Tag: rates

  • Defense Department Caps Universities’ Indirect Cost Rates

    Defense Department Caps Universities’ Indirect Cost Rates

    The Department of Defense is planning to cap indirect cost reimbursement rates for higher education institutions at 15 percent, according to a May 14 memo signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. 

    “The Department of Defense (DoD) is the steward of the most critical budget in the Federal Government—the budget that defends our Nation, equips our warfighters, and secures our future. That stewardship demands discipline. It demands accountability. And it demands that we say no to waste,” wrote Hegseth.

    The memo directs the DOD to develop the new policy within 21 days, marking the fourth federal agency—including the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation—that has enacted a plan to cap indirect cost rates at 15 percent. For decades, universities have negotiated with the federal government to calculate bespoke indirect cost reimbursement rates to pay for research costs that support multiple grant-funded projects, such as facilities maintenance, specialized equipment and administrative personnel. (The paragraph has been updated.)

    Universities and their trade associations have already sued the NIH, DOE and NSF over these plans, arguing that capping indirect costs would hurt research production and compromise global competitiveness, all while violating multiple aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act, including bypassing congressional authority required to alter indirect cost rates. So far, federal judges have blocked indirect cost caps from taking effect at the NIH and DOE. The NSF agreed to pause the cap until June 13 in order to proceed to summary judgment, which is a way to resolve the case quickly without a full trial.

    Matt Owens, president of COGR, which represents research institutions, condemned the DOD’s newly announced plan. 

    “DOD research performed by universities is a force multiplier and has helped to make the U.S. military the most effective in the world. From GPS, stealth technology, advanced body armor, to precision guided missiles and night vision technology, university-based DOD research makes our military stronger,” Owens said in a statement. “A cut to DOD indirect cost reimbursements is a cut to national security. Less funding for research means less security for our nation.”

    Hegseth’s memo claimed that capping the Defense Department’s indirect cost rate for universities would “save up to $900 [million] per year on a go-forward basis,” while also claiming that the department’s “objective is not only to save money, but to repurpose those funds—toward applied innovation, operational capability, and strategic deterrence.” The NIH has also made similarly incompatible assertions. It touted on social media its indirect rate cap plan’s potential to save taxpayers more than $4 billion, while a lawyer for the NIH told a federal judge that the cut was simply a reallocation of funds. 

    The Defense Department’s plans “will not stop at new grants,” Hegseth wrote, adding that “meaningful savings can also be achieved by revisiting the terms of existing awards to institutions of higher education.” The memo directed the under secretary of defense for research and engineering to do the following within 30 days:

    • Initiate a departmentwide effort to renegotiate indirect cost rates on existing financial assistance awards to institutions of higher education. “Wherever cooperative, bilateral modification is possible, it shall be pursued.”
    • “Where bilateral agreement is not achieved, identify and recommend lawful paths to terminate and reissue the award under revised terms.”
    • “Complete renegotiations or terminations for all contracts by 180 days from the date of this memorandum.”

    Source link

  • Judge Blocks Energy Dept. Plan to Cap Indirect Cost Rates

    Judge Blocks Energy Dept. Plan to Cap Indirect Cost Rates

    A federal judge temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Energy’s plan to cap universities’ indirect research cost reimbursement rates, pending a hearing in the ongoing lawsuit filed by several higher education associations and universities.

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts wrote in the brief Wednesday order that the plaintiffs had shown that, without a temporary restraining order, “they will sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties.”

    Plaintiffs include the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and nine individual universities, including Brown, Cornell and Princeton Universities and the Universities of Michigan, Illinois and Rochester. They sued the DOE and department secretary Chris Wright on Monday, three days after the DOE announced its plan.

    Department spokespeople didn’t return Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Thursday afternoon.

    DOE’s plan is to cap the reimbursement rates at 15 percent. Energy grant recipients at colleges and universities currently have an average 30 percent indirect cost rate. The Trump administration has alleged that indirect costs are wasteful spending, although they are extensively audited.

