Rebecca Blank: Not Quite Right for UW-Madison Chancellor

As a social scientist engaged in poverty research, I wanted very much to like and welcome Rebecca Blank to campus. When the list was announced, I immediately expressed positive feelings-- she was well-liked the last time she came to campus. Her colleagues and friends adore her, and came out in droves to meet with her today. People whom I respect immensely, including Bobbi Wolfe, Bob Haveman, Chris Taber, Karl Scholz and Tim Smeeding, are very supportive of her. Should she come, she'd join them as economists and colleagues at the Institute for Research on Poverty, and undoubtedly help to grow that part of the university.

Unfortunately, given that my first priority is not my corner of campus but rather helping to ensure that Wisconsin's great public flagship university is led by someone who wants it to serve all of the people of Wisconsin, I cannot support the candidacy of this undoubtedly outstanding researcher and public servant.  I gave her the same litmus test I used with Mike Schill last week, and not only did she fail, but she failed in the same exact manner that Biddy Martin did several years ago.

Frankly, when it comes to higher education affordability, I can't tell these two women apart.

Here's how our conversation went:

SGR: "Hi, It's so nice to finally meet you! We have many friends and colleagues in common. I'm Sara Goldrick-Rab."

RB: "Nice to meet you too. Are you a professor here?"

SGR: "Yes, in Educational Policy and Sociology.  So, I know we have just a moment but I want to ask you about affordability."

RB: "Affordability? What kind, housing, or...?"

SGR: "Education. How to help students afford college.  When you were here several years ago, you expressed the opinion that our tuition at Madison was too low, and should be raised at least to be on par with our peers. I'm curious, since time has passed and you've been in Washington, how are you currently thinking about this issue?"

RB: "Well, it's not about tuition. That's the first thing-- we shouldn't talk about the sticker price. It doesn't matter. What we need to focus on is the redistribution-- we need to get the resources from the wealthy families and be sure that the poor ones pay a low price.  Sticker price doesn't matter at all."

SGR: "Oh. So you think our sticker price could be higher than it is now?"

RB: "Well, I don't know about Wisconsin. I have no idea what the situation is here, maybe having moderate in-state tuition is about right. But I'm an economist, and so I think about redistribution.  We can redistribute money and make college affordable. And we have to think about all of the tuition-- we should be charging what our peers do for out-of-state students, no less. And the Business school tuition, that should be high.  We can play with lots of kinds of tuition before dealing with the in-state one, but that all depends on what peoples' tolerance is."

SGR: "Hm. Do you think that strategy works? What's the evidence on that?"

RB: "Well, we see it in North Carolina, with the Carolina Covenant.  That's a very important symbolic policy, promising students they can afford it."

SGR: "Is it effective?"

RB: "Well, I think so. Maybe not in Wisconsin, I don't know. Well, thanks, I enjoyed meeting you!"

SGR: "You too."

I believe this conversation holds two lessons:

1. Blank did not do her homework.  She is unaware of the major debates around affordability and how it is achieved both nationally and locally. She has not taken the time to read about the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates or discussions about tuition caps.  She has not spent time googling to read about local politics.  She isn't up to speed.

2. On affordability, yes, Blank sounds like many economists (though not all).  Her conclusions are based evidence mainly from the late 1980s, when college tuition was much lower and the student composition was much less diverse. In fact there is no evidence that the Carolina Covenant (at UNC-Chapel Hill, where I suspect Blank is already a candidate for chancellor) has been effective (there's been just one, non-rigorous evaluation and UNC retains its reputation as a gated community).  Reasonable people disagree on the effectiveness of this redistribution approach-- it is far from a resolved debate, as she implies. Her rejection of "sticker shock" as an important consideration is out of step with the Obama Administration, which is taking it quite seriously.   And the latest evidence from Wisconsin and elsewhere suggests that program complexity, which is not easily resolved, is rendering the impacts of redistribution nearly meaningless--and just as importantly may be providing little incentive for colleges and universities to keep costs down.

