Archive for the 'Education' Category

Should all college majors pay the same tuition?

Published May 3, 2021 Education , Marketing , Youth Marketing Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

Despite all that is written about the costs of higher education and how student debt is crippling an entire generation, college remains a solid investment for most students. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that people with bachelor’s degrees earn about $1,173 on average each week while those with only high school diplomas earn an average of $712 per week. That is a difference of $461 per week, about $24,000 per year, and about $958,880 over a 40-year working lifetime. On average, four-year college graduates literally are about a million dollars better off in their lifetime than those that stop their education after high school.

This calculation suffers from a selection bias, as individuals that choose to go to college likely have higher earnings potential that those that do not, independent of their education, so it is not appropriate to credit the colleges entirely for the million dollar increase in value. But, at pretty much any tuition level it would be hard to argue that college does not pay off for most graduates.

This helps put the student debt debate in perspective. The average student debt is about $30,000. A typical U.S. college student goes $30,000 in debt to gain a credential that will earn an average of about $1,000,000 more over his/her lifetime. College costs are far too high, have grown considerably faster that colleges’ ability to increase value, and limit many worthy students from being able to furthering their education. Yet, college remains a stellar asset for most.

These calculations concentrate on an “average student” and much can be lost by doing that. About 1 in 5 college graduates carries more than $50,000 in loans. About 1 in 20 has more than $100,000 in loans. Not all college graduates make a million dollars more over their lifetimes. Plenty of students slip through the cracks and many are underemployed because of a mismatch between their training and what employers demand.

Many young people are in financial trouble because college is not an investment that is paying back quickly enough for them. There are too many students who begin college, take on debt, and never graduate and gain the credential that enhances their earning power. The most hidden statistic in America may be that only about 60% of those who enroll in college end up graduating.

There is an enormous disparity in the average starting salary for college graduates depending on their major and their college. When thinking of the financial aspects of college, parents and students would be wise to look more at the debt to earnings ratio rather than concentrate solely on the costs of college. That is, what will an expected first year salary be and what will the expected college debt be?

A rule of thumb is to try to get this ratio as far under 1.0 as possible, and to not let it go over 1.0. This means that students should seek to have loans that do not total more than their expected first year salary, and hopefully loans that are just a fraction of their first-year salary.

Data from the Department of Education’s College Scorecard shows average student debt and average first year salary by college and by major. What is striking is how much variability there is on the salary part and how little there is on the debt part. Broadly speaking, salaries vary widely by college and major, but the debt students end up with does not vary nearly as much.

Suppose you owned a business and two customers walked into your door. For customer A, you provide a service that is worth twice as much as what you provide to customer B. Would you charge both customers the same amount? Probably not. They would not expect you to even if it cost you the same to produce both products.

However, that is what colleges do. In the College Scorecard data, the most lucrative college majors result in starting salaries that are about two and a half times greater than the college majors that result in the lowest salaries. Yet, students graduating with these degrees all end up with similar levels of debt and pay similar tuition along the way.

Why? Why would colleges charge the same for a student who can expect to make $75,000 per year upon graduation the same as one that can expect to make $30,000? Colleges are pricing solely off the supply curve and ignoring the differences in demand among subgroups of students.

I have discussed this idea with many people including some who work in higher education. I have not found even one person that supports the idea of colleges charging different tuition rates for different majors, but I also have not heard a cogent argument against it.

This idea would provide an efficiency to the labor market. If too many students chose a particular college major, resulting first year salaries will decline because there will be an excess supply of job seekers in the market. This will cause fewer future students to flock to this major and cause colleges to adjust their recruiting tactics and tuition prices. The market would provide a clear financial signal to colleges that would help them adjust their program sizes appropriately. The incentives would be in place to produce the right number of graduates from each major.

Students majoring in traditionally higher paying fields, like engineering and computer science, would end up paying more. Those in traditionally lower paying fields, like arts and human services, would pay less. All would be paying a fair amount tied to their future earning potential and the value the degree provides. You could argue that in the current system students enrolled in liberal arts are subsidizing those enrolled in engineering. Currently, because pricing isn’t in equilibrium across majors, many students are unable to attend because their preferred major will not pay off for them.

A few years back there was a proposal in Florida to have differential pricing for different majors at state institutions. However, this proposal was not letting the market determine pricing. Instead, it sought to lower the cost of STEM majors in an effort to draw more students to STEM majors. This would result in a glut of STEM graduates and lower starting salaries for these students. Counter to the current political discourse, it is the case that salaries in STEM fields have been growing at a slower rate than other college majors on average, which is the market saying that we have too many students pursuing STEM, not too few.

