教育US_higher_ed_overview

An Overview Diversity,Access, United States: of Higher Education in the American Council on Education The Unifying Voice for Higher Education and the Role of the Marketplace By Peter D. Eckel and Jacqueline E. King American Council on Education ACE and the American Council on Education are registered marks of the American Council on Education. American Council on Education One Dupont Circle NW Washington, DC 20036 ® This publication originally appeared as a chapter in J. Forest and P. Altbach (Eds.), The International Handbook of Higher Education (two volumes), published by Springer. Available at http://www.springeronline.com. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii The Distinctive Characteristics of U.S. Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Size and Composition of U.S. Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Curriculum and Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Faculty and Their Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 University Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Student Life and Athletics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The Marketplace (Not Government) as Key External Driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Higher Education as an Engine of Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Other Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table of Contents higher education borrows its structure from both the British undergraduate college and German research university, but its character is profoundly influenced by three major philosophical beliefs that shape American public life.1 Informed by the Jeffersonian ideals of limited government and freedom of expression, states, religious communities, and individuals established and maintain a range of higher education institutions and continue to protect these institutions from the levels of government control seen in most other countries. The second set of influences is capitalism and the belief in the rationality of markets. American colleges and universities vie for students, faculty, and funding under the assumption that diversity and high quality are best achieved through competition rather than centralized planning. The final major philosophical influence on American higher education is a widespread commitment to equal opportunity and social mobility. Higher education was an elite activity for much of its history, excluding individuals based on gender, religion, race/ethnicity, and social class. However, during the 20th century, economic and social changes transformed higher education into a primary gateway to the middle-class, and women and minorities made inroads against longstanding exclusion from mainstream higher education. Americans came to view broad access to higher education as a necessary component of the nation’s ideal as a “land of opportunity.” Higher education responded by broadening access. Indeed, the one uniquely American type of institution—the community college—was founded in the 20th century to ensure open access to higher education for individuals of all ages, preparation levels, and incomes. Guided by these beliefs, U.S. higher education reflects essential elements of the American character: independence, suspicion of government, ambition, inclusiveness, and competitiveness. This publication describes the major characteristics of American higher education and important issues that challenge it, linking back as appropriate to these essential philosophical underpinnings. A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n i i i Introduction 1 In the United States, several important terms differ in meaning from most of the rest of the world. The term college refers to an institution that typically awards only undergraduate degrees. The term faculty can refer either to an individual professor or to all instructors (e.g., “The Harvard faculty approved a new degree program.”) U.S. A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n 1 ecause American higher educa- tion is so diverse and complex, any description of “standard practice” inevitably misstates much about individual colleges and universities. Indeed, important exceptions to most of the characteristics described in this paper exist. Nonetheless, this section provides an overview of how most colleges and universities are governed and financed, their students and faculty, and the nature of the curriculum and student life. Size and Composition of U.S. Higher Education In addition to diversity, autonomy, com- petition, and accessibility, size is a distin- guishing feature of U.S. higher education. The U.S. Department of Education counts 6,500 postsecondary institutions that participate in its student financial aid programs, including 4,200 colleges and universities that award degrees and 2,300 institutions that award vocational certifi- cates. These 6,500 institutions enrolled approximately 16 million full- and part- time students, including 14 million under- graduates and 2 million graduate and professional students, in fall 2001. The 4,200 colleges and universities awarded more than 2.4 million degrees in academic year 2000–01. In addition, an untold number of other institutions offer post-secondary instruction of some type but do not choose to participate in the The Distinctive Characteristics of U.S. Higher Education B federal student aid programs and thereforeare not counted by the federal government(U.S. Department of Education, 2003).Degree-granting institutions are typically divided into four major groups, and a considerable amount of diversity exists within each group: • America’s 1,100 public two-year insti- tutions, or community colleges, enroll the largest share of undergraduates (6 million students in 2001). These institutions award associate degrees in vocational fields, prepare students for transfer to four-year institutions, and serve their communities by providing a wide array of educational services. These services range from specialized training for large employers, to English language instruction for recent immi- grants, to recreational courses. Almost 4 million students attended community colleges part-time