These are precisely the issues on which I tangled with Biddy Martin.  Again, reasonable people can disagree on these issues, so what alarms me is that, like Biddy, Becky speaks with great confidence on this issue. Moreover, she went so far as to invoke her status and perspective as an economist, which for many people "settles" the debate (Biddy did the same by telling me she'd talked with Ron Ehrenberg, her friend the economist, and welcoming support from the Econ department in her debates with me). She responded like an expert, yet she obviously hasn't studied the issue. Why not simply admit that and note that it needs to be studied? Why not ask about how things are going here? In fact, four years after Martin's arrival and her initiative to raise tuition, the enrollment rates of first generation students and students of color are dropping, and we are shifting to an ever-elite student body.  While we can't pin that on our rising prices with certainty, we also can't reject the reasonableness of that hypothesis.

Moreover, since I was her conversational partner, and she isn't an expert, why didn't she ask what I thought?  That would have been an alternative, reasonable response.  But unlike Mike Schill, Rebecca Blank did not spend much time with her visitors today. She leaned slightly back with most, and rocked back and forth on her heels a bit. Her eye contact was limited, and each person moved on after about 90 seconds.  Much as I think it would be nice for the social sciences here to have her, I'm ready to move on too.  

With that, I am expressing great hope that Michael Schill will be the next chancellor of UW-Madison. 

March Madness: When Learning Time Meets Athletics

I like my son's public school. I really do.

He's in kindergarten this year. I find his school to be a nurturing environment with a solid focus on learning and a similar focus on community and respect for others. His school was recently recognized by the state for its overall academic achievement and for being in the top 10% of state Title I schools for achievement growth in math and reading.

But his school - and the entire school district - made a curious decision last Friday. As a result of the high school boys' basketball team making it into the state tournament, school was released early (just after lunch), eliminating about 150 minutes of academic time. Parents were given four days notice that this was going to happen.

I think it this was an attempt to encourage community pride. A note came home in my son's folder and an email was circulated encouraging families to support the high school athletes by attending the state championship game mid-afternoon on Friday. But it fell flat on me. And it actually deeply disappointed me. Maybe I'm just no fun.

Learning time is precious and it should be foregone sparingly. I don't find a state high school basketball game to be a convincing reason. I attribute this decision to the seldom questioned athletic culture, alive and well in Wisconsin and America, that seems to take precedence. Why don't we ever cancel classes in this way on Election Day (to allow students to observe the voting process and see their parents participate)? Something like that, for me, rises to a similar level of importance as class time.

Now, a sense of community is important, too. And athletics is part of that fabric. But, in this case, unlike Super Bowl parties or Packers games that take place during most folks' non-working hours and allow families and neighbors to come together and "support the team" (and drink beer and eat brats), I bet that few elementary school students and their families - especially with four days notice - took off a half day of work to attend a basketball game on a Friday afternoon in March. I know that my wife and I did not. We paid $15 extra to the after-school program to have my son for extra hours so we could work. For some less well-off families, this last-minute schedule change may have presented an unwelcome inconvenience and an unfair financial burden.

I think a more preferable decision might have been to encourage families who wished to or had older siblings enrolled in the high school to attend the game and to offer excused absences for their children.

Now, why are some state boys basketball tournament games even played during school hours, forcing the hand of school districts in this way? That's a question for the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association and its membership -- public and private high schools and middle schools across the Badger State.

Let's get our priorities straight, folks.

Enrollment Management at UW-Madison: What Story Do the Numbers Tell?

Working on some shared governance tasks this evening, and time with this data really got me thinking.

For the first time, probably in UW-Madison's history, we are enrolling more legacy students than first-generation students.  

Enrollment of Wisconsin residents is at an historic low, while enrollment of international students is at an historic high.