    The DOE sends more than $2.5 billion a year to over 300 colleges and universities. Part of that money covers costs indirectly related to research that may support multiple grant-funded projects, including specialized nuclear-rated facilities, computer systems and administrative support costs.

    The department’s plan is nearly identical to a plan the National Institutes of Health announced in February, which a judge also blocked.

    Source link

  • Louisiana Sees Improved Pass Rates With Corequisite Model

    Louisiana Sees Improved Pass Rates With Corequisite Model

    During the 2020–21 academic year, only 12 percent of students attending a public institution in Louisiana who attempted to complete a credit-bearing English class passed. This past fall, success rates among learners jumped to 60 percent.

    The change reflects an overhaul of remedial education courses at the state level, led by the Louisiana Board of Regents, to improve completion rates across the system’s 28 colleges and universities.

    The initial numbers, coupled with high passing rates among mathematics courses, are a step in the right direction to support credential attainment for adults in Louisiana, said Tristan Denley, deputy commissioner of academic affairs and innovation for the Board of Regents.

    What’s the need: The overhaul of remedial education is tied to the state’s strategic initiative, Louisiana Prospers, which sets a goal for 60 percent of the state’s adult population to have at least a credential of value. At present, the state is at 51 percent attainment, up six percentage points from 2021.

    “One of the fundamental changes that had to be made to be able to increase that attainment in that way is really the barrier of early math and English success,” Denley explained.

    Compared to remediation, corequisite courses reflect an asset-based approach to student success that indicates institutional readiness for student achievement. Research shows students who are placed in corequisite courses are more likely to retain, save money and graduate earlier, compared to their peers.

    “A traditional approach to remediation sort of says, ‘Well, I know you think you’re in college, but maybe not quite yet,’” Denley said.

    Other states, including California, Georgia, Illinois and Tennessee have also prioritized corequisite courses over remedial education offerings to boost student success.

    Building better: The process of rolling out corequisite education began in spring 2022, providing each of the state’s 28 institutions 18 months to launch the math program and then another 18 months for English courses.

    Louisiana launched its corequisite course structure for math courses in starting in fall 2023, and during that academic year, 52 percent of students in a corequisite class completed a college-level math course, up 41 percentage points from 2020–21, when only 11 percent of remedial math students completed a credit-bearing course.

    Implementing corequisite education at scale is a large undertaking, requiring work from math and English faculty as well as the registrar’s office and others, and each rollout looked a little different depending on the college and its needs.

    The system office hosted technical assistance and professional development events to support campuses, including semesterly corequisite academies, which brought together 150 faculty who teach corequisite math and English to share best practices, identify common challenges and establish a community of practice.

    “Interestingly, there are lessons to be learned from the math folk for the English folk, and vice versa, as well as among themselves in those different disciplines,” Denley said.

    One important facet of the corequisite model is addressing students’ self-perceptions of themselves as learners—particularly in math courses where students experience math anxiety—so the board established “Mindset Meauxtivators,” a faculty development course that emphasizes a growth mindset. Two hundred–plus corequisite faculty have completed the course, and a dozen or so serve as faculty champions for this work within their own campuses or regions.

    What’s next: The state will continue to collect data and parse through to identify trends in completion of credit-bearing English and math courses across student groups and institutions.

    Identifying opportunities to support faculty with modern pedagogy that assist with corequisite education is another focus for the board, because the teaching style is much different from remedial.

    Attainment is the goal of this current strategic plan, but future student success work in Louisiana will address socioeconomic mobility and ensuring students “make good on the credential they earn,” Denley said. “After they’ve earned that, what are ways in which we can make sure that that credential is life-changing, both to themselves and to their families and their communities?”