in 2001. The U.S. government does not track enrollment figures for noncredit adult education or recreational courses, but the American Association of Community Colleges estimates that an additional 5 million students enroll in these types of courses at community colleges every year. • There are only 630 public four-year colleges and universities in the United States. But these institutions—which include regional comprehensive universities that concentrate on under- graduate teaching and graduate preparation in professional fields such 2 A N O V E R V I E W O F H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S as teaching and business, as well as research universities that offer a comprehensive set of undergraduate, graduate, and professional degree programs—enrolled 6.2 million students in 2001. This figure includes 5 million undergraduates and slightly more than 1 million graduate students.2 • Private not-for-profit institutions are extremely diverse, including research universities, four-year liberal arts colleges that focus on undergraduate teaching, a small number of two-year institutions, faith-based institutions that maintain strong links with religious denominations, women’s colleges, historically black colleges and universities, and specialized institutions that focus on a single field, such as nursing or fine arts. Private not-for-profit institutions enrolled 3.2 million students in 2001, including 2.3 million undergraduates and more than 700,000 graduate students. • For-profit institutions primarily offer vocational programs that result in certificates rather than degrees. Of the more than 2,400 for-profit institutions counted by the U.S. Department of Education, 500 offer two-year associate degrees and 320 offer bachelor’s and/or graduate degrees. In total, for-profit institutions enrolled more than 750,000 students in 2001, all but 50,000 of whom were at the undergraduate level. Table 1 provides an overview of enroll- ment in each of these four sectors. This large number and wide range of institu- tions offer both access and choice—two hallmarks of American higher education that respond to the previously described value placed on opportunity and faith in the market. Table 1. U.S. Postsecondary Institutions and Enrollments: Fall 2001 Public Private Private Total Not-for-Profit For-Profit Institutions 2,099 1,941 2,418 6,458 Four-Year 629 1,567 324 2,520 Two-Year 1,165 269 779 2,213 Less than Two-Year 305 105 1,315 1,725 Enrollment 12,370,079 3,198,354 765,701 16,334,134 Four-Year 6,236,486 3,120,472 321,468 9,678,426 Two-Year 6,047,445 63,207 241,617 6,352,269 Less than Two-Year 86,148 14,675 202,616 303,439 2 The number of graduate and undergraduate students does not add to the total number of students because some students may take courses outside a formal degree program and, in other cases, the degree level of students was not reported. A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n 3 Governance Another of the philosophical underpin- nings of U.S. higher education is the Jeffersonian notion of limited and, whenever possible, locally controlled government. Based on this model, the U.S. Constitution reserves for the states all government functions not specifically described as federal. Among those func- tions is education. As a result, each of the 50 states is responsible for governing public colleges and universities (which enroll 75 percent of students), rather than the federal government. The degree of control by the states varies tremendously. Some institutions, such as the University of California and the University of Michigan, enjoy constitutional autonomy as separate branches of state government. At the other extreme, locally elected boards of trustees govern some commu- nity colleges. In some states, a governing board appointed by the governor and/or legislature oversees all institutions, setting funding levels, establishing accountability measures, setting policies, and approving new academic programs. In others, the state board plays only an advisory function and has little direct authority over institu- tions. In many others, a state agency is poised between the institutions and state government, implementing statewide policy but also attempting to insulate institutions from ill-advised or overly intrusive state policies. Some public universities are part of statewide multi-campus systems in which an additional layer of oversight exists between the campus and state government. System administrators may oversee campus budgets, set policies such as admissions standards, coordinate degree programs, and facilitate credit transfer and articulation between the state’s public colleges and universities. Additionally, and importantly, they advocate to the legislature on behalf of public colleges and universities. In some states, more than one multi-campus system exists, such as California’s distinct systems of community colleges, compre- hensive state colleges and universities, and research universities. Because the Constitution does not mention education as a federal responsi- bility, the federal government plays a lim- ited role and the United States has never had an education ministry, such as those found in most other countries. With the important exception of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which donated federal territory to the states for the establish- ment of public universities, the federal gov- ernment played almost no role in higher education until the middle of the 20th century, when World War II necessitated the establishment of federal funding for scientific research at colleges and univer- sities to build U.S. military capacity. In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the G.I. Bill of Rights, which granted returning veterans funding to attend col- lege as a way to integrate servicemen back into the U.S. workforce. As the civil rights movement took hold in the 1960s, the fed- eral role in supporting students expanded to include grant and loan programs for low- and moderate-income students. Since that time, federal support has expanded so that it is now the primary financier of both scientific research and student financial