Last updated on January 3rd 2014
The word bubble is a strong word. Is it proper to associate the word with Higher Education? A few days ago, I was not sure. But I recently came across some articles from reputed media organizations and a set of videos from a conference of scholars which makes me wonder whether it actually may be proper and correct, to use the word, bubble, to describe some, student-numbers-wise, significant parts of higher education.
Please note that towards the bottom of this post, the views of US university faculty and some US and European university presidents and research directors are given which argue against one of the suggestions of at least one US education researcher mentioned earlier in the post [separation of teaching and research duties (and so, faculty)], to improve the situation in higher education. The first comment to the post is also an interesting one (this paragraph is an update to the post).
Here's an August 2012 article from the Economist that uses the phrase 'higher education bubble', The college-cost calamity, http://www.economist.com/node/21559936.
Here's a September 2013 article on Forbes.com, Three Reasons Why College Bubble Will Burst, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2013/09/04/three-reasons-why-college-bubble-will-burst/.
I was also quite surprised to note that Wikipedia has a page on Higher education bubble, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_bubble. An extract from it: "The higher education bubble is a hypothesis that there is a speculative boom and bust phenomenon in the field of higher education, particularly in the United States, and that there is the risk of an economic bubble in higher education that could have repercussions in the broader economy. President Obama nearly doubled the federal Pell Grant Program, from $19 billion in 2009 to $36 billion for 2013. Enrollment at more than 40 percent of private colleges and universities declined last year, forcing the institutions to offer steep tuition discounts to fill seats.
According to the theory, while college tuition payments are rising, the rate of return of a college degree is decreasing, and the soundness of the student loan industry may be threatened by increasing default rates. College students who fail to find employment at the level needed to pay back their loans in a reasonable amount of time have been compared to the debtors under sub-prime mortgages whose homes are worth less than what is owed to the bank."
A few days ago, I came across a very interesting set of videos about a session in the (USA) National Association of Scholars (NAS) 2013 Conference on (USA) Higher Education Bubble.
[NAS stands for National Association of Scholars, http://www.nas.org/. From http://www.nas.org/about/overview, "NAS is a network of scholars and citizens united by our commitment to academic freedom, disinterested scholarship, and excellence in American higher education." From its wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Scholars, 'The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is a non-profit organization in the United States that opposes multiculturalism and affirmative action and seeks to counter what it considers a "liberal bias" in academia. The NAS describes itself as "an independent membership association of academics working to foster intellectual freedom and to sustain the tradition of reasoned scholarship and civil debate in America’s colleges and universities." The NAS is generally viewed as politically conservative advocacy group, although it rejects the label.']
BTW I am quite sure Indian higher education also has at least some of these problems, and some more problems of its own. Studying such issues that USA higher education seems to have may allow us to understand problems of Indian higher education and explore ways to improve it. That is the intent of this post.
The first talk: Andrew Gillen, Session 3: The Higher Education Bubble, NAS 2013 Conference, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34V6CogEGE, 15 min. 38 sec, published April 26th 2013.
[From http://www.educationsector.org/person/andrew-gillen, "Andrew Gillen is a senior researcher with Education Sector at American Institutes for Research. Gillen has a wealth of experience in researching and writing about higher education, focusing mostly on college costs and financial aid, accreditation, and the economics of higher education."]
The youtube page above has my lengthy notes from the talk (picked up from the transcript and edited) as a comment under my name, dated December 29th 2013. The notes may be convenient to quickly browse through or perhaps even study.
The notes cover Gillen's views about USA Higher Education. He mentions that the defining characteristic of a bubble is unsustainable growth and that there are two bubbles in USA Higher Ed. - the enrollment bubble and the cost bubble. He provides some startling data for the enrollment bubble like:
- Only 25% of high school students are prepared for college but 68% enroll.
- 1/3rd of college students have to enroll in remedial courses. [Ravi: From the wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remedial_education, "Remedial education (also known as developmental education, basic skills education, compensatory education, preparatory education, and academic upgrading) are course sequences designed to bring underprepared students to expected skill competency levels."]
- Only 58% of college students graduate from 4 yr colleges. Only 30% graduate from 2 yr (community) colleges.
- Between 40% to 48% of college graduates have jobs that do not require a college degree.
Students and parents and families are starting to realize that college isn't the safe investment that it once was. Wages for recent college graduates have been falling; a lot of them are struggling to find jobs and yet tuition keeps increasing.
Main threat to traditional college education from the cost front is MOOCs.
