OT: 20 years from now, the apocalypse

[upstater]

I was in a meeting yesterday morning with some [very] bigwigs, and the things they said with a certainty about the future college landscape will make your toes curl. The confluence of the end of the baby-boom-boom coupled with the disappearance of state subsidies for college's and the gap between income and tuition is going to END a great many schools in America.

Who will survive: state land grants with much more room for growth (the state systems and schools being addressed are slated to increase enrollment by 50% (50!!!%) in the next 2 decades). Other than these, highly reputable privates with very large endowments.

The sorting out has already begun. A decent percentage of schools have abandoned capital improvements. The hoarding has already started.

If you care about sports, be careful who you affiliate with. Even if they are P5, the school may end up with a football team--and nothing else.

As I look at the Big East, for instance, I gotta wonder, how many of these schools will be hurting? Look at the MAC: I'd be scared to death. Smaller state campuses will devolve into community colleges. The big state schools are going to try to soak up as many of the good students as they possibly can.

Flat out, a good many schools will be shuttering doors.

 

[Hoophound]

I've figured this for years. The cost of college combined with several other factors has made the future of most private colleges uncertain at best. You can tell by the quality of applicants at state schools that a lot of people are rejecting the expense of the privates. Schools like UConn and UF are just the beginning. In Florida, it has become difficult for average to above average students to get into any state school. USF and UCF will not accept a B student with good SATs any more. Kids need A's just to have a chance at getting in. From there, AP classes weigh in and ever higher SATs are needed.

Meanwhile, we've seen many very competive private schools in New England loosen admission requirements substantially in that time.

 

[upstater]

I've figured this for years. The cost of college combined with several other factors has made the future of most private colleges uncertain at best. You can tell by the quality of applicants at state schools that a lot of people are rejecting the expense of the privates. Schools like UConn and UF are just the beginning. In Florida, it has become difficult for average to above average students to get into any state school. USF and UCF will not accept a B student with good SATs any more. Kids need A's just to have a chance at getting in. From there, AP classes weigh in and ever higher SATs are needed.

Meanwhile, we've seen many very competive private schools in New England loosen admission requirements substantially in that time.

It's not just the privates with small endowments (Seton Hall?) who are in trouble but also state schools without a research AAU orientation. Look at what is going on in Pennsylvania with the strike. We saw it last month with Long Island U. as well.

 

[amory]

my privates are well endowed and highly reputable




that is all.

 

[The Funster]

my privates are well endowed and highly reputable




that is all.

BOOM

 

[don356]

It's not a problem. Hillary is going to provide free college for everyone.

 

[JMick]

Meanwhile, we've seen many very competive private schools in New England loosen admission requirements substantially in that time.

Exhibit A - QU. I know a kid that got in with a 2.8 GPA and 1500/2400 SAT

 

[HuskyHawk]

Exhibit A - QU. I know a kid that got in with a 2.8 GPA and 1500/2400 SAT

Back in 1984 QU sent mailers to every CT HS kid, begging them to come. It was much easier to get in there than even the UConn of the time. Has that changed? Now if we see it from Wesleyan or similar it will mean something.

But higher ed is in a massive bubble caused by lack of competition and easy credit. I think we will see more focused trade schools open up, not ITT Technical Institute, but places where people can really get a practical, focused career driven education, but in information technology or biotech. Partnerships with leading employers should facilitate this.

 

[TRest]

Exhibit A - QU. I know a kid that got in with a 2.8 GPA and 1500/2400 SAT

Quinnipiac has to be the worst value in higher education in America.

 

[TRest]

Back in 1984 QU sent mailers to every CT HS kid, begging them to come. It was much easier to get in there than even the UConn of the time. Has that changed? Now if we see it from Wesleyan or similar it will mean something.

But higher ed is in a massive bubble caused by lack of competition and easy credit. I think we will see more focused trade schools open up, not ITT Technical Institute, but places where people can really get a practical, focused career driven education, but in information technology or biotech. Partnerships with leading employers should facilitate this.

My high school kids are getting bombed with e-mail and traditional mail from schools all over the country entering their junior year. They are all sellers. Now if only the price would come down.

