Most people don't know about Public Law 110-84: The Fostering Adoption to Further Student Achievement Act. This act became law as an amendment to the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.
With all the talk about affordability of higher education - or lack of affordability to be more precise, I want people to know about this opportunity to help families with adopted children. It might be your family, or the family of a friend. The more people who know about this, the better.
Providing adoptive homes for children is tough enough, providing homes for teens is nearly impossible. One of several reasons cited for difficulty placing teens is that parents realize that the cost of providing a necessary college education for their children will be a challenge to the family budget. It's hard enough for families to save, even when they have 18 years lead time. Consider that families adopting a 13 year old teen only have 5 years to plan.
In order to eliminate this hurdle or impediment facing families who wanted to welcome teens needing families into their homes, the Fostering Adoption Act was introduced, debated and passed. It may not affect millions of families, but if it helps even tens or hundreds of students, it will be well worth the effort.
The nugget of gold in this bill provides opportunities for college aged students, who were adopted as teens, to apply for financial aid as independent students. This means that their families won't be expected to contribute to their college education which makes the student eligible for significant amounts of need based financial aid.
With this legislation, everyone wins:
- students find homes and educational opportunities
- families share their homes and hearts
- colleges provide opportunities for achievement oriented students
- society benefits from a better educated populace
Recently I had a chance to share this information with a colleague. Read the full article for a first hand example of the impact of this law.
Showing posts with label college costs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label college costs. Show all posts
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Faculty Ask: Are Colleges Worth the Price of Admissions
There's a new book coming out next month: Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids - and What We Can Do About It. It receives high praise from its early reviewers. (Not surprising, since early reviewers usually are friends of the authors.) Anyhow, I read a commentary by the authors Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus recently in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Based on my reading of the commentary, I suspect the book will be controversial: praised by critics of higher education and damned by those devoted to defending American higher education as it stands. I haven't read the book yet (I didn't get an early copy since I'm not pals of the authors and it's not available yet for purchase.) The commentary offers 9 proposals, recommendations for change that the authors believe could begin to "set things right". This blog will include reactions to the first 5 of these.
On the face of it, their ideas make sense. Probably all colleges and universities could benefit from discussions on the pros and cons of each suggestion, and by finding pieces of proposals they'd implement. It would be a huge accomplishment if Hacker and Dreifus accomplish serious discussions and debate on campuses. I bet college and university administrators, weary of attending Planning Retreats, would relish the opportunity to honestly debate Hacker and Dreifus' ideas. They'd need to be challenged to think creatively and free of fear of retaliation if they disagreed with someone higher up the food chain.
On more careful examination, the proposals seem to contradict each other on too many occasions. The authors are no doubt bright and experienced and eager to cause improvement higher education. They describe their experiences with colleges and students while researching their book. Their experiences are somewhat at odds with those of us who work day to day with students and families. The lack of internal consistency in their proposals troubles me.
Proposal #1 - Engage all students.
Who could disagree with that bold statement? They want better teaching. Certainly, it would be wonderful if all college professors(Let's apply this to kindergarten to high school teachers too while we're at it.) were conscientious, caring, and attentive to every corner of their classroom.
But then, they state unequivocally that all Americans can do college work. Debatable, but even if we stipulated to this statement, how does this mesh with the next proposal....
Proposal #2 - Make students use their minds.
Well, yes, of course. Within the rationale for this proposal, Hacker and Dreifus lament that 64% of undergraduate students are enrolled in vocational majors instead of the likes of "philosophy, literature, or the physical sciences". Does it follow then that all Americans are capable of earning undergraduate degrees in philosophy? Really?
Then they claim that "undergraduate years are an interlude...., a time to liberate the imagination... without worrying about a possible payoff". Really? Maybe in some idyllic, imaginary place, but not in the world that I know. Even students, whose parents can pay for their education as a philosophy major at a liberal arts college where teachers engage their students, have worries and peer and societal pressures and normal young adult developmental challenges to work through. Those whose families struggle to help with their costs have to juggle work, study, and a future of loan payments - hardly a worry free 4 years.