Enrollment is a function of applications, admit rates, and yield. Arguably, changes in policies around cost and campus climate (e.g. the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates-- see below) most often affect the yield. So let's look at the yield rates-- the percent of students who accept the admissions offer and choose to attend Madison.  They are quite stable for some groups, but declining for others.

By the numbers, of the 6,279 new freshmen who enrolled at UW-Madison in 2012:

1,119 are children of parents who attended UW-Madison
1,033 do not have a college-educated parent
   609 are not from the United States
   269  are Hispanic
   143  are African American
  101   are Southeast Asian
   51   are American Indian



Of note:

Biddy Martin became chancellor of Madison on June 5, 2008. Her Madison Initiative for Undergraduates, which increased campus tuition, began in 2009.  She explicitly targeted enrollment growth among first generation and international students.  She left the university in June 2011 but her enrollment policies remain intact to this day. What do these numbers have to say about her legacy?

Make College Free

It is long past time to make college free, and thankfully the Atlantic writer Jordan Weissman just laid out the case very nicely.

Jordan points out that the money invested in our financial aid system could instead be invested in appropriations to public colleges and universities to drive down costs.  Yes, aid to private colleges would end. Oh well!  Why do we pay for private colleges when we don't pay for private high schools? (Well, we are starting too but we should stop.)  And yes, we need to cover costs of attendance for the poorest students too and we can do that by charging very low tuition to rich kids to give to poor kids (for whom tuition is free)-- and that's a progressive tuition structure rather than this incredibly deceptive price discounting scheme we now have in place.

As I've been pointing out in talks around the country on the subject "When America Goes to College," our current system of affordability was developed at a time when the college-going population largely had advantaged parents who understood and had faith in the system, and when costs of attendance were much lower, and thus sticker shock wasn't so rampant.  That approach recognizes that colleges costs are a barrier to attendance but allows those costs of attendance to be determined by colleges and universities, with some input from states. Those costs of attendance are then discounted with financial aid and that aid is distributed directly to students, not to colleges.  Therefore, accessing aid requires substantial action and responsibility on part of the student.

That model makes several assumptions:

• Equitable access to postsecondary education will be achieved via price discrimination and redistribution
• Some students will pay more than others, and the extra money will go to needy students via financial aid
• Needy students will respond to the discounted price –the lowered cost of attendance will make the benefits more evidently attractive

Well, those assumptions could be blown for many reasons and my research on the Wisconsin Scholars Longitudinal Study-- which will be documented in a forthcoming book--suggests that they are.

For example, discounting college costs with financial aid is far more complicated than discounting the price of a movie ticket with a student ID (a classic example of price discounting).  For one, you have to file a FAFSA to get the discount-- and until you do it, you have no idea what discount you'll get. For another, you have to trust the government and the school to give you the discount. And with all the mistreatment of low-income families in this country, why would they?

Another issue is that the discount itself has changed over time.  We moved from aid in the form of grants to aid in the form of loans, and those do not mean equal things to students or have equal effects.  In addition, we have witnessed a proliferation of grants and scholarships with a multitude of requirements (which can conflict in unproductive ways), and from an array of sources, such that students have no idea who's helping them go to college and why, or how long they can count on the support.  Aid shifts from year to year, seemingly without warning, and often declines unexpectedly. Students from poor families have little ability to smooth their consumption and adjust to these shocks, and this perpetuates the feeling that aid is untrustworthy.

Perhaps even more importantly, in our effort to ensure that the discount is well-targeted, we've create a monster of program complexity. An industry has grown in order to help students process the FAFSA and yet it's still not working.  The formula penalizes students for temporary improvements in their parents' income, even when they will not realize those gains (e.g. when dad finally gets a job after 5 years, it's not likely he can share that new money with you as he struggles to pay off bills, and yet you lose your Pell).  And it assumes monetary exchanges between family members that are based on a 2-parent household with middle-class norms-- e.g. parents provide money to kids and expect nothing in return.

