2022. One member of the family was in Canda on a student visa and was able to bring his spouse (and thus his children) on open work permits.

    The hook for the stories that ran over Christmas was a spate of pieces that ran in the Indian press about the case, like this one from NDTV  and this one from The Indian Express. They all say basically the same thing, and CBC parroted them word-for-word (there does not appear to have been any attempt by the CBC to report the story from India). Here’s the heart of what CBC said:

    India’s Enforcement Directorate said in a news release on Tuesday it had uncovered evidence of human trafficking involving two “entities” in Mumbai after probing the Indian connection to the Patel family, who froze to death in January 2022 while trying to cross the border from Manitoba into Minnesota during frigid weather conditions. 

    The Enforcement Directorate said its investigation found that about 25,000 students were referred by one entity, with over 10,000 students referred by another entity to various colleges outside India every year. 

    Arrangements would be made for the Indian nationals to be admitted to Canadian colleges and universities and apply for student visas, according to the Enforcement Directorate. 

    But once the Indian nationals reached Canada, instead of joining the college, they illegally crossed the border from Canada into the U.S. and the fee received by the Canadian schools was remitted back to the individuals’ account, the Enforcement Directorate said.

    Based on this, CBC got a bunch of “experts” to say a variety of things which put colleges and student visas generally in a bad light. I’ll get to those in a moment, but before we do that, let’s just point out a few things wrong with the story’s framing here.

    First, and most importantly, this is all reporting on a press release from the Indian Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED is not the police; it’s part of the Revenue Ministry. To quote its website, “it is a multi-disciplinary organization mandated with investigation of offence of money laundering and violations of foreign exchange laws.” It is unclear what its connection to a murder investigation might be, and curiously, this is a question CBC never appears to have asked.

    (In this same vein, while the ED is in theory non-partisan, it has been accused in India of being used as a tool of the ruling BJP. Could the CBC not think of any reason why a Modi-aligned agency might have a reason to make false and defamatory claims about Canada? Really?)

    Second, this press release provides no actual evidence provided here about, well, anything. There are “entities” that refer people abroad for study? No shit, Sherlock. They are called agents. They do it all the time. And while there is no question that the Patels (and presumably others who have crossed the border in the past) got to Canada on a student visa, no evidence has been provided showing that any of these agents are in league with human smugglers based in North America. (Note: the press release is very badly drafted, but I think a fair read of it is that it implies that Canadian institutions were aware of the scheme and were implicitly part of it. Needless to say, there is less than zero evidence of this).

    Basically: We’ve known for a couple of years now Indian citizens come to Canada on a student visa and then broke the law by trying to enter the US illegally. Exactly no new evidence was provided by the ED in its press release. It is not impossible that such evidence exists, of course, but for the moment no such evidence has been produced.

    So why did the CBC react as if it did?

    This was the question I asked them when a CBC producer tried to get me to comment on the story on December 27th. Why would you do a story on so little evidence? I said I didn’t think the evidence merited a story but agreed to speak to them if they wanted someone to explain exactly why the evidence was so thin. You will no doubt be shocked to learn that CBC then declined to interview me.

    Upon reading the story, it’s not hard to understand why. With zero evidence, they got a bunch of experts to repeat talking points about the awfulness of student visas that they’ve been repeating for months now.

    • Raj Sharma, a Calgary-based immigration lawyer, told said “If the allegations are true, it reveals shocking gaps in our integrity protocols.… This is deeply, deeply concerning and problematic,” adding that the allegations suggest “wide-scale human smuggling.”

    (The “if” in that sentence is doing a hell of a lot of work – AU)

    • Kelly Sundberg, a former Canada Border Services Agency officer who is a professor of criminology at Mount Royal University, said the system has no oversight and is “being exploited” by transnational criminals. “This type of fraud, of gaming our immigration system has been going on for quite some time actually,” he said, noting that the volume of those potentially involved “is staggering.”
    • Ken Zaifman, a Winnipeg-based immigration lawyer, says that from his experience, the responsibility of oversight should lie with the educational institutions, but that they did not do so because “they were addicted to international students to fund their programs.”

    Ok, so, these comments about fraud and oversight are worth examining. I’m trying to imagine how either the government of Canada or an educational institution could legitimately “prevent fraud” or “exercise oversight” in a case like this one. Are colleges and universities supposed to be like the pre-cogs in the movie Minority Report,able to spot criminals before they commit a crime? I mean, there is a case to be made that in the past Canada made such cross-border runs more tempting by allowing students’ entire families to join them in Canada while studying (as was the case in the Dingucha affair), but that loophole was largely closed ten months ago when the feds basically stopped giving open work permits to partners of students unless they were enrolled in a graduate degree.