Differential pricing would likely be good for the colleges as it would maximize revenue and would help colleges get closer to the equilibrium price for each student. There is a reason why everyone on an airplane seems to pay a different fare – it maximizes revenue to the airline. Differential pricing is most often seen in businesses with high fixed and low marginal costs, which perfectly describes today’s traditional colleges. Differential pricing would also help colleges allocate costs more efficiently, as resources will flow to the demand.

This is a radical idea that I don’t think has ever been tried. The best argument I have heard against it is that it has the potential to limit students from poorer households to the pursuit of lower paying majors and to draw richer students to the higher paying majors, thus perpetuating a disparity. This could happen, but is more of a temporary cash flow issue that can be resolved with intelligent public policies.

Students need access to the capital necessary to get them through the college years and assurance that their resulting debt will be connected to their future earnings potential. That is where college financial aid offices and government support of higher education should place their focus. Students with ability and without financial means need temporary help getting them to a position where they have a job offer and a reasonable amount of college debt. We all have a stake in getting them to that point.

Let’s charge students a fair price that is determined by the value they receive from colleges and concentrate our public support on being sure they have a financial bridge from the moment they leave high school to when they graduate college. Linking their personal financial stake to their expected earnings is inherently fair, helps balance the labor market, and will cause colleges to provide training that is in demand by employers.

Online education will need to change before it rules higher education

Published August 2, 2020 Coronavirus , Education Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

We recently conducted a poll of college students around the world about their experiences with online education this spring that resulted from the pandemic. The short answer is students didn’t fare well and are highly critical of the ability of online education to engage them and to deliver instruction. This isn’t a subtle, nuanced finding. A large majority of college students worldwide thought the online education they received this spring was ineffective and unengaging.

I held out hope that the pandemic would be the event that finally kickstarted online education. Our poll results have me doubting it will, which is a shame as online education holds enormous potential. It is a new technology that is, for some reason, being held back. If you think about it, we have had all the technology needed to take education online for at least 10 years, yet for the most part the traditional university system has remained as it was a generation ago.

I’ve always been interested in new “media” technologies because I’ve noticed a pattern in their emergence. Almost always, they begin as a nifty new delivery system for content that was developed with the “old” media. The earliest radio shows largely consisted of people reading the newspapers aloud and playing music. Early television mostly adapted content from radio – serialized dramas, variety shows, baseball games, etc. The Internet 1.0 largely just electronically expectorated content that existed in other forms.

After a bit of a gestation period, “new” media eventually thrive as they take advantage of their technological uniqueness and content evolves along with the new distribution system. The result is something really special and not just a new way to deliver old things.

There are many examples. Radio moved to become central to family entertainment and ritual in a way the newspaper could not. Television developed the Saturday morning lineup, the situation comedy, talk shows, etc., none of which could have worked as well on radio. And, the Internet evolved and became interactive, with user-created content, product reviews, with a melding of content and commerce that isn’t possible in other media. In all cases, the “new” media gestated awhile by mimicking the old but once they found their way their value grew exponentially. The old media didn’t go away, but got repositioned to a narrower niche.

This hasn’t happened in higher education. Streaming your lecture on Zoom might be necessary during a pandemic but it is not what online education should be about. Students consistently tell us it doesn’t work for them. Parents and students don’t feel it provides the value they expect from college, which is why we are starting to see lawsuits where students are demanding tuition refunds from colleges that moved education online this spring.

We composed a post a little while ago that posited that the reason digital textbooks really haven’t made much of a difference in colleges is because textbook publishers have prevented this synergy from happening. Most digital textbooks today are simply a regurgitation of a printed textbook that you can read on a computer. Our surveys show that the number one way a digital textbook is read remains by viewing a PDF. That is hardly taking advantage of what today’s technology has to offer.

The potential for the digital textbook is much greater. In fact, it wouldn’t be a textbook at all. Instead, there could be a digital nexus of all that is going on in a course, conducted, coached, and curated by the instructor. Imagine a “book” that could take you on an interactive tour. It could link you to lectures by world-renown people. It could show practitioners applying the knowledge they gained in the course. It could contain formative assessments where you could determine how you are progressing and then adapt to focus you where you need individualized help. A tutor would be a link away. Other students could comment and help you.

Your instructor could become a coach rather than a sage. This wouldn’t be a textbook at all, but a melding of course materials and instruction and collaborative tools.

This technology exists today, yet publishers and colleges have too much of a self-interest not to innovate. Education is suffering because of it.

This spring most college instructors had one or two weeks to figure out how to move their instruction online with little help from textbook publishers or technology companies. They had no choice but to adapt their existing course to a new delivery system. So, they pointed a camera on themselves and called it online education.

It is no wonder that online education largely failed our students. Every poll I have seen, including a few Crux has conducted, has shown that students found online education to be vastly inferior to traditional instruction this spring.