Proposal #3 - Replace tenure with multiyear contracts.
The authors were careful to avoid wording this recommendation as - eliminate tenure. They knew that would be a non-starter. The troubling part of their argument here for me is that they imply that our nation's faculty, the best and the brightest folks we have, those who likely did experience their undergraduate years as an interlude and many of whom did study non-vocational topics like philosophy, literature and physical science, can't be internally motivated to continue to do good work throughout their careers.
They claim that these best and brightest need to be motivated to do their best in the classroom by fear of losing their jobs. They claim that tenure eliminates reasons for faculty to improve their teaching. Are we to believe that tenure causes laziness or lazy, bright people chose the life of the mind as a faculty member? The value of tenure has been and will continue to be debated. Their argument seems weak in that it seems to contradict what they say about the value of achieving what's seen as "impractical studies" for all.
Proposal #4 - Allow fewer sabbaticals.
In most colleges and universities, tenured faculty members are eligible for a 'year off' every seven years for the purposes of pursuing their studies or research activities without the interference of teaching responsibilities. This can be a big expense to universities.
In reality, lots of faculty members can't afford to take sabbaticals. Usually, the time away from teaching responsibilities comes at less than full pay, while their mortgage payments remain the same. Then there are the costs of actually pursuing the sabbatical goals. Some faculty secure research stipends to help defray the costs.
The other side of this debate - sabbaticals should be encouraged for faculty to refresh their teaching curriculum and teaching skills. See proposals #2 and #4.
Proposal #5 - End exploitation of adjuncts.
Adjunct faculty are analogous to part time employees at a retail firm who do the same work as the regular, full time employees, but who get less pay and few to no benefits. Just as retail stores can hire part-timers because the job market provides few other options for the part-time employee, the university can hire adjuncts because there are more PhD educated people in some disciplines than there are jobs. Market forces are in effect in both situations.
What seems strange, maybe even ironic, about this situation is that many of the PhD educated people followed the advice Hacker and Dreifus offered in Proposals #1 and #2: provide opportunities for "impractical studies", the wisest of choices to chose "philosophy, literature or physical sciences". Lots of folks did that, and now they're adjuncts. Colleges pay adjuncts less than regular faculty. Most of Hacker and Dreifus' proposals indicate ways colleges should lower costs. This proposal would increase costs.
These responses to the proposals may appear critical. In reality, the work they've done bringing these topics to light provides value and hopefully, an impetus for reflection. What's needed as follow-up is a commitment to civil discourse on these topics inside the halls of colleges and universities. If that doesn't happen, then I suspect that the discussion will take place in the halls of government and in the halls of individual family homes where leaders and parents will still wonder about the cost of college.
Based on my reading of the commentary, I suspect the book will be controversial: praised by critics of higher education and damned by those devoted to defending American higher education as it stands. I haven't read the book yet (I didn't get an early copy since I'm not pals of the authors and it's not available yet for purchase.) The commentary offers 9 proposals, recommendations for change that the authors believe could begin to "set things right". This blog will include reactions to the first 5 of these.
On the face of it, their ideas make sense. Probably all colleges and universities could benefit from discussions on the pros and cons of each suggestion, and by finding pieces of proposals they'd implement. It would be a huge accomplishment if Hacker and Dreifus accomplish serious discussions and debate on campuses. I bet college and university administrators, weary of attending Planning Retreats, would relish the opportunity to honestly debate Hacker and Dreifus' ideas. They'd need to be challenged to think creatively and free of fear of retaliation if they disagreed with someone higher up the food chain.
On more careful examination, the proposals seem to contradict each other on too many occasions. The authors are no doubt bright and experienced and eager to cause improvement higher education. They describe their experiences with colleges and students while researching their book. Their experiences are somewhat at odds with those of us who work day to day with students and families. The lack of internal consistency in their proposals troubles me.