    Anyways, this is where we are now: our national broadcaster sees no problem running evidence-free stories simply as a platform to beat up on public colleges because that’s a great way to get clicks. Crappy journalism? Sure. But it’s also evidence of the disdain with which Canadian PSE institutions are now viewed by the broader public: CBC wouldn’t run such a thin story unless it thought the target was “soft.” And there’s no solution to our funding woes until this gets sorted out.

    Source link

  • Community colleges in the lurch after WIOA bill founders

    Community colleges in the lurch after WIOA bill founders

    A bipartisan effort to update the nation’s workforce development law is dead, depriving hundreds of community colleges of increased funds and opportunities to cut through the red tape surrounding short-term job training.

    The Stronger Workforce for America Act would have given community colleges automatic eligibility to enter into training contracts with local workforce development offices, introduced a new federal grant and protected several existing programs from potential budget cuts in the new fiscal year.

    The bill’s sponsors were hopeful that the bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act would pass Congress before the end of the year, as it was included in a wider spending package to fund the government. But when Republicans voiced opposition to the omnibus spending bill just over 24 hours before the government shutdown deadline, lawmakers reversed course. They instead passed a pared-down continuing resolution to fund the government through mid-March, and WIOA reauthorization didn’t make the cut.

    Leaders on the House education and workforce committee had said the Stronger Workforce for America Act would create “transformative change” for the American workforce, pointing to how WIOA helps American workers keep pace with an ever-changing job market and gain high-demand skills. Reauthorizing WIOA was a top priority for Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who chaired the committee until December.

    Members of the House and Senate education and workforce committees worked for the last two years to update the workforce bill, which expired in 2020. The House plan overwhelmingly passed last spring, and the Senate released a draft plan over the summer. The Senate bill didn’t move forward, but key lawmakers in the House and Senate reached a compromise in late November to update WIOA.

    Groups like the National Association of Workforce Boards and the American Association of Community Colleges say the death of the Stronger Workforce act won’t kill their programs, but nonetheless they expressed concerns about how a lack of reauthorization makes their programs vulnerable. They are trying to remain hopeful that reauthorization will be a priority for this Congress.

    “As the session waned, it was clear that getting a bill enacted in 2024 was going to be extremely difficult,” David Baime, senior vice president of government relations at AACC, said in a statement. “However, we are grateful for WIOA’s champions and very optimistic that a reauthorization will be enacted by the next Congress.”

    Until then, Inside Higher Ed called Baime to talk about the bill and what it means for community colleges and short-term workforce training. Here are three key obstacles he said remain until WIOA gets an update.

    Bureaucracy and Eligibility

    One of the largest benefits for community colleges under the Stronger Workforce act was that their training programs would have automatically qualified for federal WIOA grants.

    Currently, any training provider—be it a community college, an employer or a for-profit technical institution—must meet certain performance criteria in order to receive WIOA dollars. About $500 million is available for job training vouchers each year.

    Often, colleges receive funds by entering a contract with a local workforce board. The process begins with local workforce development agencies identifying key trades or certifications that are in high demand among their community. Then the board picks an approved training provider and contracts with them to train a set number of workers.

    But for years, jumping through the hoops required to make that eligibility list kept many underresourced community colleges from receiving those contracts and federal funds.

    “The bureaucratic nature of WIOA has made for some presidents not being as engaged as they might be,” Baime said. “In these cases, they just don’t find it worthwhile to invest a lot of time in their local workforce boards.”

    The WIOA update would have cut down that red tape.

    Increased Funds

    But even if community colleges did automatically qualify, Baime said, the funding set aside specifically for training programs is limited, and competition with other providers like for-profit technical institutions and employers is steep.

    “In fact, a lot more money for training goes to our students through Pell than through WIOA,” Baime explained.

    Since 2020, the Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grant program has provided dedicated funding for training programs at community colleges. Most recently, the Labor Department awarded $65 million to 18 colleges. Through five rounds of funding, more than 200 colleges have received a total $265 million.

    But the grant program was never formally authorized. That means there is no mandate requiring Congress to set aside a certain amount of funds each year, and the grant depends entirely on advocacy from specific lawmakers.

    The WIOA update would have authorized the grant, providing statutory protection for the funds.

    “SCCTG is a really important program for us. The program relies upon a tested model of community colleges working directly with businesses, in coordination with the federal workforce system. It’s not funded at the level we would like, but it reflects an appropriate prioritization of the role that community colleges play in job training,” Baime said.

