Foreign Investments and Gifts Under Fire
Proposed new legislation in the US Congress would require colleges and universities to rid their endowments of any financial investments in Chinese and other foreign entities that “have been deemed any unacceptable national security risk,” POLITICO has reported.
Rep. Greg Murphy (R-North Carolina) has introduced the Protecting Endowments from Our Adversaries Act, which calls on higher education institutions to cancel any investments in entities listed on U.S. government sanctions lists. Those include, for instance, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Entity List, which is focused on individuals and companies involved in any “activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security and or foreign policy interests.” The legislation would levy a 50 percent excise tax on the principal investment in any entity that has been added to a U.S. sanctions list and a 100 percent excise tax after one of those entities has been on the list for more than a year.
According to Murphy, “Because colleges and universities have an educational mission and receive the significant benefit of tax-exempt status, they have a moral obligation not to use their endowments to invest in companies that contribute to human rights violations and are detrimental to the national security of the United States.” He has written 15 major private universities in the United States asking them to purge their investment portfolios of entities that support the imprisonment of Uyghur Muslims as well as other organizations and firms that are currently on sanctions lists. He has also asked the universities what policies they have in place to divest from any entity that is added to one of the lists.
The bill will probably not succeed in this session of Congress with the Democrats in control. But Murphy has said that he expects “a lot of interest from a lot of folks in both houses,” and as POLITICO has stated, “his letter is putting universities on notice that Congress wants a say in how they invest their endowments.”
On another front, the Bipartisan Innovation Act that passed the House and Senate this past spring, and which President Biden has promised to sign, is focusing on foreign donations to higher education institutions. It would continue to require individual faculty and staff members to report gifts from foreign entities and, at the same time, lower the threshold for doing so from $250,000 to $50,000 per gift, according to Inside Higher Ed.
Higher education advocacy groups have written Congress protesting that the new provisions in the Innovation act would overburden not only colleges that are struggling to understand and comply with reporting regulations but also the Department of Education.
In an email to Inside Higher Ed, a spokesperson for the Department of Education said the department recognizes such concerns and “is committed to working with higher education institutions to help them comply.”
New Accreditation Guidelines Issued
The US Department of Education has released new guidelines for higher education institutions and accrediting agencies in an effort to avoid what it called “accreditation-shopping,” whereby some colleges and universities “seek out specific accrediting agencies to avoid accountability.”
In explaining its rationale, the department also cited recent changes to the accreditation environment—notably a new Florida law that demands that public institutions change agencies before their next accreditation, as well as the growing expansion of regional accreditors beyond their traditional geographic borders.
The guidelines require institutions to receive approval from the department before applying for a new accrediting agency. They also describe some of the factors the department will consider in assessing whether it will approve the switch, including whether “the change is motivated by a desire to improve institutional quality or evade rigor or oversight.” In addition, the guidelines call upon accrediting agencies to demonstrate that they represent a “voluntary membership of institutions.”
The department said it aims “to protect against a race to the bottom and ensure that accreditation remains a voluntary process, as required by law, and that institutions are not forced to switch against their will.”
Applications Not Required
Can you be admitted to a college without even applying to it? Yes—in fact, new services are coming online to support the idea, and individual higher education institutions and states are beginning to pursue it.
For instance, Sage Scholars is offering colleges and universities the opportunity to admit students directly after reviewing online profiles those students have created that contain their test scores, grades, and interests. James R. Johnston, the president of Sage, says he expects about 40 or 50 of the 450 private colleges and universities it serves to participate the first year, according to Inside Higher Ed. Those institutions include Centre College, Loyola University New Orleans, Davis & Elkins College, and the University of Rochester, but not Ivy League or other highly selective colleges and universities.
Most of Sage’s member colleges “admit a huge percentage of those who actually apply,” Johnston told IHE, so they are reconsidering the need to make most students go through a lengthy application process. The company will not be charging the students or the institutions; employers pay Sage for the service as a benefit for its employees to help their children apply to college.
A number of college administrators IHE interviewed said they were considering the approach. Joel Bauman, senior vice president for enrollment management at Duquesne University, however, told IHE that, instead of an immediate decision to admit, he would be most comfortable with a “pre-admit decision”—that students could be alerted that they would probably be accepted, yet only as long as the information could be verified and they continued to maintain the same academic and extracurricular record.