What an absolute mess.

If we really wanted to make college affordable, we would direct all dollars towards providing one good affordable option for everyone.  We would focus less on choice and more on access to a real outcome- a degree. We wouldn't let aid flow to private or for-profit schools, and by funding public institutions we'd hold them accountable for keeping costs low and campus-climates reasonable so that everyone can fully participate in the experiences.

I thank people like Jordan for putting big bold ideas like free college on the table and making it possible to surface the real issue:  most Americans want college to be a privilege and not a right because they care more about "getting ahead" then creating an equitable society in which we live as a community.  To get ahead requires leaving someone else behind, and higher education has come to be a major way in which Americans work on doing just that.

Dear Parent on your iPhone

I received this on Facebook tonight, credited to a "Marshall Miller." It was originally about moms, but that's not fair, so I've retitled it and share it here.  It really hit home for me.  How about you?


Dear Parent On Your iPhone,

I see you over there on the bench, messing on your iPhone. It feels good to relax a little while your kids have fun in the sunshine, doesn’t it? You are doing a great job with your kids, you work hard, you teach them manners, have them do their chores.

But let me tell you what you don’t see right now…..

Your little girl is spinning round and round, making her dress twirl. She is such a little beauty queen already, the sun shining behind her long hair. She keeps glancing your way to see if you are watching her.

You aren’t.

Your little boy keeps shouting, “Hey watch this!” I see you acknowledge him, barely glancing his way.

He sees that too. His shoulders slump, but only for a moment, as he finds the next cool thing to do.

Now you are pushing your baby in the swing. She loves it! Cooing and smiling with every push. You don’t see her though, do you? Your head is bent, your eyes on your phone as you absently push her swing.

Talk to her. Tell her about the clouds. The Creator who made them. Tickle her tummy when she comes near you and enjoy that baby belly laugh that leaves far too quickly.

Put your eyes back on your prize…Your kids.

Show them that they are the priority. Wherever you are, be ALL there. I am not saying it’s not ok to check in on your phone, but it’s a time-sucker: User Beware!

Play time at the park will be over before you know it.

The childhood of your children will be gone before you know it.

They won’t always want to come to the park with you. They won’t always spin and twirl to make their new dress swish, they won’t always call out, “WATCH ME!”

There will come a point when they stop trying, stop calling your name, stop bothering to interrupt your phone time.

Because they know…

You’ve shown them, all these moments, that the phone is more important than they are. They see you looking at it at while waiting to pick up brother from school, during playtime, at the dinner table, at bedtime…..

I know that’s not true.

I know your heart says differently.

But your kids can’t hear your words. Your actions are screaming way too loudly.

May our eyes rest upon those we love, first and foremost, and may everything else fall away in the wonderful, noisy, sticky-fingered glory of it all.

In Support of Michael Schill, Candidate for Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison

I am not a nervous person, but I was sweating a bit as I waited more than an hour in line today to meet Michael Schill, candidate for chancellor of UW-Madison.  Next year will be my 10th at this university, and I have come to love it deeply, and feel strongly about the important role the chancellor plays in the direction it takes.  And thus, it was with some trepidation that I shook hands with Michael, because my instinct is that he's an excellent pick for Chancellor, and thus an important person in our future.

As readers know, I profiled two other chancellor candidates shortly after they were announced and declined to endorse them.  It didn't take long to figure out they weren't a match.  I haven't yet weighed in on Rebecca Blank, and feel I can't do so until I meet her next week-- she made several comments during her last visit that make me hesitate, and I want to see what she thinks after her Washington experiences.