    A few other, less direct funding increases were also lost when the legislation died. For example, one policy would have required 50 percent of all WIOA funds to be spent on training rather than administrative fees, leading local workforce boards to invest more in contracts with outside providers.

    Another would have specified that historically broad H1-B grants, which use the revenue from skills-based visas to train American workers, must be used to upskill individuals forced out of their current roles by innovations like AI. Workers would have received up to $5,000 through that change.

    “We think a voucher that size may be an attractive inducement for dislocated workers to receive training at community colleges,” Baime said.

    Future Vulnerability

    Finally, for community colleges, a key concern is how the incoming Congress and Trump administration will approach WIOA, especially now that legislation has failed.

    Republicans in Congress have made it clear they want to “substantially reduce funding,” so Baime fears that WIOA funding of all types could face serious cuts.

    The SCCTG, for example, which has historically been advocated for by Democrats, may no longer get a budget line at all.

    “The importance of workforce education is appreciated by lawmakers across the Hill,” he explained. “But we certainly would have rather gotten that bipartisan, bicameral demonstration of support by being part of this bill and enacted into statute going into the [fiscal year 2026] appropriations process.”

    Source link

  • New book envisions colleges dedicated to Earth’s well-being

    New book envisions colleges dedicated to Earth’s well-being

    What is a climate justice university, and how can our universities transform into institutions that truly promote the well-being of the earth and humanity? Jennie C. Stephens’s new book, Climate Justice and the University: Shaping a Hopeful Future for All (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2024), sets out to answer that question. It outlines where today’s universities fall short in their handling not only of the climate crisis but also a wealth of other modern social issues.

    The book lays out broad ideas for transforming how universities function in society, such as shifting research practices to collaborate with people and communities affected by the issues, like the climate crisis, at the center of that research. Stephens, who is a professor at both the National University of Ireland Maynoonth and Northeastern University, acknowledges in the introduction that such a transformation would be a major undertaking, and one that many universities would be disinclined to tackle. “Because of the internal pressure within higher education to maintain institutional norms, this book and its proposal for climate justice universities are, in some ways, radical acts of resistance,” she writes.

    In a phone interview, Stephens spoke with Inside Higher Ed about her vision for climate justice universities—and how modern institutions fail to meet it. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

    Q: It was interesting reading that your perspective on these issues comes both from your scholarly work and from a time that you worked on the administrative side of academia. Could you describe how those experiences came together to inspire this book?

    A: I’ve been working in academia my whole career—more than 30 years—and during that time, I’ve been focused on climate and energy issues and sustainability from a very social justice perspective. What has happened through my experiences over time is that I see part of society’s inadequate response to the climate crisis mirrored in academia.

    I think higher education has a really big role in society—in what we are doing and what we’re not doing, in how we’re teaching and learning, in what we’re doing research on and what we’re not doing research on—and I think that our collective insufficient response to the climate crisis is related to what’s been happening in our higher education institutions, which are increasingly very financialized. They’re driven by profit-seeking priorities and new tech and start-ups and focused on job training. We’ve drifted away from a public-good mission of higher education: What does society need in this very disruptive time, and how can our higher education institutions better respond to the needs of society, particularly of vulnerable and marginalized communities and people and households who are increasingly struggling with all kinds of precarity and vulnerabilities?

    Q: How would you define the term “climate justice university”?

    A: The idea of a climate justice university is a university with a mission and a purpose to create more healthy, equitable, sustainable futures for everyone. So, that is a very public-good mission. The idea is to connect the climate crisis with all the other injustices and the … multiple different crises that are happening right now; the climate crisis is just one among many. We also have a cost of living crisis; we have a mental health crisis, we have financial crises; we have a plastic pollution crisis and a biodiversity crisis; we have a crisis in international law and a militarization crisis. We have all of these crises, and yet what we’re doing in our universities tends to continue to be quite siloed and trying to address parts of specific problems, rather than acknowledging that these crises are symptoms of larger systemic challenges.

    For me, climate justice is a paradigm shift toward a transformative lens, acknowledging that things are getting worse and worse in so many dimensions, and that if we want a better future for humanity and for societies around the world, we actually need big, transformative change. A lot of things we do in our universities are reinforcing the status quo and not promoting or endorsing transformative change. So, climate justice is a paradigm shift with a transformative lens that focuses less on individual behavior, more on collective action, less on technological change, more on social change, and less on profit-seeking priorities, more on well-being priorities. What do human beings need to live meaningful, healthy lives, and how can society be more oriented toward that?

    Q: Can you talk a bit more about how the current structure of the university maintains the status quo with regard to climate?