aid. While the federal government generally does not provide direct operational support to colleges and uni- versities, this special-purpose funding is an extremely important revenue source and, in turn, has increased the ability of the federal government to influence colleges and universities in areas outside research and financial aid. For example, in order for institutions to participate in the 4 A N O V E R V I E W O F H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S financial aid programs, they must comply with a wide range of federal reporting requirements on topics ranging from teacher preparation to gender equity in intercollegiate athletics. However, despite the growing influence of the federal gov- ernment, its role is still limited and has not yet intruded into core academic decisions, which are generally left to the institutions and, in the case of some public institutions, the states. Two sets of voluntary organizations act as bulwarks against excessive government control of higher education: accrediting organizations that monitor quality assur- ance, and membership associations that represent institutions to the federal and state governments. Accrediting organiza- tions are membership organizations of colleges and universities and rely on volunteers who work at colleges and universities and who agree to assist other institutions by providing evaluation through peer review. There are three types of accrediting organizations: region- al organizations, which review the quality of entire institutions and focus almost exclusively on public and private not-for- profit degree-granting institutions; national organizations, which monitor the quality of most for-profit and non–degree- granting institutions; and specialized accrediting organizations, which evaluate academic programs within a specific field such as medicine, law, or teacher education. American accreditation differs from the type of quality assurance conducted by governments in most other countries. Federal and state governments can and do impose their own accountability require- ments on institutions, but they generally have left the assessment of academic quality to institutions themselves through the self-study and peer review processes of accreditation. The federal government, in particular, relies on recognized regional and national accreditation organizations to determine whether institutions are of sufficient academic quality and manage- rial soundness to merit inclusion in the federal student financial aid programs. When the U.S. Department of Education officially recognizes an accrediting organi- zation, it certifies that the organization adequately monitors quality in areas mandated by the federal government, such as fiscal soundness and managerial compe- tence, fair admissions and recruiting prac- tices, and evidence of student success. Accrediting organizations establish minimum standards that institutions must meet in a range of areas such as the curri- cula, faculty qualifications, student learning outcomes, co-curricular student services, and financial health. Accrediting organi- zations do not, however, mandate how institutions go about meeting those stan- dards. Further, because accreditation measures institutions against a set of standards, it generally does not provide a gauge of how well an institution is performing relative to other institutions. Accreditation is accomplished through institutional self-study and a peer review process to determine whether the institu- tion has met the organization’s standards. Accreditors typically review institutions on a three- to five-year basis (Eaton, 2000). Membership associations, which can have either institutions or individuals (such as business officers) as members, represent the interests of colleges and universities to the federal government and, in some cases, state governments. Many colleges and universities also employ their own staff to advocate for them, but in most cases, those staff work only on issues of concern to the individual institution, such as state appropriations or federal research contracts for the institu- tion. Membership associations champion those public policies that are in the A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n 5 collective best interest of either all or some major segment of higher education. In Washington, DC, colleges and universities are represented by hundreds of organiza- tions, which also provide networking and professional development opportunities for their members. Finance Colleges and universities are financed in ways consistent with both the Jeffersonian ideal of limited government and the belief that market competition tends to improve quality and efficiency. While government plays a very important role in financing, American colleges and universities are supported further by diverse revenue sources that reflect the market choices of students and parents as well as other consumers of the goods and services that institutions provide. The major sources of revenue include tuition and fee payments from students and families (including the government-backed financial aid that students use to pay tuition); appropria- tions, grants, and contracts from federal, state, and local governments; private gifts; endowment and other investment earn- ings; and sales from auxiliary enterprises and services. Some of these sources are more important to some types of institutions than to others. For example, local govern- ments account for 18 percent of revenue at community colleges but 1 percent of revenue at private not-for-profit institu- tions. Similarly, private gifts contribute 14 percent of revenue to private not-for- profit institutions, but only 1 percent of revenue to community colleges (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). While the revenue sources of American institu- tions are diverse, two sources are of part- icular importance to most institutions: state appropriations, particularly for public institutions; and tuition and fees. These two sources (along with local app- ropriations at community colleges and federal research grants and contracts at research universities) provide the bulk of funds for