But reading Schill's work and talking with colleagues about him convinced me that he was very promising, and having now met and chatted with him, that sense is much stronger.  Here are the main reasons why:

1. Schill understands UW-Madison's greatest assets and biggest weaknesses.  As his very well-written personal statement demonstrates, we stand out for our commitment to service and social justice, and the way we make our decisions--thoughtfully, through shared governance proceses.  At the same time, we are substantially hindered by insufficient diversity, declining accessibility, and frequent misuse and misunderstandings around transparency and accountability.  To excel at the things we want to do, including conducting pathbreaking research and improving our teaching, we must address those problems.  As they say, admitting you have a problem is the first step, and Schill can take us down that road.

2. Schill genuinely likes to talk, and seems to really enjoy listening too. Body language conveys a lot, and Schill's speaks of openness, assertiveness and sincerity.  After more than hour of close observation from only a dozen feet away, I can assess this quite well.  His reception line went very slowly because he refused to brush anyone off or move them along, despite the efforts of his hosts.  He made excellent eye contact, leaned forward when speaking, was evidently comfortable with physical contact (I witnessed several hugs, real handshakes, and he even challenged me to a race), doesn't wear his ego on his sleeve, and displayed a range of emotions.  Let's just say,  I've seen chancellors smile before but their eyes usually wandered over my shoulder.  Schill has a background in activism, and this talent displays it.  Of course, I suspect he is shrewd as well-- he knows that people like to be listened to, and he does so to maximum advantage.

3. Voicing strong concern for affordability, Schill told me that we must "keep tuition low, and aid high," restraining ourselves to increases solely to keep up with inflation. He did not speak of competitive pricing, and or peer comparisons.  Now, perhaps this is just because he's speaking to me, and he's read the blog. But I checked on this, and what colleagues of his told me is that "He's too smart to think pricing high is smart, and far too smart to believe in 'disruptive' innovation." I asked him for his thoughts on test-optional admissions and he was able to discuss that literature with me, bringing up his teaching on higher education at UCLA in a manner that was quite impressive. In his view, the Supreme Court will rule against Texas in a narrowly tailored decision.

4. Schill is a candidate for chancellor with a very serious and impressive set of publications and books that merit tenure (so is Blank, by the way). He's written on low-income housing, immigration and race, and co-authored with smart people I like and trust, such as Amy Ellen Schwartz of NYU and Colin Chellman of CUNY.  I especially liked what I read in Housing and Community Development in New York City: Facing the Future regarding the reasons why efforts to improve low-income housing have failed; he attends to politics and structure in insightful ways.

Of course, no one's perfect and I do have a few qualms about Schill's background. For example, he's had a lot of funding from big banks, such as JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup.  He's spent most of his time as an adult in very elite settings-- UCLA may be public but it's no exception. And while he's a first generation student, as we saw with Biddy Martin, being one doesn't mean you fully understand what's required to serve them.

But overall, I am supportive of Michael Schill's candidacy for chancellor. He's bright, calm, thoughtful, and exceedingly well-liked by those who work with him. I'd enjoy getting to know him better.


ps. A final note, for the students-- a bit of street cred-- Michael's done the Daily Show!

How to Turn Higher Education into an Engine of Inequality

Step 1:  Build an enormous and expansive set of opportunities for higher education and tell everyone that a college education is necessary for economic and social security in America-- but refrain from working towards public consensus on providing a free higher education for all.

Step 2: Create the illusion of access with a program of financial aid distribution that isn't backed with a real entitlement program tied to college costs.

Step 3: Do nothing to stem the behavior of bad actors and those who encourage them. Allow colleges and universities to raise prices and engage in rankings wars based on flawed metrics that distort the market.  Fail to require states to maintain their effort to ensuring affordability.  Allow, even encourage, private business to step into the gaps.

Step 4: Allow the value of need-based aid to decline while redirecting aid towards politically popular programs benefitting the non-needy.

Step 5: Refrain from fundamental reforms addressing the core crisis in the system, and instead introduce small modifications aimed at overcoming individual deficits rather than structural problems.

And here we are!

ps. I highly recommend the CLASP report that includes these figures.