Search

This report examines Idaho's undergraduate-degree-granting colleges and universities. The authors focus on what students are learning (the curriculum), whether the marketplace of ideas is vibrant (intellectual diversity), how the universities are run (governance), and what a college education costs (affordability). In each case, the authors evaluate Idaho institutions in light of issues, studies, and national best practices, awarding a Passing or Failing grade. Are students learning the things they need to know? Is there a healthy exchange of ideas? Are trustees upholding the public trust? Are taxpayers getting good value for their money? These are the kinds of questions to which the people of Idaho deserve answers. It is the goal of this report card to provide answers and to help Idaho's leaders--including the governor, the state legislature, and the trustees--find the way forward at this challenging time. It is hoped that it will help Idaho become a national standard bearer for excellence, accountability, and efficiency in higher education. The first section focuses on general education--those courses, usually completed within the first two years of a bachelor's degree program, that ensure a broad education and college-level skills critical to workforce participation. The authors found that Idaho's institutions of higher education neglect many foundational subjects. Some campuses require crucial subjects such as mathematics, English composition, literature, natural science, and foreign language, but others do not; and none of Idaho's institutions requires a foundational class in economics or U.S. government or history. In the second section, the authors focus on intellectual diversity, a value that lies at the very heart of the educational enterprise. In the simplest terms, intellectual diversity means the free exchange of ideas. According to a scientific survey of students the authors commissioned, it is in trouble in Idaho. Students report violations of professional standards--including perceived pressure to agree with professors' views in order to get a good grade--and exhibit a lack of awareness of their rights and how to ensure those rights are respected. Many institutions across the country have taken responsible action in recent years to guarantee intellectual pluralism. Idaho's institutions should join them. The third section turns to governance and actions by the Idaho State Board of Education. Board members are responsible for the academic and financial well-being of the state's institutions and for safeguarding the public interest. The authors' examination of board minutes and other publicly available materials suggests that, generally, the board has done a satisfactory job of following best practices in governance structure. The board meets regularly, discusses substantive issues, and has formulated long-term plans. However, there is room for improvement in their handling of such practical matters as the presidential hiring process, general education, intellectual diversity, and cost--and it is hoped that the board will take action. Finally, the authors take a look at cost and effectiveness. This is an area of real concern. On average, increases in tuition and fees at the institutions they assessed outstripped inflation by nearly 20 percent between 2004 and 2009--and too much of that increase is going to administrative costs, instead of instruction. Measures of effectiveness reveal an alarming picture and the need for greater focus on educational quality: Three of Idaho's institutions posted a six-year graduation rate of 30 percent or lower, well below the national average. One in three students is dropping out after just one year of college. Appended are: (1) Selection Criteria for Core Courses; and (2) Student Survey Methodology. (Contains 33 footnotes.) [This paper was created with the Idaho Freedom Foundation.]

The Big 12 is famous for its athletics--and well it should be. But what about the rest of the conference--the academic part? The Big 12's website says, "Performance in the classroom is just as important as accolades on the field." So what's happening off the field? How do the Big 12 schools fare when it comes to cost and quality? The fact is, across the country, schools are at a crossroads. And schools in the Big 12 are no exception. Nationally, reductions in state funding for higher education have been massive. Although these cuts have been partially offset by the influx of federal stimulus money, that money has been spent, and it's not likely there will be more. As outlined in this report, Big 12 schools are faced with many of the same problems plaguing institutions across the country: rising costs, low graduation rates, and curricular gaps that make real and proactive engagement imperative. It is hoped that institutional leaders--governors, regents, trustees, and administrators--will use this report to make the Big 12 as prominent off the field as it is on it. Selection Criteria for Core Courses are appended. (Contains 8 footnotes.)