But, did you know this isn’t new? College students have long been critical of online education. I’ve asked questions about online education to college students for almost 20 years. While many appreciate the convenience of an online course and that it can cost less, a very large majority of those taking online courses say they aren’t an effective way to learn. Almost all say that they would have learned better in a traditional course. It is a rare student that chooses an online course because it is an effective way to learn. When they choose an online course, it is because it fits better into their life situation and not because it is an effective way to learn.

Why? Because online course providers really haven’t taken advantage of a “new” medium. They are still adapting traditional education and placing it online rather than embracing the uniqueness that online education can provide. They are firmly ensconced in Internet 1.0 a decade or two after all other industries have moved on. Compared to a decade ago we shop completely differently. We watch entertainment completely differently. We communicate with others completely differently. Yet, our children attend college the same way their parents and grandparents did.

Course management systems do exist, but to date they haven’t fundamentally changed the nature of a college course. We ask about course management systems on surveys as well, and college students find them to be moderately helpful, but hardly game changing.

One of Crux’s largest clients is a supplemental education company that provides resources to college students who don’t feel they are getting the support they need from their college or their professors. This company has been one of the best performing companies in the US since COVID-19 hit and so many courses moved online. This client is well-managed and has a great vision and brilliant employees. But, if educators had fully figured out how to effectively educate online, I don’t think they could be as successful as they have been because students wouldn’t have such a pressing need for outside help. Because of higher education’s unwillingness or inability to adapt, I expect this client to thrive for a long time.

It is sad in a way to think that our colleges and universities, who should be on the forefront of technology and innovation, are sadly lacking in adapting course materials and instruction to the Internet. Especially when you consider that these are the same entities that largely invented the Internet.

Living near Rochester NY, it is easy to see a parallel to the Eastman Kodak company. Kodak had one of the strongest brands in the world, was tightly identified with imaging and photography, and had invented almost all of the core technologies needed for digital photography. All at a time when the number of images consumers were about to capture was about to explode literally by a factor of about 10,000, maybe 100,000. But, because of an inability to break out of an old way of thinking and an inertia to hang on too long to an “old” media, one of America’s great companies was essentially reduced to a business school case in how to grab defeat from the jaws of opportunity.

Is this a cautionary tale for colleges and universities? Sure. I suspect that elite college brands will continue to do well as they cater to a wealthy demographic that has done quite well during the pandemic. But, for the rest of us, who send students to non-elite institutions, I expect to see colleges face enormous financial pressures and to see many college brands go the road of Kodak over the next decade. Their ticket to a better path is to more effectively use technology.

Online education has the potential to cure some of what ails the US higher education system. It can adapt quickly to market demand for workers. It can provide much wider access to the best and brightest teachers. It can aggregate a mass of students who might be interested in a highly specialized field, and thus become more targeted. And, it may finally be what finally fixes the high cost of higher education.

Will online education will thrive in the US? Not until it changes to take advantage of what an interconnected world has to offer. The time is right for colleges to truly tap into the power of what online education can be. This is really the only way colleges will be able to charge the tuition levels they have become accustomed to charging and until online education becomes synonymous with quality education, many colleges will struggle.

This is taking far too long but I am hopeful that kickstarting this process will be one silver lining to come out of the upheaval to education that has been caused by the pandemic.

The most selective colleges have the least effective marketing

Published November 1, 2018 Education , Marketing , Youth Marketing Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

Recently, Stanford University made headlines for deciding to stop issuing an annual press release documenting its number of applicants and acceptances.

There has been a bit of an arms race among colleges with competitive admissions to be able to claim just how selective they are. The smaller the proportion of applicants accepted, the better the college does in many ranking systems and the more exclusive the “brand” of the college becomes.

This seems to be a bit crazy, as publicizing how few students are accepted is basically broadcasting how inefficient your college marketing system has become. We can’t think of any organization beyond colleges that would even consider doing something analogous to this – broadcasting to the world that they have enticed non-qualified buyers to consider their product.

I learned firsthand how ingrained this behavior is among college admissions and marketing personnel. About five years ago I had the pleasure to speak in front of a group of about 200 college marketers and high school counselors. I created what I felt was a compelling and original talk which took on this issue. I have given perhaps 200 talks in my career, and this one might have been the single most poorly received presentation I have ever delivered.

The main thrust of my argument was that as a marketer, you want to be as targeted as possible so as to not waste resources. “Acquisition cost” is an important success metric for markers: how much do you spend in marketing for every customer you are able to obtain? Efficiency in obtaining customers is what effective marketing is all about.

I polled the audience to ask what they felt the ideal acceptance rate would be for their applicants. Almost all responded “under 10%” and most responded “under 5%.” I then stated that the ideal acceptance rate for applicants would be 100%. The ideal scenario would be this: every applicant to your college would be accepted, would then choose to attend your institution, would go on to graduate, become a success, and morph into an engaged alumnus.