Proposal #1 - Engage all students.
Who could disagree with that bold statement? They want better teaching. Certainly, it would be wonderful if all college professors(Let's apply this to kindergarten to high school teachers too while we're at it.) were conscientious, caring, and attentive to every corner of their classroom.
But then, they state unequivocally that all Americans can do college work. Debatable, but even if we stipulated to this statement, how does this mesh with the next proposal....
Proposal #2 - Make students use their minds.
Well, yes, of course. Within the rationale for this proposal, Hacker and Dreifus lament that 64% of undergraduate students are enrolled in vocational majors instead of the likes of "philosophy, literature, or the physical sciences". Does it follow then that all Americans are capable of earning undergraduate degrees in philosophy? Really?
Then they claim that "undergraduate years are an interlude...., a time to liberate the imagination... without worrying about a possible payoff". Really? Maybe in some idyllic, imaginary place, but not in the world that I know. Even students, whose parents can pay for their education as a philosophy major at a liberal arts college where teachers engage their students, have worries and peer and societal pressures and normal young adult developmental challenges to work through. Those whose families struggle to help with their costs have to juggle work, study, and a future of loan payments - hardly a worry free 4 years.
Proposal #3 - Replace tenure with multiyear contracts.
The authors were careful to avoid wording this recommendation as - eliminate tenure. They knew that would be a non-starter. The troubling part of their argument here for me is that they imply that our nation's faculty, the best and the brightest folks we have, those who likely did experience their undergraduate years as an interlude and many of whom did study non-vocational topics like philosophy, literature and physical science, can't be internally motivated to continue to do good work throughout their careers.
They claim that these best and brightest need to be motivated to do their best in the classroom by fear of losing their jobs. They claim that tenure eliminates reasons for faculty to improve their teaching. Are we to believe that tenure causes laziness or lazy, bright people chose the life of the mind as a faculty member? The value of tenure has been and will continue to be debated. Their argument seems weak in that it seems to contradict what they say about the value of achieving what's seen as "impractical studies" for all.
Proposal #4 - Allow fewer sabbaticals.
In most colleges and universities, tenured faculty members are eligible for a 'year off' every seven years for the purposes of pursuing their studies or research activities without the interference of teaching responsibilities. This can be a big expense to universities.
In reality, lots of faculty members can't afford to take sabbaticals. Usually, the time away from teaching responsibilities comes at less than full pay, while their mortgage payments remain the same. Then there are the costs of actually pursuing the sabbatical goals. Some faculty secure research stipends to help defray the costs.
The other side of this debate - sabbaticals should be encouraged for faculty to refresh their teaching curriculum and teaching skills. See proposals #2 and #4.
Proposal #5 - End exploitation of adjuncts.
Adjunct faculty are analogous to part time employees at a retail firm who do the same work as the regular, full time employees, but who get less pay and few to no benefits. Just as retail stores can hire part-timers because the job market provides few other options for the part-time employee, the university can hire adjuncts because there are more PhD educated people in some disciplines than there are jobs. Market forces are in effect in both situations.
What seems strange, maybe even ironic, about this situation is that many of the PhD educated people followed the advice Hacker and Dreifus offered in Proposals #1 and #2: provide opportunities for "impractical studies", the wisest of choices to chose "philosophy, literature or physical sciences". Lots of folks did that, and now they're adjuncts. Colleges pay adjuncts less than regular faculty. Most of Hacker and Dreifus' proposals indicate ways colleges should lower costs. This proposal would increase costs.
These responses to the proposals may appear critical. In reality, the work they've done bringing these topics to light provides value and hopefully, an impetus for reflection. What's needed as follow-up is a commitment to civil discourse on these topics inside the halls of colleges and universities. If that doesn't happen, then I suspect that the discussion will take place in the halls of government and in the halls of individual family homes where leaders and parents will still wonder about the cost of college.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Student Indebtedness
I've been involved in several discussions lately about the benefits and dangers associated with students borrowing money to pay for their college educations.