Proper and widely agreed measure of outcomes of colleges is not available; It is not clear what constitutes a high quality college. So colleges compete on reputation instead of value which is essentially quality divided by price; To boost reputation colleges indulge in flashy things unrelated to actual education of students.
Determining how students are learning is important to improve students' education. Measures like CLA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_Learning_Assessment, outside certification exams like CPA for accountants, bar exam for lawyers etc. may help in creating a measure of learning for college students.
Information about labor market outcomes could be useful for students to decide which degree to study.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The next talk in the session conveys a very ruthless view of USA Higher Ed. So if you tend to get upset reading such views I think it would be best to skip the rest of the part of this post that covers this talk. The reason I am covering it in this post is that while some of the views may be rather strong, some views seem to have the ring of truth.
George Leef, Session 3: The Higher Education Bubble, NAS 2013 Conference, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzMEaAjEunw, 19 min. 50 sec, published April 26th 2013. George Leef is director of research for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, http://www.popecenter.org/about/author.html?id=29.
I made a sort-of transcript of some parts of the talk and added it to the above youtube page as a comment (dated December 29th 2013). I have given below a summary of that notes-comment.
- Bubbles are based on misperceptions of value that start to feed on themselves. People come to believe that some good or service is really more valuable than it actually is.
- Higher Ed. has people believing that a college degree is extraordinarily valuable and that it will add a million dollars to more to lifetime earnings as compared to people who do not have a college degree. [While the million dollars figure may be true as an average figure it does not apply to all streams and that aspect is not disclosed by Higher Ed. people.]
- He talks about the Bennett hypothesis. [Ravi: New York Times Nov. 2013 interview with Bennet, "Catching Up on the Bennett Hypothesis", http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/education/edlife/catching-up-on-the-bennett-hypothesis.html, New York Times op-ed by Bennet in 1987 when he was US Secretary of Education - http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/18/opinion/our-greedy-colleges.html. Andrew Gillen's paper on it, "Introducing Bennett Hypothesis 2.0", http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/research/studies/bennett-hypothesis-2.]
- Problem of credential inflation: As labor market is full of people with college credentials employers prefer to hire people with college credentials (even though that may not be necessary for the job in question).
- Strong parallels between housing bubble and higher education bubble. Govt. policy was making housing artificially cheap and encouraging people to buy houses as a national good. The same is being done with higher education by making it artificially cheap with government financing (student aid loans) and the argument that college degree was very good for the individual and the country.
- Some consequences of the Higher Ed. bubble - many young people with an education only in name, many young people not getting jobs commensurate with their supposed education, enormous misallocation of resources, credential inflation resulting in good job paths being closed to (capable) people with high school education (or community college education).
- People are realizing that the value perception about college (million dollars more if you have any college degree) is mistaken.
- The college degree credential system is going to be replaced (in future) by a system where what people have learned and what they can do will be looked at (instead of only the college degree credential).
--------------------------------------------------------
The third talk of the session, Michael Poliakoff, Session 3: The Higher Education Bubble, NAS 2013 Conference, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlJqIxur00I, 21 min 29 sec, published April 26, 2013, is from a senior person from ACTA, American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Here's Poliakoff's page on the ACTA website, http://www.goacta.org/staff/michael_b_poliakoff.
--------------------------------------------------------
Then there is the Q&A, Session 3: The Higher Education Bubble, NAS 2013 Conference, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCfIiBADwbE, 27 min 59 sec, published April 25th 2013.
I found the last question to be very interesting and have put the edited transcript of the question and answers from all three speakers as a comment on the above youtube page. I have tried to summarize this Q&A below:
Q: So, what is the post bubble world (post Higher Education bubble burst world) likely to look like?
George Leef's view is that unbundling of education will be the big change. Students will shop around for courses (across educational institutions), pick a course here and a course there. They will go for what is good and what satisfies their needs.
Michael Poliakoff's view is that good quality online courses (some of which is already available) will democratize high-quality higher education (will save cost and provide high-quality education).
Andrew Gillen thinks that the universities will have to unbundle research and teaching duties and other things done by universities to be competitive with others who offer only the teaching aspect. Big endowment institutions like Harvard will not be affected. Tuition driven higher-ed. institutions will see a big change. From student's perspective the unbundling process will allow them to go for (courses offering) very specific skillsets especially in rapidly-changing fields.
-------------------------------------------------------
Can some sectors of Indian Higher Education also be said to be facing a bubble problem?
Let me first look at Andhra Pradesh, the state where I live.