    A: One of the ways that I think universities kind of perpetuate the status quo is by not acknowledging what a disruptive time we’re in with regard to climate crisis, but other crises as well. There’s an encouragement on many campuses for kind of being complacent, like, “Oh, this is the way the world is.” Not necessarily encouraging students and researchers to imagine alternative futures.

    There’s also a focus on doing research that billionaires or corporate interests want us to do, and—in particular, in the climate space—what this has led to is a lot of climate and energy research that is funded by big companies and other wealthy donors who actually don’t want change. We have more and more research to show who has been obstructing climate action and transformative change for a more stable climate future. We know many of those same companies and same fossil fuel interests have also been very strategically investing in our universities. What that does is constrain the research and also the public discourse about climate and energy futures toward very fossil fuel–friendly futures.

    Early on in my own career, I worked on projects that were funded by the fossil fuel industry on carbon capture and storage, and a lot of the climate and energy research in our universities is focused on carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide removal technology, geoengineering—all these technical fixes that assume we’re just going to keep using fossil fuels. What we really need, if we had more climate justice universities that were focused on the public good and what the climate science has been telling us for decades, is to phase out fossil fuels. We need a global initiative to phase out fossil fuels. But we don’t have in our universities much research on how to phase out fossil fuels.

    Q: In your book, you discuss the concept of exnovation—the process of phasing out inefficient or harmful technologies. Why is research into exnovation not already more common in higher education, and what are the main barriers for researchers who want to take this approach?

    A: I do think funding has a lot to do with it. There’s a whole chapter in the book about the financialization of higher education institutions, which has resulted from kind of a decline in public support toward more private sector support, which means that universities are beholden to private sector interests, increasingly, and they’re encouraged and incentivized to cater to and partner with … private sector interests. I think that has really changed the kinds of impact that higher education institutions and research has had.

    Of course, there are a lot of people within universities who are interested in the public good and doing research on exnovation. But the incentive structure, even among those of us who would want to contribute in those ways, is such that we are increasingly incentivized and promoted based on how much money we can bring in, how many papers can we get published and the scale of resources available to do research. So, there’s a larger, long-term strategy to orient research toward the technical fixes, particularly when it comes to climate and energy, and a lot less funding available for social change or governance research on how to bring back the public-good priorities in our policies, our funding, in our universities. It’s really a longer-term trend that has led to this financialization.

    Q: You lay out a lot of alternative ideas for financing universities, which is important given that anxiety over funding is at an all-time high at some institutions. Walk me through some of your ideas and talk about the feasibility of restructuring how universities are funded.

    A: One idea in the chapter on new ways of engaging and being more relevant is what if we imagine higher education institutions more like public libraries? Public libraries, we all kind of recognize as valuable resources for everyone; every community should have some access to a public library. What if higher education could be [better] invested in that sense of being a resource and not being an ivory tower that is really hard to get into and only some privileged people get access to? What if our higher education institutions were designed and funded to provide more accessible and relevant resources, co-created with communities? That’s kind of one of the big ideas of imagining what this really valuable resource could be more relevant and more connected to the needs of society and of communities.

    You also asked about feasibility, and one of the things that I want to point out is that this book is not a how-to; every context and region and different place in the world has different things going on with their higher education institutions. The idea with this book is to invite us all to kind of think about, what is the purpose of higher education institutions? And how can we better leverage all the public investment that is already spent on higher education institutions? How can that be oriented toward better futures for everyone?

    At higher education institutions that are feeling very vulnerable, having a lot of anxiety about funding levels—the ideas in this book don’t provide a prescription on how to fix that in the near term. But the ideas in the book are really to encourage us all—and especially those involved in higher education policy and higher education funding—to re-evaluate and reclaim the public-good mission of higher education and reconsider how to restructure higher education so that the value and the resources are more accessible, more relevant and more transformative, in terms of fitting the needs of a very disruptive time for humanity and for societies and communities around the country and around the world.

    Source link

  • Colleges advise some international students to return to U.S. before Trump takes office (PBS News Hour)

    Colleges advise some international students to return to U.S. before Trump takes office (PBS News Hour)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Colleges advise some international students to return to U.S. before Trump takes office (PBS News Hour)




    Source link

  • How Community Colleges Can Simplify the Student Enrollment Process

    How Community Colleges Can Simplify the Student Enrollment Process

    Key Takeaways:

    • Community colleges play a vital role in addressing enrollment barriers, offering tailored support to first-generation and working students.
    • Proactive strategies, such as early communication, community outreach, and wraparound services like food assistance and mental health support, help students navigate challenges and stay engaged.
    • Leveraging technology like CRM systems and AI tools simplifies the student enrollment process and enhances conversion rates.
    • Measuring success through metrics such as conversion rates, re-enrollment, and first-semester engagement lets colleges refine their strategies and better support student persistence and retention.

