This is a guest post by Jim Farmer.
Fried, Professor of Management at Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, developed a “pro forma” business plan for a residential undergraduate college. The results yield an annual full cost of instruction of $7,376—60% less than current baccalaureate and 50% less than masters institutions.
Center Director Richard Vetter describes the plan’s low cost:
How does Vance do it? Universities that are inexpensive cannot be all things to all people, and Vance sharply limits the number of majors and the number of courses taught. A proliferation of electives is one reason instructional costs are high. Vance hires (in his mind) relatively few teachers, gives them reasonable teaching loads, but has pretty large classes –low student-teacher ratios wreak havoc with costs. Vance has a lean and mean administrative structure. He uses technology intelligently. And so on.
The discussion may quantify the extent of cross-subsidization of subjects such as the arts and classics, the research results of the teaching faculty, and service to the community—all omitted in Fried’s model.
The next time higher education executives testify before Congress or state legislatures, they may be asked to explain the differences between the results of Fried’s “pro forma” college and current practices. Because of the falling state tax revenues, Fried’s model could also become a rationale for reduced funding of public 4-year universities and colleges. According to the Rockefeller Institute, inflation adjusted state tax revenues have declined 5.3%; reduced contributions to state supported public institutions for 2008-2009 are likely.
The complex relationship between curriculum and costs was incorporated in the NCHEMS RRPM (Resource Requirements Prediction Model), model and cost finding principles in the 1970s and subsequent Andrew W. Mellon-funded projects at George Mason University, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Cape Town. These and similar studies may provide methodology and examples.. The textbook publishers have provided some evidence, such as the Plato and Pearson case studies. Their performance metrics are frequently cited in presentations of the value of instructional technology. With these kinds of results, the conversations about curriculum and teaching methods could then include “appropriate technology”—the impact of instructional technology on student performance and completions and teaching productivity
Assessment was the theme of the recent Portal 2008 Conference at Gettysburg College keynoted by ANGEL Learning’s Ray Henderson and the informal discussions at the 2-3-98 Conference at SUNY Delhi and JA-SIG UK. Assessments is also the major track at this week’s Blackboard World. This follows Blackboard’s May 2007 forum “Are America’s Students Left Behind” that explored the results of the U.S. Department of Education’s study of instructional effectiveness.
The instructional technology communities—Sakai, Moodle, ANGEL, Blackboard, and others—may now be able to provide evidence of the benefits of instructional technology. A special initiative may be needed to have results and documentation available before this public conversation turns to general budget reductions. It appears a worthwhile effort.
Norman Constantine says
The problem is the model of education that we use. It is a model of selection rather than a model of learning. I suggest reading De-Schooling America by Ivan Illich. Astounding book!
ez says
The success of the GeorgiaVIEW project has been in no small part to annual stagnation of money from the state to public higher education. With booming student populations and no where to put them, online classes is the only way some schools are able to stay afloat.
Michael Staton says
I almost made a post in response to this article. Alas, half done it is aging like wine in the cellar that is my hard drive.
Three things:
1) I watched costs go up at my own university and it was entirely due to haphazard expenditures in hopes of getting more students to apply and to matriculate, mostly in hopes of moving up the standings in pop magazines (US News and World Reports comes to mind). Things like new dorms with island kitchens come to mind.
2) These expensive superficial amenities might actually work because high school students are so ineptly guided through the process of choosing a college. So, factors like island kitchens and a weak offering in “post-colonial African ethnography and design” might actually be enough to sway the little boogers to apply.
3) Offering majors willy-nilly is a silly use of funds, especially when the number one predictor of matriculation is the “perceived strength of intended major.” Perhaps less efforts should go to the shotgun approach and more should go into building solid core programs and their facilities.