 

[dayooper]

Schools are already trying to step away from the pack. My wife, daughter and I went with one of my daughters friends and her parents on a trip to see various schools around Michigan. It amazes me the extra effort they are putting in to attracting the general student population. They all had amazing food. They put a lot of money into the cafeterias just to attract students. I guess there were several surveys that stated one of the important factors on deciding on a school was the food. If NMU's café was like it is now, I never would have made it alive, I would have died of a heart attack! Ferris State's was even better. They had their own Mongolian BBQ, a pizza station, a hamburger station, subs, "home cooked" food, Asian noodle bar and just about anything you could imagine.

Even the programs are improving. Ferris has a good internship program, NMU has one of the best leadership programs in the state, Grand Valley and Saginaw Valley both have amazing dorms. NMU is in the process of tearing down old dorms and building brand new ones. With the exception Ferris, they all look brand new and modern. Some of these schools haven't changed in decades and now they are going through massive building and renovating projects. Northern's campus was barely recognizable to my wife and I and we graduated 20 years ago! U of Michigan Flint is starting an early college program where the professors are going into the schools and teaching college courses (mostly the required courses). Students exiting this program will have 48 credit hours (most of their liberal studies courses) and will have payed less than $2000 total. Those classes will transfer to any school in Michigan, no questions asked and they say they will transfer out of state too.

Schools have to change what they are doing and how they are doing it. I don't know what the outcome will be (I have my opinions), but we can't keep going on like have been.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Schools are already trying to step away from the pack. My wife, daughter and I went with one of my daughters friends and her parents on a trip to see various schools around Michigan. It amazes me the extra effort they are putting in to attracting the general student population. They all had amazing food. They put a lot of money into the cafeterias just to attract students. I guess there were several surveys that stated one of the important factors on deciding on a school was the food. If NMU's café was like it is now, I never would have made it alive, I would have died of a heart attack! Ferris State's was even better. They had their own Mongolian BBQ, a pizza station, a hamburger station, subs, "home cooked" food, Asian noodle bar and just about anything you could imagine.

Even the programs are improving. Ferris has a good internship program, NMU has one of the best leadership programs in the state, Grand Valley and Saginaw Valley both have amazing dorms. NMU is in the process of tearing down old dorms and building brand new ones. With the exception Ferris, they all look brand new and modern. Some of these schools haven't changed in decades and now they are going through massive building and renovating projects. Northern's campus was barely recognizable to my wife and I and we graduated 20 years ago! U of Michigan Flint is starting an early college program where the professors are going into the schools and teaching college courses (mostly the required courses). Students exiting this program will have 48 credit hours (most of their liberal studies courses) and will have payed less than $2000 total. Those classes will transfer to any school in Michigan, no questions asked and they say they will transfer out of state too.

Schools have to change what they are doing and how they are doing it. I don't know what the outcome will be (I have my opinions), but we can't keep going on like have been.

Those luxuries are exactly what isn't sustainable (along with massive non academic administrative hiring). Those things add dramatically to the cost and add nothing to quality of education. As the money dries up, a school with less nice food and dorms but equal academic ranking and $10k less a year will attract more students. They aren't competing on cost because they don't have to, the government subsidizes it. That bubble is going to pop.

 

[upstater]

Those luxuries are exactly what isn't sustainable (along with massive non academic administrative hiring). Those things add dramatically to the cost and add nothing to quality of education. As the money dries up, a school with less nice food and dorms but equal academic ranking and $10k less a year will attract more students. They aren't competing on cost because they don't have to, the government subsidizes it. That bubble is going to pop.

The gov't subsidizes less and less. We're hearing 8% at many of the schools we are talking about.

There is no credit bubble out side the for-profit schools. Most kids average less than $20k debt after graduating from the others, and the default rate at non-profits is still below 5%. Take the for-profits out of the equation, and credit isn't the problem. 30 years ago the cap on gov't loans per year was $3k. It is now $5.8k.

Administrative costs have skyrocketed, but the total cost of them has gone from 1% to 3%. 300% increase, but not enough to explain the huge rise in tuition. The food factor, living expenses, etc., can be taken out of the equation because it is a separate category (under room & board). Yes, those costs have skyrocketed. But, you can still limit the analysis to tuition only and eliminate the glitzy stuff from an analysis.

Personally, I would not want my kid to avoid a well rounded education that I received by thinking of shortcuts (community college credits or AP).