Here's an NDTV (national TV media) article dated September 19th 2013, No takers for engineering courses: Andhra Pradesh's problem of plenty, http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/no-takers-for-engineering-courses-andhra-pradesh-s-problem-of-plenty-421048. Some points from the article:
After first phase of admissions this year (2013) over one hundred thousand (one lakh) seats in Andhra Pradesh (AP) engineering colleges are vacant (out of a total of two hundred and thirty five thousand seats). [Political unrest in the state may have had some effect for this situation.]
75% of passed out graduates from AP engineering colleges have reported that they have not got jobs!
Experts view is that technical jobs are available but these graduates are not knowledgeable enough and do not have requisite social skills to bag these jobs.
Here's a Times of India (mainstream national newspaper) article dated August 31st 2013 on similar lines, Engineering colleges in Andhra Pradesh facing bleak future, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-31/news/41641666_1_nine-colleges-eamcet-certificate-verification.
Here's a Hindu Business Line (mainstream national business newspaper) article dated September 2011 by the Director, Centre for Telecom Management & Studies (for more about the technical credentials of the article author see http://drthchowdary.net/), which gives his harsh view of many of these "degree shop" Andhra Pradesh engineering colleges, "Farce of an education in engineering", http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/farce-of-an-education-in-engineering/article2447570.ece.
Now let me move to neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu.
Here's an article from Times of India, dated April 12th 2013, Engineering colleges up 'for sale' in Tamil Nadu, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-12/news/38490500_1_few-engineering-colleges-many-college-owners-arts-and-science-colleges, which gives a bleak picture. It quotes a leading former academic administrator that at least 100 colleges of engineering and other disciplines are up for sale.
Here's an article again from the Times of India, dated July 27th 2013, More than 80,000 engineering seats remain vacant in Tamil Nadu, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-27/education/40832525_1_five-colleges-seats-c-thangaraj.
From the above articles, it seems to me that at least in some parts of Higher Education in India, not only has there been a bubble (some of the articles above show the growth in student seats over the past few years) but the bubble has even burst (in some parts, I repeat).
Therefore it may be very valuable for Indian higher education policy makers and administrators to study the article and video links this post has provided about USA higher education bubble.
I felt it appropriate to repeat some of the suggestions to deal with this bubble problem and some predictions from the USA conference session:
Proper and widely agreed measure of outcomes of colleges is not available; It is not clear what constitutes a high quality college. So colleges compete on reputation instead of value which is essentially quality divided by price; To boost reputation colleges indulge in flashy things unrelated to actual education of students.
Determining how students are learning is important to improve students' education. Measures like CLA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_Learning_Assessment, outside certification exams like CPA for accountants, bar exam for lawyers etc. may help in creating a measure of learning for college students.
Information about labor market outcomes could be useful for students to decide which degree to study.
...
The college degree credential system is going to be replaced (in future) by a system where what people have learned and what they can do will be looked at (instead of only the college degree credential).
...
Andrew Gillen thinks that the universities will have to unbundle research and teaching duties and other things done by universities to be competitive with others who offer only the teaching aspect. Big endowment institutions like Harvard will not be affected. Tuition driven higher-ed. institutions will see a big change. From student's perspective the unbundling process will allow them to go for (courses offering) very specific skillsets especially in rapidly-changing fields.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I feel it is appropriate to also share the view of related matters from USA university professors. Some of these views (on teaching-only appointments) are related to the topic of unbundling teaching and research duties and are quite opposed to it. This is a document, dated October 2009 (draft version), which gives the American Assocation of University Professors' view on Tenure and Teaching-Intensive Appointments, http://www.aaup.org/report/tenure-and-teaching-intensive-appointments.
Endnotes 3 and 4 of this document state that in 1969, among full-time faculty, the ratio of teaching-intensive faculty (nine or more hours of teaching per week) to research-intensive faculty (six or fewer hours of teaching per week) in US academia was 1.5:1. But by 1998 the ratio had become 2:1 largely due to "teaching-only" appointments. It refers to data from Jack H. Schuster and Martin J. Finkelstein, The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).
The article states that the majority of teaching-intensive positions have been shunted out of the tenure system and that 'has in most cases meant a dramatic shift from “teaching-intensive” appointments to “teaching- only” appointments, featuring a faculty with attenuated relationships to campus and disciplinary peers. This seismic shift from “teaching-intensive” faculty within the big tent of tenure to “teaching-only” faculty outside of it has had severe consequences for students as well as faculty themselves, producing lower levels of campus engagement across the board and a rising service burden for the shrinking core of tenurable faculty.'