    The enrollment journey at community colleges can be far from straightforward, as many students face barriers beyond academics—from concerns over affordability to balancing family and work responsibilities and navigating financial aid. For example, nearly 75% of public two-year college students work while enrolled, including 46% working full time, and two-thirds of people enrolled in community colleges are first-generation students, who often do not receive the guidance and support that other students might receive from within their support systems.

    Community colleges are uniquely positioned to open doors for these students who might otherwise never step foot into higher education. By breaking down enrollment barriers, fostering early communication, and utilizing technology, community colleges can create an enrollment experience that meets students where they are. In turn, they can build pathways that lead to success, one student at a time.

    Identifying Enrollment Barriers

    For students new to the world of higher education, the student enrollment process can feel daunting. While community colleges are open-access institutions, this does not always translate to an easy path. Many students come from communities where attending college is not the norm, and some face resistance from family members or struggle with time constraints due to family responsibilities. Financial aid is also a common sticking point. Some students worry about taking on debt, while others have families unwilling to fill out the FAFSA due to privacy concerns, which adds to the complexity of obtaining financial assistance.

    Community colleges that proactively identify these barriers can uncover solutions tailored to each student’s situation. For instance, understanding the unique financial, familial, or community pressures facing students can inform how colleges offer support. Identifying opportunities to become more transparent, such as having standardized institutional aid packages that allow students to see how much aid they would receive, exemplifies this shift toward recognizing and removing institutional barriers. By locating obstacles early, colleges can guide students more effectively throughout the enrollment process, keeping them on track and engaged.

    Strategies for Eliminating Barriers in the Student Enrollment Process

    Addressing these challenges often requires creative solutions that reach beyond academic support. A critical strategy lies in educating students—and, when possible, their communities—on the value of a college education. Many students find themselves questioning the worth of a degree, particularly in communities where traditional college education may be seen as unnecessary. To address this, some colleges have begun integrating community outreach programs that outline the tangible benefits of a college education, from career advancement to personal growth. Tracking college enrollment trends also offers insight into where additional guidance might be needed, ensuring that community colleges can adapt and refine their programs.

    Community colleges can better aid students by offering wraparound services, such as food assistance, mental health counseling, transportation services, and financial literacy courses. Food insecurity, for example, is a widespread problem affecting 23% of community college students. Liaison’s IMPACT Grant, which champions initiatives such as on-campus food pantries, is an excellent example of how colleges can tackle this barrier head-on. By promoting awareness of available resources, colleges make sure students know where to find the support they need, allowing them to focus on their studies rather than their next meal or car troubles.

    Free community college programs, now offered in 36 states, also alleviate the financial strain of pursuing a credential by removing student debt as a barrier to entry. As more colleges promote these programs, the cost of higher education becomes less intimidating, particularly for first-generation and low-income students who might otherwise forgo college due to cost concerns.

    The Critical Role of Early Communication

    Community colleges often enter the higher education conversation with prospective students later than four-year institutions, missing critical opportunities to provide guidance. While some universities engage students as early as their freshman year of high school, community colleges might not start outreach until a student’s senior year. This timing can make a significant difference: earlier communication lets students weigh all their options without feeling pressured by high tuition at traditional four-year colleges. It also opens up time to explore scholarships, grants, and other options.

    Reaching students sooner can reduce enrollment anxiety, allowing them to explore programs that align with their financial needs and career goals. By actively promoting programs and resources through social media, local events, and high school partnerships, community colleges can position themselves as accessible, affordable, and valuable options for higher education.

    Leveraging Technology to Support Enrollment Journeys

    Innovative technology, such as CRM systems and AI-driven tools, plays a transformative role in simplifying the enrollment process. Liaison’s TargetX and Outcomes CRMs, for example, provide tailored platforms for managing student engagement and application processing. With tools for omnichannel marketing, application management, and progress tracking, these platforms allow students to communicate with advisors and gain clear guidance throughout the admissions process. As a result, institutions are able to improve conversion rates and enroll more best-fit students.

    AI-powered chatbots, now integrated into these CRMs, also assist students in navigating questions and concerns in real-time. This technology offers immediate, practical support that keeps students on track toward enrollment and reduces logistical barriers.

