The article on sticker price says that parents don’t understand how much money they can receive from financial aid, and therefore unfairly restrict their child’s college options. Isn’t it more than fair to assume that maybe parents don’t want to take the risk of underestimation of the expected financial aid that they are quoted at time of FAFSA filing?

Are advancements in technology and media coverage of successful moguls who lack high school or college educations strong contributors to why people don’t feel that college educations are necessary anymore to get a good job?

In the Critique of the Liberal Arts, there is a claim that even computer engineering students can cheaply teach themselves all they need to know without going to college. However, it’s assuming that all the information on the internet is true and that the easy availability/accessibility to these resources are common knowledge among these students.  Are blatant overlooks like this one in the article a measure of how inaccurate much of its criticism is?

Nussbaum claims that parents view a pursuit for a degree in the arts or literature as a wasted one because there is no money/job in it. She also says that education in these fields are also necessary to advance democracy. What are some features of an education in these fields (which an education in science lacks) that can help advance democracy?

“The Other 75%” claims that students who were underperforming in high school, but attend college without finishing, make about 17% more per year than people who graduate high school but do not attempt to attend college. What can this wage disparity be attributed to?

“The Other 75%” states that Pell Grants and other federal aids are now merit based since they require recipients to maintain a certain GPA (usually around 2.5). This reading also states that the aid is not enough for nontraditional students to graduate within a 4 year period. Do you think that by raising the required GPA for federal or state student aid, and thus reallocating those funds for better performing nontraditional students, the time for BA completion can be brought closer to the 4 year expectancy?

According to the ACE Report, it is clear that the highest academically achieving ethnicities are Asian and White respectively, while the lowest achieving is American Indian. Aside from the incredible leap in achievements by women, it seems that increases in completion and success categories involving strictly ethnic comparisons is quite scattered. Is the call for greater minority access to education just a mechanism of political correctness, or do you think there is a legitimate need to increase access for these groups?

In the Affirmative Action article by Lederman, a majority of university presidents and others polled maintained that it is important to admit students somewhat based on Affiirmative Action. The justification is that the higher education experience and gain in overall education is significantly increased in an ethnically diverse environment. Do you think that this would prove accurate if the colleges were lowering their normal admission criteria to create this more diverse environment? Also, do you think that colleges should be able to use race/ethnicity as a factor in deciding whether someone is admitted or not?

The Economist Intelligence Unit suggests that technological innovation will foster a collegiate environment that boasts an increase in corporate-academic partnerships. Is this technological gain that the university will receive worth the relinquishing of part of the university’s non-corporate equity?

Would the increase in technology at universities discourage the senior portion of the student body that take classes for leisure? Would it cause a increased retirement rate among older professors who feel like they don’t have the required amount of technological competency to remain effective in the new technological academic era?

Is the increased availability in technology and online courses going to decrease the amount of time students will devote to on-campus community service or activism (since they won’t need to come to school as much or at all)? Would the students use the extra time not at school to do more personal tasks or perform community oriented tasks?

The Professor’s Big Stage

With the focus being shifted from classroom performance to real-life performance, there is the possibility that people at the top of their field academically are losing positions to people who are academically of lower caliber, but possess a greater proficiency in minor aspects like communication. With this as the new norm, aren;t we running the risk of stalemating advancements?

Innovation in Higher Education

For decades, underperforming faculty and administrators have been able to avoid termination by hiding behind tenure and overall stagnation. Is the demand for lower tuition the push universities need to stop offering tenure and begin offering MOOA’s, in the hope of cutting costs and encouraging the will to change?

According to ‘Cost Disease,’ too much money is being taken out of students’ tuition to cover one type of cost, which leaves an insufficient amount to cover other types of costs, which is highly inefficient. What if tuitions were reevaluated; instead of a total number plus student fees, what if there were 10 sections to a students tuition that added up to a total tuition, and the people at the college responsible for spending money could only spend up to the amount collected for that area from the student’s tuition? That would probably lead to greatest spending efficiency, maybe.

“Dealing with the Future Now” has a part where they discuss refinancing debt. Instead of focusing on dealing with the debt once it becomes an issue, why not request a loan when the interest rate is very low (even if the university doesn’t need it at the moment), so that there will be a cash reserve in the future? This way, the money that the college would need in the future would have been bought in advance at a lower interest rate with a lesser overall cost to the college.

Why would a college opt to spend more money to maintain their “brand” as opposed to significantly cutting costs and risk losing their  “branding prestige?” If the studies from the insidehighered.com (Jashik, S) article are accurate, and the same level of education can be offered with larger class size, then wouldn’t that make branding a moot point?

The Moody’s article proposes that schools become more specific, and cut certain programs that aren’t bringing in the desired revenue. Wouldn’t it be even more financially beneficial to institutions if they offered schools that adhere to one discipline? For example, a school for doctors that offers a purely medical education for students from undergraduate to graduate. That way, all their money can be focused on one discipline and the same students will be retained for longer than four years, which increases the amount of guaranteed tuition.

“President’s Leading” stated that Presidents have come to be the “living logo” of college’s and universities, and their opinions are being viewed as the opinion of the institution rather than of the individual running it. Couldn’t this inference that the ideas of the person running the university are automatically adopted by the university be combatted by splitting the President position into a multi-person position?

“President’s Leading” states that the title of President may well indeed be an impossible job because of the level of versatility that the person holding the position is required to have. It also states that the President spends very little time on campus, which may be distancing them from the people who are actually at the institution. If the President consulted the various departments (such as legal, athletic managers/coaches, etc.) that function within the school for advice on related matters, wouldn’t that both narrow the gap between the President and the people  and allow the president to make decisions based on expert advice rather than guesswork? What if there was a transfer term among Presidents where the outgoing president and incoming president work together for 6 months for a smoother transition and greater efficiency?

If colleges/universities need to adapt in order to survive and cater more to demand than personal belief, why is it that tuition is rising yet the demands of external parties are being more heavily weighed than the demands of the students currently attending the college/university? (specific to CUNY)

Is the reason why community college faculty identify more with their institution compared to graduate school, research school, and liberal arts school faculty who identify more with their discipline because either or both;

1. community college faculty watch as their discipline is underappreciated on a daily basis by students who view their community college as a “thirteenth grade?
2. Community college faculty lack the overall knowledge in their discipline to truly appreciate it themselves?