[From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_(academic), "Tenure is a senior academic's contractual right not to have his or her position terminated without just cause." Ravi: In other words, tenure gives a permanent and protected position.]
Here is a very interesting European Molecular Biology Organization interview, dated September 2007 of leading research and administrative lights of academia and industry on the topic, "The future of research universities. Is the model of research-intensive universities still valid at the beginning of the twenty-first century?", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973958/. The interviewees include presidents/chancellor of universities, and present/former directors of research departments/institutions of US & Europe, and a Japanese professor emeritus.
Some significant points from the interview.
*) Advanced nations need scientific research and a trained workforce for the knowledge-based economy they are deeply involved with.
*) New pressures on universities to produce trained workforce (graduates) as well as generate new knowledge (research).
*) One interviewee mentions that private sector research labs. were at the forefront of research some decades earlier which heavily contributed to today's knowledge economy. But now the private sector research labs. play a much smaller role with (in the case of the US) long-range research (basic research) responsibility shifting to US research universities, and their work may drive a big part of tomorrow's (US and perhaps other countries') knowledge economy.
*) A specific question is asked of these leading lights, "ER: Do you see a trend away from universities in which both teaching and research are combined, towards universities specializing in one or the other—and is this desirable?" Some of the interviewees do see such a trend (in one case, notes a reversal of the trend) and almost all of them specifically say that it is undesirable.
The third talk of the session, Michael Poliakoff, Session 3: The Higher Education Bubble, NAS 2013 Conference, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlJqIxur00I, 21 min 29 sec, published April 26, 2013, is from a senior person from ACTA, American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Here's Poliakoff's page on the ACTA website, http://www.goacta.org/staff/michael_b_poliakoff.
--------------------------------------------------------
Then there is the Q&A, Session 3: The Higher Education Bubble, NAS 2013 Conference, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCfIiBADwbE, 27 min 59 sec, published April 25th 2013.
I found the last question to be very interesting and have put the edited transcript of the question and answers from all three speakers as a comment on the above youtube page. I have tried to summarize this Q&A below:
Q: So, what is the post bubble world (post Higher Education bubble burst world) likely to look like?
George Leef's view is that unbundling of education will be the big change. Students will shop around for courses (across educational institutions), pick a course here and a course there. They will go for what is good and what satisfies their needs.
Michael Poliakoff's view is that good quality online courses (some of which is already available) will democratize high-quality higher education (will save cost and provide high-quality education).
Andrew Gillen thinks that the universities will have to unbundle research and teaching duties and other things done by universities to be competitive with others who offer only the teaching aspect. Big endowment institutions like Harvard will not be affected. Tuition driven higher-ed. institutions will see a big change. From student's perspective the unbundling process will allow them to go for (courses offering) very specific skillsets especially in rapidly-changing fields.
-------------------------------------------------------
Can some sectors of Indian Higher Education also be said to be facing a bubble problem?
Let me first look at Andhra Pradesh, the state where I live.
Here's an NDTV (national TV media) article dated September 19th 2013, No takers for engineering courses: Andhra Pradesh's problem of plenty, http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/no-takers-for-engineering-courses-andhra-pradesh-s-problem-of-plenty-421048. Some points from the article:
After first phase of admissions this year (2013) over one hundred thousand (one lakh) seats in Andhra Pradesh (AP) engineering colleges are vacant (out of a total of two hundred and thirty five thousand seats). [Political unrest in the state may have had some effect for this situation.]
75% of passed out graduates from AP engineering colleges have reported that they have not got jobs!
Experts view is that technical jobs are available but these graduates are not knowledgeable enough and do not have requisite social skills to bag these jobs.
Here's a Times of India (mainstream national newspaper) article dated August 31st 2013 on similar lines, Engineering colleges in Andhra Pradesh facing bleak future, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-31/news/41641666_1_nine-colleges-eamcet-certificate-verification.
Here's a Hindu Business Line (mainstream national business newspaper) article dated September 2011 by the Director, Centre for Telecom Management & Studies (for more about the technical credentials of the article author see http://drthchowdary.net/), which gives his harsh view of many of these "degree shop" Andhra Pradesh engineering colleges, "Farce of an education in engineering", http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/farce-of-an-education-in-engineering/article2447570.ece.
Now let me move to neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu.
Here's an article from Times of India, dated April 12th 2013, Engineering colleges up 'for sale' in Tamil Nadu, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-12/news/38490500_1_few-engineering-colleges-many-college-owners-arts-and-science-colleges, which gives a bleak picture. It quotes a leading former academic administrator that at least 100 colleges of engineering and other disciplines are up for sale.