    Measuring Enrollment Success

    To understand the impact of their enrollment strategies, community colleges must look at specific metrics that reflect student progress and satisfaction. Identifying conversion rates at each enrollment stage offers insight into where students might drop off and allows administrators to refine support systems accordingly. Once students are on campus, tracking their first-semester engagement—particularly through the crucial first four weeks—can highlight early challenges and help colleges design interventions to boost retention as well as persistence after the first year.

    Examining re-enrollment rates from semester to semester is another key indicator of success. Demonstrating steady improvements in these areas reflects well on the effectiveness of a school’s holistic support and technology. Such data can also indicate how effectively institutions are offsetting the rate of community college enrollment decline, a pressing issue for those seeking to sustain their missions.

    Community colleges serve as the best opportunity to access higher education for many students. By removing enrollment barriers, actively communicating early and often, and leveraging technology to simplify the admissions process, community colleges can create pathways that lead students to fulfilling educational journeys. The more colleges embrace these strategies, the more efficient and successful the enrollment journey becomes for all students, leading to an increasingly inclusive and accessible higher education landscape.

    Liaison is committed to helping community colleges streamline admissions and improve student outcomes. Contact us today to learn more about our products and services.

    Source link

  • Prioritizing Mental Health Support in Community Colleges: Key Data from 2023

    Prioritizing Mental Health Support in Community Colleges: Key Data from 2023

    Title: Supporting Minds, Supporting Learners: Addressing Student Mental Health to Advance Academic Success

    Source: Center for Community College Student Engagement

    The 2023 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) and Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE) gathered essential data to guide community colleges in supporting student mental health and well-being. The surveys collected responses from 61,085 students at 149 community colleges in spring 2023 and 13,950 students at 61 community colleges in fall 2023, respectively.

    Key findings include:

    • Mental health concerns are prevalent among CCSSE and SENSE respondents. In the two weeks before taking the survey, half of CCSSE students and 47 percent of SENSE students reported feeling down, depressed, or hopeless for at least several days. Additionally, 66 percent of students in both groups felt nervous, anxious, or on edge for at least several days.
    • Approximately 26 percent of CCSSE respondents and 23 percent of SENSE respondents likely have a depressive disorder. Over half (53 percent) of students who identify with a gender identity other than man or woman have a probable depressive disorder, compared with 28 percent of women and 25 percent of men. Traditional college-age students (31 percent) and those with a GPA of C or lower (39 percent) are more likely to have a depressive disorder, compared with 19 percent of nontraditional-age students and 23 percent of students with a GPA of B or higher.
    • Overall, 32 percent of CCSSE respondents and 29 percent of SENSE respondents likely have generalized anxiety disorder. Among CCSSE students, 62 percent of those identifying with another gender likely have an anxiety disorder, in contrast to 36 percent of female and 25 percent of male students. Students identifying with two or more races saw the highest levels of generalized anxiety disorder, at 36 percent. Among SENSE respondents, traditional-age students were more likely to have generalized anxiety disorder, at 30 percent, compared to 23 percent of nontraditional-age students.
    • Over half of CCSSE respondents (56 percent) reported that emotional or mental health challenges affected their academic performance in the previous four weeks. 30 percent noted these issues impacted their performance for three or more days. Nearly two-thirds of women (63 percent) and almost half of men (47 percent) reported performance declines due to mental health issues, while 85 percent of students identifying with another gender faced academic impacts. Lower GPA students were more likely to report that mental health issues affected their academic performance.
    • Students with likely generalized anxiety disorder are twice as likely, and those with a depressive disorder are almost twice as likely, to report academic performance declines due to emotional or mental difficulties compared to students likely without these disorders.
    • 63 percent of students identifying with another gender reported that mental health challenges could lead them to withdraw from classes, compared to 39 percent of women and 29 percent of men. More than half of students with a GPA of C or lower (53 percent) stated they were at least somewhat likely to consider withdrawal due to mental health concerns, in contrast to 33 percent of students with a GPA of B or higher.
    • High percentages of students felt their college prioritizes mental health, yet about three in 10 CCSSE respondents and slightly more SENSE respondents said they wouldn’t know where to seek help if needed. Hispanic or Latino students were most likely among racial/ethnic groups to report not knowing where to turn for mental health support.
    • Over one-third of students with likely depressive or generalized anxiety disorders reported not knowing where to find professional mental health assistance if needed. Among CCSSE respondents who needed mental health support in the past year, 42 percent never sought help, with Hispanic or Latino students and men more likely than other groups to indicate they hadn’t pursued support. Approximately one-third of students with probable depressive or generalized anxiety disorders reported never seeking help.Many students cited limited resources as the main barrier to seeking mental health support. Students, especially traditional-age students and men, also frequently mentioned concerns about others’ perceptions and uncertainty about what kind of help they need.
    • Across all groups, students expressed a strong preference for in-person individual counseling or therapy over teletherapy and other support options.
    • Only 16 percent of CCSSE respondents considered it essential that their mental health provider understands their cultural background. However, students with another gender identity and Black or African American students were more likely to value culturally informed mental health support.