Comment #1: My niece is crazy. She's borrowed $90K to finance her doctorate in Physical Therapy.
Comment #2: What's the maximum an undergraduate can borrow in educational loans?
Comment #3: Where can a family go to find out the starting salaries of various occupations so that the student can see what % of his salary he'll have to pay each month to pay off his student loans?
These are all important and pressing issues for students and families. Paying for college is one of the puzzle pieces necessary for a successful college search. It has many components and can be confusing. A great primer for learning about student loans can be found on a website we regularly recommend.
A few complications related to the comments listed above sparked my interest.
First, what would the PT student be doing if she hadn't borrowed money to pursue her education and preferred career choice?
And, of course, most of us have read articles in newspapers or magazines periodically decrying students who have been duped into borrowing over $100K to finance their educations. To be a 23 year old with $100K in debt is an alarming situation. The government allows students to borrow about $23K in guaranteed student loans during their undergraduate years. Above that amount, the kids are getting their money somewhere else. Where? Banks? What bank do you know that will lend a student 10s of thousands of dollars with no collateral? OK, so maybe they need their parents to co-sign. These may be some of the same parents who borrowed money for a home with no down-payment, no ability to pay and no concept of indebtedness. We'd hope that the practice of lending money to people with no ability to pay has ended.
Where else can unemployed young adults pursuing college borrow money? It seems that some colleges may have funds they lend to students with few questions asked.
However, some of the $100K writers claim student's have borrowed is actually debt in the parents name. Parents can borrow up to the cost of attendance through the PLUS loan program. That debt is in the parents name, not the student's name. This term is very clearly stated in the borrowing documents. So it doesn't matter what arrangements, understandings, or agreements parents have with their children, if a PLUS loan doesn't get paid back, that debt is reflected on the parents credit rating.
This situation is exemplified in an article from the New York Times. Some readers think that NYU is terrible for allowing this to happen. Others blame the government for allowing a family to borrow this much money. Others think it's ridiculous for a student with this major to borrow any money considering her earning potential may be limited. Others think that it's reasonable to assume that the mother, a business owner, would understand credit, and hold her responsible for her and her daughter's plight. Still others blame the University for not holding their expenses down and allowing their costs to explode over the last 10 years.
Some conclude that paying for private education is ridiculous and all students should attend their state universities. The trouble with that idea is that there aren't enough spots at public universities for everyone who wants to go to college. One current trend worth watching is that as public university applications increase as families look for more affordable options, the selectivity of those schools increases, making attendance at public universities unreachable for average students.
College is expensive. There's no doubt. It's really up to each family to decide, based on their values, what's reasonable. This is definitely one instance where "ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL". It's generally accepted that families should not use their retirement funds to pay for college. It's also generally accepted that a person with a college degree has a much greater earning potential over a lifetime that someone without a degree.
The purpose of this post is to raise issues. There aren't easy answers. Selecting the right set of colleges considering the Student, Success Factors, College Characteristics and Affordability is likely the best approach for making reasoned decisions about college.
Comment #1: My niece is crazy. She's borrowed $90K to finance her doctorate in Physical Therapy.
Comment #2: What's the maximum an undergraduate can borrow in educational loans?
Comment #3: Where can a family go to find out the starting salaries of various occupations so that the student can see what % of his salary he'll have to pay each month to pay off his student loans?
These are all important and pressing issues for students and families. Paying for college is one of the puzzle pieces necessary for a successful college search. It has many components and can be confusing. A great primer for learning about student loans can be found on a website we regularly recommend.
A few complications related to the comments listed above sparked my interest.
First, what would the PT student be doing if she hadn't borrowed money to pursue her education and preferred career choice?