 

[uconnfan68]

I was in a meeting yesterday morning with some [very] bigwigs, and the things they said with a certainty about the future college landscape will make your toes curl. The confluence of the end of the baby-boom-boom coupled with the disappearance of state subsidies for college's and the gap between income and tuition is going to END a great many schools in America.

Who will survive: state land grants with much more room for growth (the state systems and schools being addressed are slated to increase enrollment by 50% (50!!!%) in the next 2 decades). Other than these, highly reputable privates with very large endowments.

The sorting out has already begun. A decent percentage of schools have abandoned capital improvements. The hoarding has already started.

If you care about sports, be careful who you affiliate with. Even if they are P5, the school may end up with a football team--and nothing else.

As I look at the Big East, for instance, I gotta wonder, how many of these schools will be hurting? Look at the MAC: I'd be scared to death. Smaller state campuses will devolve into community colleges. The big state schools are going to try to soak up as many of the good students as they possibly can.

Flat out, a good many schools will be shuttering doors.

Hard to imagine what will be supporting athletics.

 

[kingdobbs]

Hard to imagine what will be supporting athletics.

A lot of situations like what is happening in the U of Alaska system right now, where they are making a move to unify the three campuses (Anchorage, Fairbanks and Southeast in Juneau) into a single university with three campuses and a common governance structure, and as part of the debate whether they will discontinue athletics at one or both of Anchorage and Fairbanks (and which school will keep the consolidated programs if they go that way).

Many schools will simply stop support for varsity athletics, and many universities that consolidate will merge and/or rebrand their athletics to reflect the new university. Still others will go non-scholarship or low-scholarship, shed sports but keep an intact program, or just decide "we're cool as we are".

 

[whaler11]

I was in a meeting yesterday morning with some [very] bigwigs, and the things they said with a certainty about the future college landscape will make your toes curl. The confluence of the end of the baby-boom-boom coupled with the disappearance of state subsidies for college's and the gap between income and tuition is going to END a great many schools in America.

Who will survive: state land grants with much more room for growth (the state systems and schools being addressed are slated to increase enrollment by 50% (50!!!%) in the next 2 decades). Other than these, highly reputable privates with very large endowments.

The sorting out has already begun. A decent percentage of schools have abandoned capital improvements. The hoarding has already started.

If you care about sports, be careful who you affiliate with. Even if they are P5, the school may end up with a football team--and nothing else.

As I look at the Big East, for instance, I gotta wonder, how many of these schools will be hurting? Look at the MAC: I'd be scared to death. Smaller state campuses will devolve into community colleges. The big state schools are going to try to soak up as many of the good students as they possibly can.

Flat out, a good many schools will be shuttering doors.

What is their/your thoughts on the Khan Academy and enterprises like that? What is their net impact?

 

[upstater]

What is their/your thoughts on the Khan Academy and enterprises like that? What is their net impact?

I'm not sure how it relates. My daughter's school uses them. I don't see them as being in the same field.

 

[HuskyinWRNY]

It's not a problem. Hillary is going to provide free college for everyone.

And Trump is building a wall.

 

[whaler11]

I'm not sure how it relates. My daughter's school uses them. I don't see them as being in the same field.

I've been under the impression that there are entities producing high quality materials at higher ed levels and delivering them over the internet at little or no cost.

It seemed like you could audit classes over the internet from schools like Stanford. Maybe I've misunderstood what I've seen in the media - but I was curious if you/they had any opinions on disruption in that way rather than bogus for profit internet degrees.

 

[dayooper]

Those luxuries are exactly what isn't sustainable (along with massive non academic administrative hiring). Those things add dramatically to the cost and add nothing to quality of education. As the money dries up, a school with less nice food and dorms but equal academic ranking and $10k less a year will attract more students. They aren't competing on cost because they don't have to, the government subsidizes it. That bubble is going to pop.

They are making these "luxuries" now. The schools have to keep up with their peers now because they won't be able to do those things in the future. Being stuck with dorms from the 1960's or 1970's will kill them off before they get a chance. Going to a college is about a fit than anything else. If a kid doesn't fit with the culture of the school, they will have a much harder time than if the do. The dorms/food/atmosphere is a huge art of that.