Here's an article again from the Times of India, dated July 27th 2013, More than 80,000 engineering seats remain vacant in Tamil Nadu, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-27/education/40832525_1_five-colleges-seats-c-thangaraj.
From the above articles, it seems to me that at least in some parts of Higher Education in India, not only has there been a bubble (some of the articles above show the growth in student seats over the past few years) but the bubble has even burst (in some parts, I repeat).
Therefore it may be very valuable for Indian higher education policy makers and administrators to study the article and video links this post has provided about USA higher education bubble.
I felt it appropriate to repeat some of the suggestions to deal with this bubble problem and some predictions from the USA conference session:
Proper and widely agreed measure of outcomes of colleges is not available; It is not clear what constitutes a high quality college. So colleges compete on reputation instead of value which is essentially quality divided by price; To boost reputation colleges indulge in flashy things unrelated to actual education of students.
Determining how students are learning is important to improve students' education. Measures like CLA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_Learning_Assessment, outside certification exams like CPA for accountants, bar exam for lawyers etc. may help in creating a measure of learning for college students.
Information about labor market outcomes could be useful for students to decide which degree to study.
...
The college degree credential system is going to be replaced (in future) by a system where what people have learned and what they can do will be looked at (instead of only the college degree credential).
...
Andrew Gillen thinks that the universities will have to unbundle research and teaching duties and other things done by universities to be competitive with others who offer only the teaching aspect. Big endowment institutions like Harvard will not be affected. Tuition driven higher-ed. institutions will see a big change. From student's perspective the unbundling process will allow them to go for (courses offering) very specific skillsets especially in rapidly-changing fields.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I feel it is appropriate to also share the view of related matters from USA university professors. Some of these views (on teaching-only appointments) are related to the topic of unbundling teaching and research duties and are quite opposed to it. This is a document, dated October 2009 (draft version), which gives the American Assocation of University Professors' view on Tenure and Teaching-Intensive Appointments, http://www.aaup.org/report/tenure-and-teaching-intensive-appointments.
Endnotes 3 and 4 of this document state that in 1969, among full-time faculty, the ratio of teaching-intensive faculty (nine or more hours of teaching per week) to research-intensive faculty (six or fewer hours of teaching per week) in US academia was 1.5:1. But by 1998 the ratio had become 2:1 largely due to "teaching-only" appointments. It refers to data from Jack H. Schuster and Martin J. Finkelstein, The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).
The article states that the majority of teaching-intensive positions have been shunted out of the tenure system and that 'has in most cases meant a dramatic shift from “teaching-intensive” appointments to “teaching- only” appointments, featuring a faculty with attenuated relationships to campus and disciplinary peers. This seismic shift from “teaching-intensive” faculty within the big tent of tenure to “teaching-only” faculty outside of it has had severe consequences for students as well as faculty themselves, producing lower levels of campus engagement across the board and a rising service burden for the shrinking core of tenurable faculty.'
[From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_(academic), "Tenure is a senior academic's contractual right not to have his or her position terminated without just cause." Ravi: In other words, tenure gives a permanent and protected position.]
Here is a very interesting European Molecular Biology Organization interview, dated September 2007 of leading research and administrative lights of academia and industry on the topic, "The future of research universities. Is the model of research-intensive universities still valid at the beginning of the twenty-first century?", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973958/. The interviewees include presidents/chancellor of universities, and present/former directors of research departments/institutions of US & Europe, and a Japanese professor emeritus.
Some significant points from the interview.
*) Advanced nations need scientific research and a trained workforce for the knowledge-based economy they are deeply involved with.
*) New pressures on universities to produce trained workforce (graduates) as well as generate new knowledge (research).
*) One interviewee mentions that private sector research labs. were at the forefront of research some decades earlier which heavily contributed to today's knowledge economy. But now the private sector research labs. play a much smaller role with (in the case of the US) long-range research (basic research) responsibility shifting to US research universities, and their work may drive a big part of tomorrow's (US and perhaps other countries') knowledge economy.
*) A specific question is asked of these leading lights, "ER: Do you see a trend away from universities in which both teaching and research are combined, towards universities specializing in one or the other—and is this desirable?" Some of the interviewees do see such a trend (in one case, notes a reversal of the trend) and almost all of them specifically say that it is undesirable.
---------- end interview points ------------
The above material quite strongly argues against separating teaching and research in universities.
Please note that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license does not apply to this post.
Please note that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license does not apply to this post.