Another company that is also working to eliminate applications is Concourse, which traditionally has worked with international students but recently began focusing on low-income American students. It began operations in Chicago but plans to expand into six other cities in the coming year: Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, and Philadelphia.
Meanwhile, the Minnesota Department of Higher Education has established a system whereby students at 50 high schools can enter their junior grades online and colleges can then review and admit them without those students having to formally apply. And in Texas, principals at more than 100 high schools can nominate five students for automatic admissions to West Texas A&M University.
In addition, the Common App is moving toward direct admissions with six institutions participating: Fisk University, George Mason University, Marymount University (in Virginia), Middle Tennessee State University, Montclair State University, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. Students who may have only provided a transcript and not finished their applications can still receive admissions offers from those institutions. Inside Higher Ed reported that, as of late April, more than 800 students had applied through the direct admissions program, of which 46 percent were first-generation students and 48 percent were underrepresented minorities.
Where Do Students Decide to Go to College?
Colleges and universities constantly try to identify where students choose to attend college based on factors such as programs and curricula, cost, location, and so on. A new study described in The Chronicle of Higher Education sheds some light on the topic.
Studying data from IPEDs, from 2012, 2018, and 2020, Craig Wills, the head of the computer science department at Worcester Polytechnic Institution, and Chayanne Sandoval-Williams, an undergraduate at the university, have researched each state’s higher education “market” and whether students are prone to stay in that state or go elsewhere for college.
They found that as many as 69 percent of students remain in their state, with 54 percent enrolling in a public institution and 15 percent in a private one. Places in the United States where students are more likely to attend college in their home state include Louisiana, Michigan, and Texas—or what the authors of the study call “self-contained markets.” Similarly, just 6 percent of students from Utah and West Virginia venture beyond their state or adjoining ones.
In contrast, more students in New Jersey and Alaska than average enroll in institutions outside their states. And the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa enroll a relatively small percentage of students from their immediate regions.
The researchers also studied how the pandemic might have influenced college migration patterns. “The major state and national public institutions tended to attract more students because of the pandemic, but those students tended to reside closer to the institution,” while “national liberal arts colleges saw a decline both in the number and migration distance of first-year students.”
Leaving It All Behind?
The Great Resignation seems to be trending in higher education. In response to a new survey by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA), as many as 57 percent of the respondents said they were likely to look for employment elsewhere within the next year. Similarly, a previous survey by the Chronicle of Higher Education and Fidelity Investments on the impact of the pandemic found that more than one-half of faculty have seriously considered either changing careers or retiring early.
Inside Higher Ed has also reported evidence of growing job turnover at colleges and universities. In its 2022 survey of college and university chief academic officers, 60 percent of the provosts who participated said that faculty members were departing at a faster rate than before, and almost 20 percent said they were leaving at significantly higher rates. And the percentages were even larger when it came to staff turnover.
The Professor is In, an academic career consultancy, has invited scholars to share via a crowdsourcing document not only whether they are planning to leave their positions but also specifically why. The reasons people have given include growing job responsibilities without enough support, burnout, toxic cultures, and discrimination, among others.
In the Inside Higher Ed article, Karen Kelsky, founder of The Professor is In, also cited financial concerns—continued funding cuts resulting in salary stagnation, and disappearing benefits—as a major reason why people are leaving their academic jobs. The CUPA survey findings have corroborated that explanation: as many as 76 percent of the respondents said they are seeking new work opportunities because they want higher pay.
Additional reasons those surveyed by CUPA gave for their interest in departing academe were a desire for remote work options (43 percent) and flexible work schedules (32 percent). Another 30 percent of those surveyed said they want a promotion or additional work responsibilities.
Indeed, basic job dissatisfaction also seems to be a key factor in the turnover trend. Nature’s 2021 salary and satisfaction survey of scientists, the majority of whom work in academe, found that among mid-career researchers, 24 percent were extremely dissatisfied with their opportunities for advancement. As the Chronicle reported, more than one-third, or 37 percent, were dissatisfied with their current position, and 41 percent said organizational politics or bureaucracy frequently or always frustrated their efforts to do a good job.
Other faculty and administrators are also departing in response to increasing concerns about state-level legislation, such as bills that target how race and gender are taught or threaten tenure. They may also be more prone to leave in response to bans or new restrictions on abortions in certain states following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Whether institutions are paying attention to employee departures remains a question. Only 22 percent of the provosts surveyed by Inside Higher Ed agreed that their institution “very effectively” recruits and retains faculty.