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • UC Riverside Hopes Early Exposure to College Boosts IE Grad Rates – The 74

    UC Riverside Hopes Early Exposure to College Boosts IE Grad Rates – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    On a recent rainy day, several dozen students sat in a UC Riverside classroom, planning their path to college.

    These weren’t high school seniors. They were seventh graders getting a jump-start on the competitive university application process. They’re part of a university program called the Middle School Initiative that aims to get Inland Empire students thinking about higher education long before they take their first AP class or submit an application.

    With a four-year college graduation rate about half the state average of 35%, the Inland Empire is falling behind in educating students for well-paid, professional jobs, limiting the economic prospects of the region’s youngest inhabitants. In an effort to raise that ceiling, educators are trying to get tweens to envision their potential for a college education and career. 

    The students from Riverside middle schools discussed how to write college application essays, toured the university campus and learned about admission standards for California universities. 

    “I like that there’s something you can do in middle school so you can do more in high school,” said 13-year-old Simone Reid, a seventh-grader at Villegas Middle School who wants to major in business. “I want to get started early so I have more opportunities.”

    UC Riverside Dean of Education Joi Spencer said she introduced the program this year to reach students who might not consider attending a university, or know how to prepare for it. Middle grades “are where kids get sorted into who’s going to go to college and who’s not,” she said.

    The initiative aims to change that pattern. With an annual budget of $15,200, the program launched has so far reached 500 students, including more than 300 who joined campus tours at UC Riverside.

    “Our first goal is to invoke a conversation across the Inland Empire related to university access and eventual success,” Spencer said. “First and foremost, too many youngsters do not even see university attendance as a possibility for them. This is our fault as adults and educators. We keep producing the same winners and losers in education and we need to break this cycle.”

    The Middle School Initiative is open to students throughout Riverside and San Bernardino counties, with Jurupa, Moreno Valley, Alvord and Riverside Unified school districts among the first participants. Any students in the Inland Empire can participate, but in the early days of the program, administrators have prioritized students who have fallen through the cracks in class.

    “Some of the students are high flyers, but are somehow overlooked in their school setting,” Spencer said. “Others may have average achievement, but high aspirations.”

    The program isn’t just an introduction to college readiness. Program administrators plan to follow students along their academic journey, meeting with them throughout middle and high school and during the transition to college. They will also track college enrollment of students who participate in a related summer program called the STEAM Academy, which increases exposure to the fields of science, technology, education, art and math.

    “This middle school period is the pivotal period to prepare for college,” said Elizabeth Benitez, Middle School Initiative coordinator.

    For instance, she said, many middle schools have foreign language options. Taking that early, in seventh or eighth grade, can pave the way for advanced placement language classes in high school, which boost students’ grade point averages and allow them to earn credits for college. 

    Some students may be a step ahead because of their family background, Frances Calvin, director of the university’s Early Academic Outreach Program, told the group. During the campus workshop she asked seventh graders to raise their hands if they spoke a second language. Several responded that they spoke Spanish, Portuguese or other languages at home.

    “If you speak a second language you are becoming marketable because the world is getting smaller and smaller,” Calvin said.

    Students at the campus event said they clearly heard the message about academic achievement and vowed to work on raising their grade-point averages.

    “I personally think I should focus more on my GPA,” said Dike Okeke, 12. “Then when I have that figured out I could find work to save for college.”

    Money matters loom large for many of the students, especially those hoping to be the first in their family to attend a university. The initiative offers instruction on how to fill out financial aid forms and tips on finding scholarships. Students can come back to the program later in high school to seek help with that process, Benitez said.

    “My family didn’t have the resources to experience college,” said Jeremiah Stinson, 12, who aims to study business and play college football. “I think I need to start saving money to afford this. I need to focus on a scholarship. Debt lasts forever. I don’t want to struggle with that.”

    Interestingly, the seventh graders also discussed personal discipline, and almost universally acknowledged that they needed to curtail electronics use and pay attention to school.