The food costs will be balanced by contracting with outside groups and franchises. Some companies will pay a pretty good sum of money to get their brand into schools. New dorms use existing funds and they are trying to get these in before the money becomes much tighter. Where kids live is a huge thing and if they live in a dump of a dorm, they won't go. If the funding is there now, they have to keep up with their peers.

 

[dayooper]

Personally, I would not want my kid to avoid a well rounded education that I received by thinking of shortcuts (community college credits or AP).

I have a problem with schools pushing AP classes like they do. They are not college classes nor are they taught in the same manner. The parent can still inquire about the grade and conference with the teacher, they still meet every day and the work outside of class is still very much like a high school course is.

While I agree with you about community college being a short cut, many of the universities don't really teach the required liberal arts classes they way they teach the core classes. They become after thoughts and that can make them on level or even worse than the community college route. Again, not all universities are like this, but many are and it becomes a disservice to those kids taking those courses.

 

[The Funster]

FWIW, the private college my daughter expects to go to is $37K + 15K for room and food plan

The school offers 3 tiers of scholarships right off the top: 10-15k for the lowest tier, 15-20k for the second tier and 20-25K for the highest tier (3.7 GPA and 1220/1600 on SAT). So concievably my daughter can have 25K taken right off the top before any other scholarships or grants. They said no one pays the sticker price of 37k.

 

[upstater]

I've been under the impression that there are entities producing high quality materials at higher ed levels and delivering them over the internet at little or no cost.

It seemed like you could audit classes over the internet from schools like Stanford. Maybe I've misunderstood what I've seen in the media - but I was curious if you/they had any opinions on disruption in that way rather than bogus for profit internet degrees.

I have colleagues who have done Great Courses and others who are involved in MOOCs. In the future, you may have a lot more technology that goes into it to make it truly interactive and valuable, but for now, the tech doesn't do much. Watching a prof on a screen on your own time is a sure way to get your pocket picked. 90%+ of students multitask (watch TV, etc.) and fast forward those lectures. Initial scientific studies show very little retention. I have my doubts about digital tech making the leap as well, since recent studies coming out cognitive science show that the brain has a very different reaction to reading bits of info (i.e. reading on a computer) as compared to print. There's a lot more retention in print. The secret in Silicon Valley is that most honchos are sending their kids to Montessori and Waldorf schools that are strictly anti-technology.

Short translation: we are very far away from using tech to replace academic disciplines in the higher ed level. BUT, I tend to think we are a lot closer to losing the plot altogether (i.e. losing higher education) and it has nothing to do with tech. The big question is, what happens when there are fewer people in research and the disciplines. What kind of knowledge is lost or never produced when there is less cross-pollination, less pushback against ideas, more incestuous thinking? You can't have an academy with only a few experts, it doesn't work that way.

 

[upstater]

FWIW, the private college my daughter expects to go to is $37K + 15K for room and food plan

The school offers 3 tiers of scholarships right off the top: 10-15k for the lowest tier, 15-20k for the second tier and 20-25K for the highest tier (3.7 GPA and 1220/1600 on SAT). So concievably my daughter can have 25K taken right off the top before any other scholarships or grants. They said no one pays the sticker price of 37k.

That seems an anomaly to me. Just because that price point ($37k) is on the lower end for a private. And if it is maintaining need-blind admissions as you point out, then the only thing that can give is the expenditure-per-student. When I send my kids to college, I will be looking at expenditures per student as a big factor to determine the strength of the academics. Not the biggest factor, but one of them. The problem of course is that private budgets aren't available. For public schools, you need to look at a budget that is $20k+ per student (instruction/# of students).

 

[upstater]

I have a problem with schools pushing AP classes like they do. They are not college classes nor are they taught in the same manner. The parent can still inquire about the grade and conference with the teacher, they still meet every day and the work outside of class is still very much like a high school course is.

While I agree with you about community college being a short cut, many of the universities don't really teach the required liberal arts classes they way they teach the core classes. They become after thoughts and that can make them on level or even worse than the community college route. Again, not all universities are like this, but many are and it becomes a disservice to those kids taking those courses.

As someone who teaches in the humanities, and directs programs, one of my jobs is to look at transfer equivalents. That means reading syllabi and course descriptions from community colleges. The level of our courses, as compared to those, is night and day. Even our PhD teaching assistants do a much better job.