In 2011, the chief executives of the University of Minnesota and Minnesota State Colleges & Universities systems will leave their positions, along with the governor of the state. The state will continue to face fiscal challenges, and the campuses will have to figure out how to do more with less. As "Tribune" columnist Lori Sturdevant recently observed, this will require a "paradigm shift." In such times, citizens and policymakers can benefit from clear information on what their colleges and universities are doing well, and what they are doing not so well. That is why this report card delves into Minnesota's two public university systems. The authors focus on what students are learning (the curriculum), whether the marketplace of ideas is vibrant (intellectual diversity), how the universities are run (governance), and what a college education costs (affordability). In each case, they assess Minnesota institutions according to best practices at the national level, awarding a Passing or Failing grade. Are students learning the things they need to know? Is there a healthy exchange of ideas? Are trustees upholding the public trust? Are taxpayers getting a good value for their money? These are the kinds of questions to which the people of Minnesota deserve answers. It is the goal of this report card to provide answers and to help Minnesota--a state rightly known for its passion for education--be a national standard bearer for excellence, accountability, and efficiency in higher education. The first section focuses on general education--those courses, usually completed within the first two years of a bachelor's degree program, that ensure a common intellectual background as well as college-level skills critical to workforce participation. While most Minnesota institutions require their students to take courses in composition and college-level math and science, there are weaknesses in other crucial areas. Most do not require broad coursework in literature, U.S. history or government, or economics. Instead, students can satisfy requirements in "Social Science," "Historical Perspectives," or "Ethical and Civic Responsibility" with courses such as "The Rural World" and "Visual Journalism." These requirements should be tightened so that they clearly point students to essential knowledge. In the second section, the authors focus on intellectual diversity, a value that lies at the very heart of the educational enterprise. In the simplest terms, intellectual diversity means the free exchange of ideas. And according to a scientific survey of students they commissioned, it is in trouble in Minnesota. Students unambiguously report violations of professional standards--including perceived pressure to agree with professors' views in order to get a good grade--and exhibit an unsettling lack of awareness of their rights and how to ensure those rights are respected. Many institutions across the country have taken responsible action in recent years to guarantee intellectual pluralism. The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities and St. Cloud State University, the two campuses the authors surveyed, should join them. The third section turns to governance and actions by the University of Minnesota Board of Regents and the Minnesota State Colleges & Universities Board of Trustees. These board members are responsible for the academic and financial well-being of the institutions they oversee and for safeguarding the public interest. Their examination of board minutes and other publicly available materials suggests that both boards function in a generally transparent manner, and both are addressing issues that bear directly on student success. The MnSCU board deserves particular note for its active engagement in setting institutional priorities and for putting a premium on greater system-wide transparency and accountability. But as this report outlines, Minnesota schools are faced with rising costs, low graduation rates, and curricular gaps that make real and proactive engagement imperative. Finally, the authors take a look at cost and effectiveness. This is an area of real concern. On average, increases in tuition and fees at the institutions the authors assessed outstripped inflation by nearly 20 percent between 2003 and 2008, eating up dramatically more of the average family's income. They also found increases in administrative spending of over 30 percent on five campuses between 2003 and 2007. Meanwhile, on no campus did they find even 64 percent of students receiving a degree in six years--suggesting that not only are costs going up, but many students are paying tuition for more than the expected four years. Skyrocketing college costs, of course, are not a problem unique to Minnesota, but they are one it must address. It is hoped that Minnesota's leaders--including the governor, the state legislature, and the regents and trustees they appoint--will use this report card to those important ends. Appended are: (1) Selection Criteria for Core Courses; and (2) Student Survey Methodology. (Contains 34 footnotes.) [This paper was created with the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota.]

Illinois is the Land of Lincoln. In this great state, Lincoln got his start as a lawyer and a politician. In his 1832 Address to the People of Sangamon County, Lincoln outlined his vision for a practical and general education in which "every man may receive at least a moderate education, and thereby be enabled to read the histories of his own and other countries, by which he may duly appreciate the value of our free institutions." Nowhere is that maxim of Lincoln's more true than with state universities, which receive special privileges--whether federal land, as in the time of the Morrill Act, or the student loans, scientific research grants, and tax exemptions one sees today--in the expectation that they will fulfill their purpose "for the people." Given that special obligation, it is surely proper to check on how they are doing. As public institutions, they have a responsibility to provide Illinois taxpayers--particularly students and their parents--an excellent education at an affordable cost. That is why in this paper the authors ask: Are they doing this? In exchange for the support and autonomy they receive, are they living up to the public trust? Specifically, this study focuses on four key areas of the public's interest: what students are learning (the curriculum), whether the marketplace of ideas is vibrant (intellectual diversity), how the universities are run (governance), and what a college education costs (affordability). The authors examine ten four-year, state universities that represent more than 90 percent of Illinois' four-year public university enrollment and reflect a range of institutional types. In the most recent year for which figures are available, these institutions collectively enrolled over 185,000 students and made expenditures totaling over six billion dollars. Applying a common educational benchmark--64 percent--they offer Illinois a Passing or Failing grade on each point. The first section focuses on general education--those courses completed usually within the first two years of a bachelor's degree program. In the second section, the authors focus on intellectual diversity, a value that lies at the very heart of the educational enterprise. The third section turns to governance and actions by the University of Illinois and Southern Illinois University boards of trustees. Lastly, the authors take a look at cost and effectiveness. Appended are: (1) Selection Criteria for Core Courses; (2) Student Survey Data; and (3) Student Survey Methodology. (Contains 32 footnotes.) [This paper was created with Illinois Policy Institute.]