Ed Policy Wonkette Post: Suggestions for the LA Legislature

During my last class session for a course on the American College and University, my professor had us write some proposed amendments and she sent our suggestions to two state legislators. I am posting the letter here which was authored by my professor Dr. Del Favero.

May 6, 2011

The Honorable Conrad Appel, District 9 Lousiana Senate (appelc@legis.state.la.us)

The Honorable Jim Tucker, Louisiana House of Representatives (larep086@legis.state.la.us)

Re:  Suggested amendments to SB 183: UNO/SUNO Consolidation

Dear Representative Tucker and Senator Appel:

With respect, the purpose of this letter is to suggest amendments to the subject bill currently under consideration by the Legislature.  The study of higher education is my specialty.  I have extended experience as a senior administrator all three systems of higher education in California and more recently as an academic in Louisiana.  I am currently an associate professor of higher education at the University of New Orleans. The following four concerns, and related amendments have emerged from many discussions I have had with my colleagues, and also with my graduate students in a course I am currently teaching entitled The American College and University.  A chart is attached to this email further describing the proposed amendments.

1. Potential applicants to ULNO undergraduate programs, particularly those interested in the “research-focused college,” may be reluctant to consider the institution if its gateway is through a community college. Students in my graduate class overwhelmingly echoed this sentiment as have many other graduate students and faculty with whom I have spoken.

Amendment: The shared admissions function located on the ULNO campus should be perceived as “college-neutral” by potential applicants, i.e. not affiliated with Delgado as currently specified in bill.

Rationale:  Despite our belief that all institutions, whether they are technical colleges or research universities, make unique and important contributions to the higher education landscape, we would be foolhardy not to take into account the prestige factor which guides the college choice of many students.  If ignored, we risk losing the interest of potential students who are qualified to attend other research-focused institutions in the state (or out-of-state), which over the long run may compromise the quality, if not the prestige, now associated with UNO’s research function and its instructional programs.

The recommendation is that it be referred to as the Metropolitan Center and would house admissions and related functions as well as student support services functions.  As such the center would also communicate a culture which fosters opportunities for academic advancement, continued learning, and professional development.  The Admissions and Recruitment Services unit of the Metropolitan Center would be staffed with individuals who are uniquely trained to assess the credentials of applicants with a wide range of interests and academic potential.  Counselors would work together with applicants, and with each other, to ensure applicants were supported through the admissions process and appropriately placed.  There is precedent for such a structure – - the Metropolitan Recruitment Center in New York City which services all campuses of the State University of New York (SUNY).

1. The differentiated admissions requirements are seen by many as having the potential to denigrate the value of a degree earned at the “research-centered” college currently described in the bill.

Amendment: Instead of locating graduate programs in one of the two colleges proposed in the current bill, the ULNO academic structure would be comprised of three colleges, two of them devoted to undergraduate study. Degree programs would be differentiated in the two undergraduate colleges. Based on student academic performance and interests, students may transfer from one college to another:

1. University College. Admissions requirements would mirror those of SUNO.  The college would offer BA degrees only in a limited number of programs, i.e. those now offered by SUNO (human development, liberal arts/sciences, public administration, social work).  Delgado’s current offering of the AA degree might also be administered out of this college, thereby freeing up space on Delgado’s current main campus for technical programs.
2. The Undergraduate College.  Admissions requirements would mirror those of UNO.  BA and BS degrees would be offered in this college.  Faculty would be housed in academic “schools” structurally positioned in this college, i.e. schools of business administration, education and human development, engineering, liberal arts, sciences, and social work.
3. The Graduate College.  Will offer the Ph.D., MA, MS, MFA, MEd.

Rationale:  Similar to the arrangement of Tulane University’s  two main units serving their differentiated undergraduate population, i.e.,  Newcomb-Tulane College and The School of Continuing Studies, ULNO’s two undergraduate colleges will accommodate students with a wide array of qualifications, academic interests, and talents.   Graduates of both ULNO undergraduate colleges will receive ULNO degrees, however the awarding college will be specified on the diploma.

1. Many, including some of your colleagues in the legislature, have expressed the concern that the consolidation will compromise the unique character of SUNO as an HBCU.

Amendments:

1. Bill may include language which denotes the importance of preserving the unique history and traditions of SUNO and UNO, possibly through naming opportunities.  For example, the University College might carry the name of a notable such as A.P. Tureaud or Avery Alexander, while the Undergraduate College would carry the name of someone such as Homer Hitt.
2. SUNO’s strengths in student support would be highlighted in the inclusion of a second functional unit, Academic Support Services in the Metropolitan Center described in #1 above.  This unit would capitalize on the HBCU’s unique capability of providing a level of support and nurturance to college students not found in other institutions.  The Academic Support Services unit would include the functions of academic advising, developmental education, and a student success program not unlike what is currently being planned at UNO. Co-locating these related functions as an institution-neutral entity, with a visible presence on the ULNO campus would communicate a philosophy of support for the success of all students, not just community college students where such services are most common.