And, of course, most of us have read articles in newspapers or magazines periodically decrying students who have been duped into borrowing over $100K to finance their educations. To be a 23 year old with $100K in debt is an alarming situation. The government allows students to borrow about $23K in guaranteed student loans during their undergraduate years. Above that amount, the kids are getting their money somewhere else. Where? Banks? What bank do you know that will lend a student 10s of thousands of dollars with no collateral? OK, so maybe they need their parents to co-sign. These may be some of the same parents who borrowed money for a home with no down-payment, no ability to pay and no concept of indebtedness. We'd hope that the practice of lending money to people with no ability to pay has ended.
Where else can unemployed young adults pursuing college borrow money? It seems that some colleges may have funds they lend to students with few questions asked.
However, some of the $100K writers claim student's have borrowed is actually debt in the parents name. Parents can borrow up to the cost of attendance through the PLUS loan program. That debt is in the parents name, not the student's name. This term is very clearly stated in the borrowing documents. So it doesn't matter what arrangements, understandings, or agreements parents have with their children, if a PLUS loan doesn't get paid back, that debt is reflected on the parents credit rating.
This situation is exemplified in an article from the New York Times. Some readers think that NYU is terrible for allowing this to happen. Others blame the government for allowing a family to borrow this much money. Others think it's ridiculous for a student with this major to borrow any money considering her earning potential may be limited. Others think that it's reasonable to assume that the mother, a business owner, would understand credit, and hold her responsible for her and her daughter's plight. Still others blame the University for not holding their expenses down and allowing their costs to explode over the last 10 years.
Some conclude that paying for private education is ridiculous and all students should attend their state universities. The trouble with that idea is that there aren't enough spots at public universities for everyone who wants to go to college. One current trend worth watching is that as public university applications increase as families look for more affordable options, the selectivity of those schools increases, making attendance at public universities unreachable for average students.
College is expensive. There's no doubt. It's really up to each family to decide, based on their values, what's reasonable. This is definitely one instance where "ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL". It's generally accepted that families should not use their retirement funds to pay for college. It's also generally accepted that a person with a college degree has a much greater earning potential over a lifetime that someone without a degree.
The purpose of this post is to raise issues. There aren't easy answers. Selecting the right set of colleges considering the Student, Success Factors, College Characteristics and Affordability is likely the best approach for making reasoned decisions about college.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Pieces of the Financial Aid Puzzle
A recent poll found that families are making decisions about college based on inaccurate information. There's lots of information available, but it may be hard to find and confusing to understand. Two articles in the Wall Street Journal recently help families sort through costs/financial aid and paying back student loans.
From the poll article, we hope families learn that the government has begun to require that colleges provide information comparing the "sticker price" to the "discounted price". The sticker price is the total cost of attendance as published by the college and includes tuition, room & board, books, travel and other miscellaneous expenses. The discounted price takes into account all of the scholarships and financial aid that colleges award to students. The specifications of how to calculate the discounted price so that families can compare the data across colleges are vague at this point. We'll be blogging about this further as new approaches are developed. The goal is to find an affordability index comparable across colleges that provides accurate information.
One of the most important items included in the Wall Street Journal articles is the notion of "Professional Judgment Review". That's a phrase that every family should know when talking with college and university financial aid officers. They have lots of discretion and it behooves families to have frank and open discussions with the financial aid office personnel.
From the poll article, we hope families learn that the government has begun to require that colleges provide information comparing the "sticker price" to the "discounted price". The sticker price is the total cost of attendance as published by the college and includes tuition, room & board, books, travel and other miscellaneous expenses. The discounted price takes into account all of the scholarships and financial aid that colleges award to students. The specifications of how to calculate the discounted price so that families can compare the data across colleges are vague at this point. We'll be blogging about this further as new approaches are developed. The goal is to find an affordability index comparable across colleges that provides accurate information.
One of the most important items included in the Wall Street Journal articles is the notion of "Professional Judgment Review". That's a phrase that every family should know when talking with college and university financial aid officers. They have lots of discretion and it behooves families to have frank and open discussions with the financial aid office personnel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
