The Pathetic State of Higher Education: New Jersey

A few weeks back, I wrote a blog post titled "New Jersey and Higher Ed: Not Perfect Together." This commentary was based on a report that had recently been released by Governor Christie's task force on higher education. One of the findings was that graduation rates for colleges and universities in New Jersey were subpar by any standard. Well, new statistics released by the federal Department of Education paint an even bleaker picture. The numbers aren't pretty. In fact, they're downright hideous.

In analyzing data from more than two dozen institutions of higher education across the state, the DOE found that less than fifty percent of college students in New Jersey earn their bachelor's degree within four years. Not surprisingly, Princeton was the only university where ninety percent of students graduate within the four-year timeframe. Only three others (Drew, The College of New Jersey, and Ramapo) exceeded fifty percent. The rest ranged from forty-nine percent at Rutgers College-New Brunswick to an abysmal six percent at New Jersey City University.

So what is going on? What are the reasons behind such massive, widespread ineptitude at New Jersey's IHEs? No doubt the answer is complex, and I concede that students are ultimately responsible for whether or not they complete their degrees. But can't we do better than this?

On the student's side, finances are often a major stumbling block. Over the years, the federal government has all but wiped out federal grants for college students and opted to loan the money instead. This makes college less affordable, especially for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and more often than not it forces them to work while they are going to school. Going to work means you have less time to fit in your classes, and will sometimes result in stretching the timeframe for your degree to five or six years. This is understandable.

Another problem is that eighteen and nineteen year-olds don't often know what they want to be when they grow up. Changing majors usually means that you have to make up classes that are normally taken earlier in one's college career. This too will elongate the timeframe for one's degree.

Still other students are simply dealing with issues outside of the classroom that make it all but impossible to finish their degrees on time. Raising a child, caring for sick family members, or dealing with personal health issues are all factors as well. Again, it is understandable why students who are in such situations need more time to graduate.

But let's face it, the colleges and universities need to be held accountable too. All too often, students do not receive adequate advice up front in order to lay out a plan for graduation. Ramapo College has focused on this issue almost exclusively, requiring ALL students to meet with an adviser who lays out a semester-by-semester blueprint for completing degree requirements on time. The move has paid off, as Ramapo has increased its graduation rate from thirty-six percent to fifty-three percent, climbing to fourth overall among New Jersey IHEs. But like so many others, they still have a long way to go.

Class-scheduling difficulties and overcrowded courses present major hurdles to students as well. This is completely unjustifiable. Why can't an institution offer enough sections of a course to meet students' needs? Why can't they offer required courses more frequently? Why can't they be more flexible, offering weekend and evening courses to students who have other responsibilities during the day? I know the answer to that question. It is rooted in the university faculty who can't be bothered to go the extra mile for the students. There are many professors who care more about their own schedule and workload than the needs of the students. But more often than not, they can afford to do so. Why? Because they're tenured, and the administration is limited in what they can do to strongarm those academic departments that rarely cooperate in such matters. It is truly a sad state of affairs.

But yet another issue, one that I raised in my prior blog post on this topic, is the way in which higher education is run today. It is increasingly being treated just like any other business, with nothing mattering more than the bottom line. Administrators are pressured to meet enrollment and revenue projections, and risk having their heads placed on the chopping block if they fail to do so. As the deadline looms, most administrators will lower standards just to meet the projections. This causes the college to enroll students who are not university material. Even those universities in New Jersey whose mission is to provide students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds with access to a college education need to re-evaluate their position. We simply can't keep enrolling students in college if they don't belong there. We are doing a disservice to them and to the reputation of our universities. When will the university presidents learn?

What I find even more disconcerting is the pompous, holier-than-thou attitude that some administrators have adopted in response to these numbers. Evelyn Quinn, the provost of Georgian Court University, dismissed the statistics and accused the DOE of using an "outdated method." John Melendez, Vice President of Student Affairs at New Jersey City University, said, "People who work in higher education understand that it is really a one-dimensional look at what we do." Really? Do you think that maybe graduating students is the MOST IMPORTANT thing that you do? Melendez then said, "It is what it is." Unbelievable. I suppose it's a lot easier to sit in an ivory tower and pretend that the criticism is completely unwarranted rather than get off your derriere and do something about it.

To be fair, Dawood Farahi, President of Kean University, owned up to the universities' collective responsibilities. He said, "This is not the best we can do. We need to shift the paradigm. We need to focus on the student outcomes and graduation of the students." Kudos to the president and thank you, Dr. Farahi, for saying what needed to be said. It's time for IHEs to shift their priorities from meeting revenue projections to getting their students to graduate, and graduate on time. The longer a student goes to school, the deeper in debt they become. Taking another year or two to finish a degree is also one less year or two that the student is employed full-time and becomes a productive member of society. Both things have significant effects on the U.S. economy, making the issue even more pressing than it already is.

I understand that the financial issues are not going away any time soon, if ever. The dire state of the economy all across the entire world will continue to be a factor, and we can't expect the federal government to provide students with even more financial assistance. But while colleges and universities may be helpless in this respect, there are plenty of other things they can do to improve the rate of graduation. For starters, how about following Ramapo's example and requiring them to meet with an adviser to formulate a four-year plan? Then, if you require students to meet with their advisers regularly and hold them accountable, it can only help them in meeting the goal of graduating in four years.

College administrators need to become more forceful in dealing with academic departments that hinder students' ability to graduate on time. Yes, their hands are often tied by that dreadful thing called tenure. But there are other things they can do, such as cutting departmental budgets and refusing them new faculty lines unless they cooperate. They have to play hardball. It's the only way. And finally, these leaders have to stop running the universities as if they were any other business. Enough already with revenue projections. How about setting a standard and sticking to it? Will that mean lower enrollments? Yes. Will that mean potentially major budget cuts? Yes. But where are your priorities? The presidents, provosts, and deans need to step up and show that they're serious about raising standards and increasing graduation rates. They're the policy makers. They're the ones who need to accept responsibility and set the example for everyone else employed by the universities. If they don't buy in, then no one else will.

If you're looking to adopt a self-defeating attitude and deem this task all but impossible given the obstacles, then look no further than recent Monmouth graduate, Ed Kwiatkowski. He graduated in three-and-a-half years with a double major, all the while working a full-time job at night and caring for his teen-age sister after his mother's untimely death. If he can do it, then there is no reason to doubt that any other college student in New Jersey can follow suit. Are you listening, Dr. Melendez? Dr. Quinn? Enough with the excuses. Time to tackle this issue head on, lest New Jersey's colleges and universities move from higher education to the category of "lower education."