Search

In the last year, advocacy groups have churned out reports on how all kinds of students--those who work, are minorities, attend less-selective colleges, or come from low-income families--struggle in higher education. They have talked about the needs of the modern workforce, and how the United States is falling behind. All coalesced around the same point: Not enough students are graduating from college. Another thing the studies had in common: All were paid for by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The reports are part of an aggressive push by the foundation to convince the public that the U.S. has a college-dropout problem. People have been so focused on access, and had this mentality of students' right to fail, that there's little understanding of how much churn hurts institutions and the students they're trying to serve. Changing that is part of the three-pronged strategy that has emerged since the foundation officially entered the postsecondary sphere, in late 2008. It casts the organization as both vocal critic and white knight. Not all those in higher education are sure they want the Gates foundation's brand of rescue. Few people openly criticize the foundation, but privately some worry that its approach to postsecondary reform is too top-down and too systematic. The most outspoken critics of the foundation's education work, however, have faulted its market-based approach to elementary and secondary schools. Others, of course, welcome the help. Many college leaders say the foundation is bringing attention to a neglected sector of higher education. The Gates foundation aims to double the proportion of low-income Americans who earn a postsecondary credential by age 26. To get there, the philanthropy is focusing grants on community colleges, where more than half of students come from families earning less than $40,000 a year. The foundation is also supporting efforts to increase low-income students' access to financial aid and information about attending college. And it is financing work to identify and test practices that improve students' outcomes, particularly in remedial math. Throughout, the philanthropy is exploring how technology could enhance quality and reduce costs. While gathering evidence of good practices is a piece of its work, the foundation is not pushing for a uniform system. Much of its money is going to expand programs started on campuses themselves. It's easy to see the group's move into higher education as a natural extension of its work in high schools. There, the foundation has focused on improving teaching but also on increasing options for families. Higher education in the U.S., however, is already a market, and its primary federal support looks a lot like vouchers. But the foundation has concluded that the market isn't working because students don't have enough information--and because many lack real choice.

Since 2003, more than 40 athletics programs have joined the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) ranks. Membership now represents about 500 colleges and the group's executive director expects to keep adding colleges. Membership in the association began declining slightly in the early 1990s, as private two-year colleges, many of which were struggling financially, cut their athletics programs or closed altogether. The recent growth in numbers is being fueled mostly by public colleges, some hoping to attract more students and others trying to satisfy a growing number of 18- to 24-year-olds who are demanding a traditional college experience, including athletics. In this article, the author suggests that a college president must consider the following key issues before adding varsity sports: (1) paying for the programs; (2) athletic scholarships; and (3) reasons for competition.

SAN ANTONIO A GROUP of 14 architects, project managers, and educators huddled around a conference table here this month hammering out the must-haves for the library at the yet-to-be-built Northeast [...]