    “I also need to get rid of all my devices because I spend a lot of time on social media,” said Tatum Tobios, an aspiring fashion designer who favors Victorian Gothic styles and plans to go to art school.

    Her peers nodded in agreement. How will they scale back their TikTok and Instagram habits? 

    Some of their solutions: “Delete the apps,” “Lock them away,” “Give it to my mom,” “Hide it from myself.”


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • As diversity rates at elite colleges hang in the balance, some students still face increased exclusion and barriers

    As diversity rates at elite colleges hang in the balance, some students still face increased exclusion and barriers

    Diversity rates at several elite colleges and universities have plummeted, a little over a year after the Supreme Court’s restriction on race-conscious admissions. It’s a divisive but unsurprising blow to historically underrepresented students seeking educational opportunity and access.

    While demographic data is still forthcoming, the challenges these students face to attend certain colleges continue to build. MIT, Amherst College, and Tufts have already seen sharp declines in the diversity of their student populations.

    But not all is lost. Ethnically diverse students have options to express their full identities, and organizations providing services to them have options to support these students’ overall success through postsecondary pathways.

    While assessing the state of race in higher education admissions, we cannot ignore its historical context in colleges in America. Colleges and universities were built by and explicitly served the educational needs of wealthy white men. For too long, the only people of color on campus were the (often enslaved) servants of white students.

    We should also bear in mind that, at elite universities today, the students who are overlooked in favor of race-neutral policies are not the only ones who miss out — students already on campus lose out on the richness that having a diverse array of educational experiences can provide, with their opportunities to encounter alternative viewpoints limited.

    Related: Interested in innovations in the field of higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly Higher Education newsletter.

    Oftentimes, first-generation, Black, Hispanic and Native American students experience an inherent and often unspoken isolation on campus at predominantly white institutions.

    As a Black Chicana, I vividly remember being the singular student of color in my freshman-year seminar at Michigan State. My experience was not without the awkwardness of questioning my own merit and if I belonged there in the first place. We traveled to Ireland, and due to the humidity, I put on my silk bonnet to protect my hair. It was met with questions and stares.

    Here we are in 2025, discussing the all-too-familiar concept of racial bias in America, while institutions are bound by new laws that result in restricted access for the students whose right to educational access has historically been systematically denied. So what can we do?

    While it requires creativity, students can still highlight who they are in their applications by foregrounding their lived experiences outside of their grades, test scores and academic histories. For example, students can share the intricacies of being a historically marginalized person in America — from being asked to speak English to being pulled over for driving while Black. They can write about their experiences and identities in personal statements and on their resumes and through discussions of their community involvement. Students owe it to themselves to share their personal moments of overcoming barriers in everyday life.

    Related: What’s a college degree worth? States start to demand colleges share the data

    Institutions can ask essay questions that provoke such responses and allow students to share without prejudice or fear of reprisal. Students’ insightful perspectives should be applauded by educational institutions, and the power of their words should be respected.

    Underrepresented students also have options other than the traditional elite universities. Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) are an alternative to predominantly white institutions like the ones mentioned above. Students can make the college experience what they want and need, and it is no different at smaller institutions like Lane College, an HBCU, or Colorado State University, Pueblo, an HSI.

    At these schools, a student’s culture and identity are revered and shared. Educational institutions that see the value in diversity should be reconsidered as the best option for ethnically diverse students.

    And, as educational institutions grapple with the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, they should support the students from historically marginalized populations already on their campuses to ensure that they feel welcome, supported and valued. Building robust affinity groups not only provides current students with communities they can co-create and adapt to their needs, but also demonstrates that the institutions are committed to creating spaces for all students.

    Scholarship providers and organizations that support underrepresented students will continue to play a vital role in fostering diversity on college campuses. Mission-driven organizations like the one I work for, the Sachs Foundation, still help Black students who lack the financial capacity or easy access to attend elite schools like MIT and Brown.

    Students deserve to have their whole selves valued, welcomed and supported when applying for higher education.