But observers say that acknowledging the problem is an important first step. Kelsky told Inside Higher Ed.
“If people felt there was even a good faith effort to be listened to” (coupled with accountability), “it would go so far.”
Surveys Reflect Public Concerns about College Value and Affordability
Two recent surveys suggest that public attitudes about the value and affordability of colleges and universities today are less positive than they were just a few years ago.
According to a survey by think tank New America, significantly fewer Americans believe that colleges are positively influencing “the way things are going in this country today” than did before the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. Only 55 percent of of respondents agreed that institutions of higher education are having a beneficial impact on the country compared with 69 percent in early 2020.
And in another study by research group Public Agenda in cooperation with USA Today, only about half of Americans, or 49 percent, said the economic benefits of a college degree outweigh the cost of tuition, and as many as 66 percent thought college aren’t meeting the needs of students. Most of those surveyed said that providing career readiness and a well-rounded education should be the top priorities of colleges and universities.
Both studies did have some positive findings. In the New America survey, while down from 80 percent in 2020, 75 percent of respondents still agreed that postsecondary education offers a good return on investment. And as University Business reported, 86 percent of those surveyed by Public Agenda believe education helps adults advance in their careers, and three-quarters think people are more able to learn and make a good living in their state when they have a college education. In addition, more than 70 percent said their state can better attract employers.
Yet both surveys also revealed that the cost of higher education remains a key public concern.
Regardless of political affiliation or race, most people surveyed by Public Agenda support efforts to improve college access for those students and, as University Business noted, they “agree on several ways to make public higher education more affordable, among them taxing the wealthy to make public higher education more affordable and community colleges free of charge.” They also support more guidance and advising to help students succeed and graduate.
Meanwhile, a majority of those surveyed by New America said that colleges should lose some access to government funding if they have low graduation rates and graduates have significant student debt relative to their earnings.
The Fallout on Campuses from Roe v. Wade
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in July overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that conferred the right to have an abortion, will have significant impacts on colleges and universities. Already, the decision has triggered passage of previously drafted laws banning abortion in more than a dozen states.
As a result, all college students will lose access to abortion in Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. The ruling could affect both student admissions and retention, as more students may refuse to attend institutions in those states or decide to leave. University Business reported on a recent survey that found that 45 percent of students in states that have outlawed abortion or will likely do so are considering or planning to transfer. Colleges and universities in states with aggressive anti-abortion legislation may also find it more difficult to recruit and retain faculty and administrators.
An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education predicted that it “may make it even harder for colleges that have been struggling to retain women who are pregnant or who have small children,” as studies have shown that they are already more prone to drop out.
Medical schools and health centers on campuses will also confront particularly difficult challenges. All medical schools currently require students to complete a clerkship in obstetrics and gynecology, according to the Chronicle, and must provide training or access to training through their medical residency programs. Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of California, San Francisco, predicted that the Supreme Court decision will cause the number of OB/GYN residents who have immediate access to some degree of abortion training to drop from 92 percent to no more than 56 percent.
Moreover, as Inside Higher Ed noted, the Supreme Court decision and the state laws it has triggered or enabled could curb the ability of medical schools to provide family planning as well as various treatment options. It cites as an example how questions could now be raised about prescribing lithium, which is used to treat depression and schizophrenia but can also cause miscarriages.
David J. Skorton, the president of the Association of American Medical Colleges, issued a statement following the ruling saying that the association strongly opposes the decision. Some college and university presidents have also expressed concern, and some institutions have taken concrete steps to mitigate the ruling’s effects. The University of Michigan has created task forces that are working to ensure students, faculty, and administrators retain access to abortion and related medical care. And Southern University of New Hampshire has offered to pay the expenses of its employees who have to travel to obtain reproductive health care that they can’t access in their state.
But in general, as University Business has reported, higher education leaders’ views “exemplify the split that exists across the nation.” When asked for their reaction to the ruling, some presidents criticized it for removing the rights of women and endangering lives, but others, such as Jerry Prevo, the president of Liberty University, called it “a monumental step in the direction of protecting life and placing the decision squarely in the hands of the American people.”
Share on LinkedIn
