President Powers: Students Should Stop Buying More College Than They Need
In his State of the Union address last month President Obama put universities on notice that if they couldn’t hold tuition down, the federal government would withhold support. I share the president’s concern, as should we all.
The remedies for the high cost of college will be controversial and will vary from place to place. But a good first step we all can agree on is that students should stop buying more college than they need.
Students inflate the cost of college by enrolling in more courses than their degrees require. National data show that students in Texas graduate, on average, with 149 credit hours, the most in the nation.
That’s a full year of excess credit. To fix this, administrators must make the pursuit of a degree user-friendly and students must progress with greater focus and urgency.
But, of course, tuition is only a fraction of the cost of college; the cost of living is often an equal or greater expense—ramen noodles notwithstanding. While excess credit can be measured in total semester hours, slow progress can be measured by how many students take longer than four years to graduate.
Among America’s 120 public research universities, the four-year graduation rate ranges from an outlier 84 percent at the University of Virginia to 3 percent, with 27 universities graduating fewer than 20 percent of their students in four years.
At our university, half of students graduate in four years, and 81 percent graduate within six. If, by a combination of incentives and streamlining, we can increase our four-year rate to 70 percent, it will bestow blessings in three major areas: It will relieve the burden to students and their parents of an extended period during which they must pay the cost of living while not fully employed. The state will win because timely graduation allows a university to serve more students. And finally, the university itself will win by cutting down on administrative friction generated by excessive switching of majors and other inefficiencies.
Some might object to the emphasis on timely graduation on the grounds that many students take longer because they must work. However, conventional wisdom suggests the smarter strategy is to take a loan if need be, buckle down full-time to get through quickly, and hasten the higher earning that results from a degree and full-time employment.
For those who must serve two masters—many for legitimate reasons—there are many universities willing to admit them on their own timetables. We simply believe, and the data show, that timely graduation is an intrinsic feature of a first-class education and that the one is virtually always accompanied by the other for good reason.
This month, we released the report of an internal task force recommending ways to increase four-year graduation. We’re implementing some recommendations right away, such as making freshman orientation mandatory and requiring every new student to establish a four-year graduation strategy. Other recommendations, such as limiting the number of times a student can switch majors, or only allowing degree changes that will not delay graduation, will require faculty feedback or more gradual execution.
But the issue of timely graduation is as serious as any other in higher education. We wouldn’t voluntarily pay 20 percent extra for a car, a house, or any other major purchase. University leaders must first smooth the path for timely graduation by taking a hard look at degree requirements and ensuring students can get the classes they need. Then, for students’ own good, we must be bolder in pushing them out of the nest.
Bill Powers has been president of The University of Texas since 2006.
Share this article
![UT Is Transforming Education [Watch]](http://alcalde.texasexes.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Picture-2.png){kind=small}
-
Matt Portillo: Interesting perspective, as always, Tim. It's been an interesting week indeed. T...
-
Jerry Cooper: Mr. Taliaferro: Let me commend you for your article about Chairman Powell's "Fo...
-
ethan: well, we kill fire ants so often that they are weker now so the "crazy ants" can...
-
Kathleen Bergeron: Regarding that new logo: I live in the Washington, DC area, and I wonder how man...
-
Melvin: Yes he had 5 years. I wonder what he scored on his ACT when he was a senior in H...
3 Comments
If the University really wants to decrease students buying ‘too much education’ then they need to start helping students realistically look at the job market they will be entering, the level of education needed and the starting salaries. Too many of the programs at the University are so focused on academia and research that the professors have no contacts within the field they are teaching and therefore cannot help students network, find internships or find potential jobs to apply for. If someone would have told me that after getting a masters the only jobs I would be able to ‘qualify’ for were entry level, minimum wage, seasonal positions I would have thought long and hard about forking over $30K for that degree. If entry level jobs only require a BA and TONS of unpaid internship hours, the University should not be encouraging students to get a Masters. And I DID work full time AND graduated my program a semester early!
‘”ONLY” allow degree changes that will not delay graduation’? Is he kidding??? Even if you were in the sciences and decide to change from one type to another, you will automatically be required to take all the classes of the new major, in order to be fully qualified in that major (which will automatically cause delay). This is America, with the freedom to figure out what major might suit you. This smacks too much of big brother (and I’m a liberal). Allow 5 years for transfer students and major or minor changers (and that’s estimating low for one change only, and going to school full-time). Reduce the required core cources if you must, english (from 4 to 2), government (from 2 to 1 or 0), foreign language (to 0), but keep that flexibility. You WILL lose future UT students, if you become known as the university that doesn’t care about its students reaching their potential, by locking them in to a path that they are trying ascertain at an very young age that they do not have enough life experience to correctly identify what that might be (18-19 yrs old). Most freshman and sophomores have no clue what they might like to study and it is the exposure to the core courses and initial intro major cources that start the defining process. Look somewhere else if you are afraid of losing your government funding, Dr. Powers. But keep students’ choice!
If, at 18 years of age, I entered a contract to purchase a house that I would live in the rest of my life or a car that I would drive till my death, I would agree to pay up to 20% more, if at a later date, say 20 years of age, I had changed my mind on the architecture of the house or the make/model of the car. I suggest that I am not alone. So yes, I would voluntarily pay extra to get exactly what I want–especially if I need to live with the decision for the rest of my life. This would also be the most cost effective path. Starting all over again (due to credits that would not carry or uncooperative university policies) would be even more expensive (inflation, cost increases). So the students who are extending their studies to tailor the degree to their goals, are being thrifty.
I am curious as to how this policy serves double majors and interdisciplinary studies.