So perhaps you should offer some solutions rather than criticizing what others have put out there. It’s difficult to find solutions.
Those does not mean you. It means those who this applies to the general you, not you specifically.
Love to hear YOUR solutions (yep, here you personally) think would work if you have any.
Like I said in what you trimmed, I don’t have any.
I do know that there are a good number of people working in the field of pedagogical research, and they’re doing good stuff. I don’t have the expertise to do so; I have, however, read enough of the research literature to spot the occasional “common sense” solution that simply doesn’t work.
I don’t think anyone will be able to totally solve education’s problems, but I think schools going TO can help fix it for some kids. Being TO allows those with terrific test scores to still submit them, but for those where test scores don’t align with their ability, they can show other means.
There’s no free lunch. We’ve already seen some consequences. Highly selective colleges become even more selective. With college acceptances even less certain, students have to apply to even more of them, which further lowers the acceptance rates. And the cycle continues. Meanwhile, the fortunes of some other colleges are heading in the opposite direction, accelerating the demise of some of them. Other consequences will follow and emerge over time.
In context, this sounded like you were saying that selective colleges becoming less selective would be bad for them. Is that what you meant? Because if so, that’s an intriguing claim, and one where I’m very honestly unsure whether I agree or disagree.
Students who thought they had a shot at more selective colleges didn’t apply to more regional/smaller/less selective schools. These are seeing a dip in applicants and as a result in who and how many they can admit, although NACAC ditching the May1 deadline starting in 2020 means they’ll keep recruiting throughout May and there may quite a few bargains.
(We also have the situation with the FL public universities, where applications dropped precipitously because they were required to ask for a test score, so many FL students, especially from South Florida where there were no test administered, simply couldn’t apply).
Proposed changes to Florida state financial aid and scholarships may also affect applications and matriculations to Florida public universities.
The changes may add fuel to the fire but nah, that drop in apps was discussed in September (request to go TO was a no) and really noticed in November when the classes were supposed to be well on their way (many FL apply over the summer).
No, that’s not what I meant. By “some other colleges”, I meant those colleges that’re struggling (and much less selective).
This is where the oft-debated (on CC) subject of whether the endowment matters, why don’t schools spend down the endowment to give everyone better financial aid, etc. kicks in.
Tuition-dependent colleges are vulnerable because of what happened last year in a couple of ways. 1- Being off by even a small number of freshman in terms of who paid tuition and showed up (virtual or in-person) means having your financial projections off for the entire fiscal year. 2- Upperclassmen who opted to take a leave instead of risking a virtual year- again, money that never hit the bursar’s office. 3- Costs exploded. Every installation of lucite barriers in a cafeteria, purchase of high end ventilation systems for older buildings, reconfiguration of library space- this costs real dollars. 4- Modest endowment- well, you can’t get blood from a stone. These tuition dependent colleges ALREADY are using the proceeds from the endowment to cover their budget shortfall.
There are people (in real life, CC, and in higher ed) who believe that endowments are immoral/should be outlawed, taxed out the wazoo. I am not in that camp. I think it’s crazy to punish non-profits that do a good job of running a fiscally responsible operation- and that means NOT spending every single nickel every single year. You have a blip in your fundraising, costs explode, enrollment numbers are soft one year- you have both a cash reserve AND endowment funds to tap.
You are already living on the edge? Covid could push you over. I predict an acceleration of the “we are forming a strategic partnership” (corporate speak for cutting costs) or "we are exploring merger opportunities (corporate speak for expanding the footprint of the college WHILE cutting costs and eliminating redundancies) and of course “We’re allowing the professors in our foreign language departments to retire without being replaced” (because nobody in America cares about foreign language, apparently).
Or any department(s) at the college where the major(s) and courses have very low enrollment.
And, of course, to bring this back to the original topic, the programs cut are quite often the sorts of programs that don’t match up well with standardized testing.
Not a “top school” in the usual CC use of the term, but Seton Hall just announced they’re going test-optional through the HS class of 2026(!) admissions cycle.
So there’s one college that feels like it’s working for them, apparently.
ETA: And I just saw that Drexel, which does get some love here (especially for some majors), has confirmed that it’s test-optional through at least the HS class of 2023.
Or any department(s) at the college where the major(s) and courses have very low enrollment.
True, but the flip side is the ever-growing list of gen-ed requirements that students must take in many colleges this country, significantly increasing time and cost spent.
A University not far from me has multiple departments - some humanities like anthropology, philosophy, foreign languages, etc. but other non-humanities subjects like physics are in there, too - that would likely have been cut completely by now if not for the students forced to take those courses outside of their major to fulfill general education requirements.
Is it better to stretch out a student’s time at college (and tuition payments) by another year or more in order to include these additional classes?
It seems like those gen eds are genuinely still part of the purpose of college. I still like to think that becoming an educated citizen and broad thinker is one reason to go. Believe me I understand the cost and the need to get a return on investment and good job. But is that really wasted time?
Yes.
Are general education requirements “ever-growing” at colleges and universities in the US in general? Or do they tend to have, on average, similar volumes of general education requirements that the same colleges did in the past?
For a student trying to graduate in as few semesters/credits/courses as possible, the gating factor typically is:
The colleges that are emphasized on this website almost always require a certain number of units / courses / hours / … to graduate. This is typically the limitation in how long it takes to graduate, not the general ed requirements. For example, Stanford has changed their general ed requirements numerous times in recent years and plans to change them again in the next year or 2. However, regardless of how many/few classes have been required as part of general ed requirements, Stanford has also required the same 180 units to graduate, which corresponds to 4 years of classes, with 15 credits per quarter. So a student can finish a degree in 4 years, even if they do not come in with any AP or transfer credits.
At typical 4-year colleges, majors are designed so that the sum of courses required for the major + general ed falls well short of the courses required to graduate. So a student has the opportunity to take electives of their choice. When students fail to graduate within 4 years, it rarely has much to do with general ed requirements. It may have more to do with things like having obligations outside of classwork, switching majors and needing to complete major requirements (not general ed requirements), needing to take repeat classes for major, complex degree plans such as double majors, co-ops, financial or personal issues, etc.
Continuing with the Stanford example, there seems to be little correlation between which version of general ed requirements Stanford has required and % graduating in 4 years. However, things like portion pursuing 5-year co-terminal master’s programs do have far more noteworthy influences (~1/3 of eng/CS majors do a co-terminal MS).
Is there any evidence of that? If anything, I’d think gen ed requirements are, on average, fewer than before. I also don’t think they’re contributing to students spending more time in college these days.
Boy, I know a LOT of kids who ended up on the 5, 6, and 7 year plans and not a single one had anything to do with Gen-Ed requirements. Bad or no planning- yes. Kid wanting a year overseas-- and not bothering to find out which credits transfer back and which ones don’t (you rarely get 100%, but this is not new- I had many students on my overseas program back in the 1970’s not bother to figure out how to maximize their credits at the overseas institution because they wanted “fun time” not study time). Changing majors without making sure that they were sequencing the pre-req’s correctly. Changing majors AGAIN without checking that you need to have enough credits in the major to get a degree- not just credits overall.
Even at colleges with strict Gen-Ed requirements, a little bit of planning (not talking elaborate spreadsheets here- just checking with the published requirements of “how to complete your degree at our college” which is prominent on the website") should allow most kids to finish a degree in the right amount of time.
Kids run out of money? For sure. But that has nothing to do with Gen-Eds, and it’s a shame when parents encourage a kid to attend a college they can’t afford “at least for Freshman year and then we’ll figure it out”.