    Check out the full report on the CCSSE website.

    —Nguyen DH Nguyen

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Six-year graduation rates at four-year colleges and universities

    Six-year graduation rates at four-year colleges and universities

    Graduation rates are always a hot topic in higher education, but often for the wrong reason.  To demonstrate, I offer my parents.  Here is a portrait of Agnes and Mark, married May 4, 1946.

    One night while I was talking to my brother, he asked, “Do you think mom was the way she was because dad was the way he was, or do you think dad was the way he was because mom was the way she was?”  To which I replied, “yes.”  My point, of course, is that in complex relationships, it’s always difficult–impossible, actually–to detangle cause and effect.

    And, despite the Student Affairs perspective that graduation rates are a treatment effect, I maintain that they are actually a selection effect.  As I’ve written about before, it’s pretty easy to predict a college’s six-year graduation rate if you know one data point: The mean SAT score of the incoming class.  That’s because the SAT rolls a lot of predictive factors into one index number.  These include academic preparation, parental attainment, ethnicity, and wealth, on the student side, and selectivity, on the college side.

    When a college doesn’t have to–or chooses not to–take many risks in the admissions process, they tend to select those students who are more likely to graduate.  That skews the incoming class wealthier (Asian and Caucasian populations have the highest income levels in America), higher ability (the SAT is a good proxy for some measure of academic achievement, and often measures academic opportunity), and second generation.  And when you combine all those things–or you select so few poor students you can afford to fund them fully–guess what?  Graduation rates go up.

    If this doesn’t make any sense, read the Blueberry Speech.  Or ask yourself this question: If 100 MIT students enrolled at your local community college, what percentage would graduate? 

    But graduation rates are still interesting to look at, once you have that context.  The visualization below contains three views, using the tabs across the top.  You’ll have to make a few clicks to get the information you need.

    The first view (Single Group) starts with a randomly selected institution, Oklahoma State.  Choose your institution of choice by clicking on the box and typing any part of the name, and selecting the institution. 

    On the yellow bars, you see the entering cohorts in yellow, and the number of graduating students on the blue bars.  Note: The blue bars show graduates in the year shown (so, 4,755, which you can see by hovering over the bar) while the yellow bar shows the entering class from six years prior (7,406 in 2019, who entered in 2013).

    The top row shows graduation rates at all institutions nationally, and the second row shows percentages for the selected institution.  You can choose any single ethnicity at the top left, using the filter.

    The second view (Single Institution) shows all ethnicities at a single institution.  The randomly selected demonstration institution is Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota, but of course you can choose any institution in the data set.  Highlight a single ethnic group using the highlight function (I know some people are frightened of interacting with these visualizations….you can’t break anything).

    Note: I start with a minimum of 10 students in each year’s cohorts for the sake of clarity.  Small schools in the Northeast, for instance, might enroll one Asian/Pacific Islander in their incoming class, each year, so the graduation rate could swing wildly from 0% to 100%.  You can change this if you want to live dangerously, by pulling the slider downward.

    The final view (Sectors) shows aggregates of institutional types.  It starts with graduation rates for Hispanic/Latino students, but you can change it to any group you want.

    Have fun learning about graduation rates.  Just don’t assume they are mostly driven by what happens at the institution once the admissions office has its say.

    Source link

  • Average Net Price at America’s Public Colleges and Universities

    Average Net Price at America’s Public Colleges and Universities

    Good news: We have new IPEDS data on average net cost.  Bad news: Because IPEDS is IPEDS, it’s data from the 2021-22 Academic Year. 

    This is pretty straightforward: Each dot represents a public institution, colored by region, showing the average net price for first-year students entering in that year.  IPEDS breaks out average net price by income bands, so you can see what a family with income of $30,000 to $48,000 pays, for instance, by using the filters at right.

    You can also limit the institutions displayed by using the top three filters: Doctoral institutions in the Far West, or in Illinois, for instance.  If you want to see a specific institution highlighted, use that control.  Just type part of the name of the institution, like this example, and make your selection: 

    Average net price shows The Total Cost of Attendance (COA), which includes tuition, room, board, books, transportation, and personal expenses, minus all grant aid.  It does not include loans, but of course, loans can be used to cover part of the net price, along with other family resources.