1. The composition of the New Orleans Postsecondary Education Advisory Committee described on page 10 of the bill includes no faculty which is seriously problematic given the committee’s role in advising on the creation of an academic institution.

Amendment: The composition of the advisory committee described on page 10 of the bill should be modified to include “faculty from each of the three institutions”.

Rationale: The success of the new institutional form will most assuredly rest on the integration of academic expertise and cooperation of the current faculties of Delgado, SUNO, and UNO. Thus the creation of a formal planning structure to frame this new academic enterprise is imperative, lest legislative and other administrative timeframes eclipse the need to craft an intentional, well coordinated academic entity that has been appropriately considered and ultimately supported by all faculties.

I appreciate that some of the above suggestions may be to a level of detail that goes beyond what should be included in the bill.  However, we hope a more in-depth expression of the thinking behind the proposed amendments will be useful. Along with my doctoral students Amy Boimare, Lindsey Jakiel, and Rachel Spencer who helped craft the above amendments, I thank you for considering them.  We appreciate too, the leadership you have shown in supporting the postsecondary education needs of citizens in the Greater New Orleans area.

Sincerely,

Marietta Del Favero, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Higher Education

Coordinator of the Education Administration Ph.D. Program

Department of Educational Leadership, Counseling, and Foundations

University of New Orleans

cc:        Acting Chancellor and Provost King

Vice Chancellor Kincaid

Ed Policy Wonkette Post: Defending Denial Decisions & Making a Case For Admissions Standards

I came to the University of New Orleans for a variety of reasons. One was the P-16+ orientation of the doctoral program. As a higher ed. master’s student, I found that when I did have courses (electives) where P-12 and higher ed. folks were together I developed a more comprehensive understanding of education issues. We need to talk more across education sectors, I know this is true, but lately I have been struggling to find common ground with my P-12 colleagues when it comes to college admissions standards.

I started my career in higher ed. as an admissions advisor, and so I feel my views on [higher] education have been shaped by that experience. I also have a practical understanding of what it means to apply admissions  standards. So let me just put it out there: I am in favor of selective admissions for four-year institutions. I believe that there is room for open admission institutions as well, but I believe there has to be some standard. Choosing students (as elitist as this will sound) is what makes higher education not P-12. To quote Bowen & Bok (1989):

“The aims and values of an educational institution are often revealed most vividly by the choices it makes in selecting its students.”

In my experiences this semester, when I have come to the defense of admissions standards, the opposing view has called such standards “tracking.” Ah tracking, it’s quite the dirty word in education. I haven’t been able to come up with a good counter argument, because in a way, admissions standards do “track” students into different types of institutions. But prior to reaching the college admissions process– many students have already been “tracked” into or out of a college preparatory curriculum. This only emphasizes to me that all students should be in a college preparatory curriculum so their choices can be less restricted when they reach the admissions funnel.

However, I would maintain that in the context of American higher education students (since the creation of community & junior colleges) have choices rather than tracks. If a student’s academic record is less than stellar, then their choices may be more limited than another student, but they still have choices and most importantly– they still have access to a 4 year degree through the transfer function of community colleges.

Now, I am familiar with the Diverted Dream (Brint & Karabel, 1989) argument; that community colleges serve to manage ambition, but I am not buying that as their only function. I believe in community colleges as democratic institutions that can serve as vehicles for access to a 4 year degree. What I believe we need is better transfer articulation agreements and adequate staffing at community colleges to advise those students who plan to transfer.

What we don’t need is an abandonment of admissions standards. Better alignment of P-12 and higher ed. will hopefully result in more students being prepared to enter college ready for college level work, but better alignment doesn’t mean that colleges and universities should all become open admission institutions.

Attacking the SAT/ACT is also common in my class discussions. There are problems with these tests. That has been known for some time, but I try to emphasize that in my experience SAT/ACT is only one part of the admissions equation. The college where I worked in admissions looked first at GPA and strength of curriculum before turning to test scores. NACAC’s 2010 state of college admissions report also found that HS program and GPA are the most important factors in admissions decisions as reported by those working in the field.

Look, I was a gatekeeper. I signed accept and deny lines. I’ll admit it– I judged students as a profession. However, I did not sign denial lines on a whim. When a student does not have the quantitative (GPA and test scores) and qualitative (strength of curriculum, essay, recommendations, interview) indicators of future success at a selective institution, it does the student a disservice to bring them into an environment where it is unlikely they are ready to be successful.

Attending a community college for one or two years can help a student to develop; to become ready. I still believe there is great democratizing potential in community colleges and strengthening the transfer function can assist in developing this potential.

If you are so inclined you can read an issue paper I wrote for a course on Power & Politics in Education this term. In it, I defend raising admissions standards in Louisiana.