    Pamela Roberts-Mora is the chief operations officer at the Sachs Foundation, serving Black youth from Colorado through educational and community programs. She was a first-generation college student.

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about college diversity was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    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

  • Private college discount rates for first-year students, 2021

    Private college discount rates for first-year students, 2021

    Two quick additions/clarifications to this:  The definition of full-pays is those students who receive no institutional funds.  EM people don’t care where the cash comes from, only the discount.  Second, yes, I know some institutions use endowments to pay for institutional aid.  That percentage is likely very small, although concentrated at a few institutions.

    Before we begin, here is what this post does not do:

    • It will generally not tell you where you can get low tuition, with a very few exceptions.  And when it does, it won’t be at one of “those” colleges.
    • It will not tell you which colleges are likely to close soon, although after the fact, you can probably find a closed college and say, “Aha! Right where I expected it would be!”
    • It will not show you net costs to students.
    • It will not adjust for things like church support, enormous endowments, or the cost of living in that high-priced city where Excellence College or Superior University is located.

    Got it?  Good.

    This will show you the discount rate on first-year students at about 1,000 four-year, private, not-for-profit colleges in 2021-22.  Discount as I define it is the total unfunded institutional financial aid divided by the total charged (gross) tuition and fees.  A university that charges (published tuition and fees times the number of students) $10,000,000 and awards $4,000,000 in aid has a discount rate of 40%.  At most colleges, this discount is simply an accounting transaction, much like a coupon to save a dollar on a sandwich at Subway.  That, of course, is a gross over-simplification of the “what” of discounting, and it doesn’t touch the “why” of discounting at all.  But if you want an explanation, I’ll gladly talk to your trustees for a reasonable fee.

    And there is a difference between discount and net revenue, although at any given tuition charge, the two are perfectly related.  Unfortunately, as  you’ll soon, see, colleges all set their own tuition.  To wit:

    • A college charging $50,000 with a 20% discount has net revenue (the cash you can spend) of $40,000 per student.
    • That same college with a 50% discount has just $25,000 per student.
    • A college charging $30,000 with a 10% discount has $27,000 per student.
    • That same college with a 40% discount has $18,000 per student.

    As a college, you don’t care where the cash comes from: Pell grants, state grants, loans, or the student’s family.  This means, hypothetically, a student with low institutional aid might pay less than one with more aid.  Confused?  Good.

    If you use this with your trustees to explain your own college’s market position, consider supporting my costs of time, hosting and software by buying me a coffee.  Just click here to do so.  If you counsel high school students, or your a parent of a prospective college student, must keep reading and don’t feel any obligation at all.

    Here is the data, in three views.  The first two are box and whisker plots, where half of the colleges fall inside the gray box on each column to show you the middle 50%.

    The first view shows net revenue per freshman student, arrayed by the institution’s Carnegie type.  Use the controls to filter region, highlight region, or highlight an individual college.  To do the latter, type any part of the name in the box, hit enter, and select from the options.  Hover over dots for details; each dot is a college.

    The second view is identical, but it shows discount rate, the number people obsess over while missing the more important net revenue figure.

    The third view shows those two values arrayed, with the same highlighters, allowing you to filter on Carnegie type, or even the percentage of the students who are full-pay (that is, they get no institutional aid at all.)

    You’ll soon see that discount and net revenue don’t seem to be big issues at the big name, strongly endowed institutions.  That’s because, at many of these places, undergraduate education is essentially a sideline business, and only a minor source of revenue.  The money they bring in (or don’t) on this presumably core function of the university is managed to best optimize to reputation or selectivity, or other factors (including, sometimes, mission).

    Note that I’ve done my best to remove some outliers with wild data that throw the charts off.  Many of these are colleges I have never heard of, and they’re tiny.  Others are places with strong religious missions (like Yeshivas or Seminaries) that may be externally funded in ways this can’t account for. 

    Enjoy

    Source link