    This display is a box and whisker chart, and if you’re not familiar with the format, here is a quick primer: 

    For the sticklers, the median shown is unweighted.

    As always, let me know what you see here that you find interesting or surprising.

    Source link

  • How many colleges are there anyway? Version 2022

    How many colleges are there anyway? Version 2022

    I’ve always been fascinated by the idea of “colleges.”  We think we know what we mean when we say it, but do we really?

    When some people say “college” they might mean any four-year college that enrolls undergraduates.  Others might mean everything except for-profit colleges.  Do you include community colleges in your group?  Some people do, and others don’t.

    And of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that when some major news outlets talk about “college” they are really talking about the 15 or  50 institutions their readers or listeners fascinate over.

    Well, now you can see the answer.  Sort of.  I started with IPEDS data, which includes all post-secondary institutions that receive Title IV aid.  There are many institutions in the US that don’t and although they can report to IPEDS, they are not required to, and many don’t.

    But if we start with all the IPEDS institutions that enrolled at least one student in 2022, you get 5,978.  And that’s where the fun begins.  

    There are two quick views here.

    The first view (using the tabs across the top) shows several common ways of breaking colleges into groups: By region, Carnegie type, and control, for instance.  It’s not interactive, but you can see how your concept of colleges might be too small.

    The second tab makes up in interactivity what the first tab missed.  Use any of the filters to filter to the number based on your definition: Some of the filters are discrete, some are numeric ranges.  Any combination is fine, and the pink bar will update automatically with the new count.  Be sure to read the instructions at the bottom about how to use the discrete filters.

    Anything jump out at you here? Leave a comment below.

    Source link

  • Colleges that might close soon

    Colleges that might close soon

    OK, I admit it.  That headline is clickbait.  I have no idea which colleges might close in the near future, but I want to take a look at the problem from 30,000 feet.

    This is prompted by the recent announcement that Eastern Nazarene College in Massachusetts will close. It comes on the heels of several other announcements like this over the past few years.  And of course, because we’ve become accustomed to colleges surviving for long periods even during bad times, the surprise makes people wonder who’s next.

    The meta-answer will surprise you: While we of course feel bad for the people who lose jobs, the students who are displaced, and the community that finds itself dealing with the loss of a respected institution, these trends are small blips in the industry.  In fact, the institutions most likely to close (probably) collectively account for a small fraction of enrollment at America’s colleges and universities.

    Follow along.  

    One of the challenges in talking about this is the graduate/undergraduate split in enrollment (enrollment is complicated, y’all) and the wide range of different types of missions in higher education.  Some small institutions are completely undergraduate, while some are mostly graduate.  Some institutions are heavily supported by outside money from a congregation or donations (think seminaries or other religious institutions), and still others are small by design, often because they have enormous endowments and/or highly focused missions.

    But here is the hypothesis, and the data to give you some perspective on it.  

    Let’s suppose that colleges in danger of closing are very small, in either total enrollment or undergraduate enrollment.  Some of those, as I suggested, aren’t in danger but we’ll leave them in for the sake of simplicity.

    I took all four-year private colleges, since public institutions rarely close purely for financial reasons, and for-profit college closings happen frequently, without much fanfare.  And I grouped them by undergraduate and graduate enrollment in 2022, and arrayed them on a grid.  The values across the top break institutional graduate headcount enrollment into groups and the values down the left-hand column breaks them into undergraduate enrollment by that measure. 

    This is what the grid looks like. Click to expand:

    Let’s get draconian, and say that in the not-too-distant future every college in the second and third row will close: That is, those colleges with undergraduate enrollment of at least one student, but fewer than 1,000, regardless of graduate enrollment. All 687 of them will close. 

    If that happened tomorrow, it would displace about 268,244 undergraduate students, or about 9.5% of all undergrads enrolled in those four-year, not-for-profit institutions.  Not a small number or percentage.  Again, these are real people who feel the results of those decisions.

    But of course, four-year not-for-profit institutions are a small sliver of college students in America. All told, in the Fall of 2022, there were 15,964,998 undergraduate students enrolled across all types of institutions.  If we were to lose all of those 687 institutions and all 268,244 students, it would represent 1.7% of all college students nationwide.

    Again, not insignificant if you’re one the students affected.  But do we believe that we will see 687 closures in the coming years?  I suppose some people do.  I don’t. And if you don’t, you’ll realize the net effect will probably be much, much smaller than you might have anticipated.

    So when you hear about colleges closing, you should feel bad for the people affected.  But take a look at the data before you make rash pronouncements about higher education in general.

    Source link