I used an analogy of a car dealership. Incenting college marketers to increase applications is akin to compensating a car salesperson for how many test drives he/she takes customers on. The dealership derives no direct value from a test drive. Every test drive that does not result in a car purchase is a waste of resources. The test drive is a means to an end and car dealers don’t tend to track it as a success metric. Instead, they focus on what matters – how many cars are sold and how much was spent in marketing to make that happen.

Colleges reward their marketers to get students to test drive when they should be rewarding their marketers for getting them to buy. This wouldn’t matter much if a high proportion of applicants were accepted and ending up attending.  But, even at highly selective colleges it is not uncommon for less than 10% of applicants to be accepted, less than 33% of those accepted to choose to attend, and less than 50% of those that enroll to actually end up graduating. At those rates, for every 1,000 applicants, just 17 will end up graduating from the institution. That is a success rate of 1.7%.

These are metrics that in any business context would be seen as a sign of an organization in serious trouble. Can you imagine if only 10% of the people who came in your store qualified to buy your product? And then if only a third of those would actually decide to do so? And then if half of those that do buy don’t end up using your product or return it? That is pretty much what happens at selective colleges.

This issue is a failure of leadership. College marketers I have worked with can often see this problem, but feel pressured by their Deans and College Presidents to maximize their applicant base. Granted, this can help build the college’s brand, but it is a huge drain on resources that are better spent ensuring targeting applicants who are poised for success at the institution. It has happened because selectivity is considered important in building a college’s brand. Stanford has taken a useful first step, and hopefully other colleges will follow their lead.

Sexual harassment/abuse among college students – new survey results released

Published August 2, 2018 Education , Millennials , New Studies , Sexual Harassment Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

Sexual harassment and abuse on college campuses has garnered increased attention in the media and by political leaders. Surprisingly, there is little research documenting what is actually happening among college students – what the levels of abuse and harassment are, who is being victimized, and how students feel their college administrators are dealing with these issues.

In the spring of 2018 Crux Research surveyed 717 current college students to learn more about the current state of these issues. An issue like sexual harassment can be challenging to get right from a polling standpoint because it can be difficult to define. As a general term, it can be too broad to interpret as different experiences may be construed by one person as harassment and as another as not being harassment. The best way to address this is to be specific in our questioning. To be sure respondents understood our objectives, we developed a list of statements under three harassment categories shown below:

Verbal/Non-Physical harassment

  • Being called gay or lesbian in a negative way
  • Being shown sexy or sexual pictures you didn’t want to see
  • Being verbally intimidated in a sexual way
  • Having someone make unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or gestures to or about you
  • Having someone flash or expose themselves to you

Online harassment

  • Being called gay or lesbian in a negative way online
  • Having someone spread unwelcome sexual rumors about you online
  • Having someone post unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or pictures about or of you online
  • Being sent unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or pictures electronically

Physical harassment

  • Being physically intimidated in a sexual way
  • Being touched in an unwelcome sexual way
  • Being forced to do something sexual you didn’t want to do

For each, we asked the college student if he/she had been a victim of the specific type of harassment since they had been a college student. We found that 54% of college students have been a victim of some form of verbal/non-physical harassment, 45% have been a victim of some sort of online harassment, and 32% have been a victim of some sort of physical harassment.

Importantly, this study finds that while victimization is usually thought of as an issue for college women, college men are also common victims of sexual harassment:

  • 55% of college females have been the victims of verbal harassment, compared to 52% of college males.
  • 42% of college females have been the victims of online harassment, compared to 47% of college males.
  • 32% of college females have been the victims of physical harassment, compared to 32% of college males.

There are some large differences in college males and females, depending on the specific form of harassment:

College females are more likely than college males to report that…

  • Someone has made unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or gestures to or about them (41% of females; 17% of males).
  • They have been verbally intimidated in a sexual way (27% of females; 17% of males).
  • They have been sent unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or pictures electronically (30% of females; 17% of males).

College males are more likely than college females to report that…

  • Being called gay or lesbian in a negative way (20% of males; 14% of females).
  • Being called gay or lesbian in a negative way online (20% of males; 8% of females).

Perhaps most surprising is that for the most serious abuse item presented (“being forced to do something sexual that you didn’t want to do”) there was no statistical difference between college males and college females. Overall, 13% of college students indicated this has happened to them since they have been at college – about 1 in 8 college students. Again, the most serious types of sexual harassment and abuse happening on campuses is not solely a female issue. College men are reporting being sexual abused in a physical way as well.

Although we have shown that victimization is not solely an issue for college females, it is clear from our study that the perpetrators of sexual harassment/abuse are predominantly male. Overall, victims report that 72% of the time their harasser was male, 16% of the time the harasser was female, and 12% of the time it was both.

Most commonly, victims report that their harasser was a fellow college student (53%) or a friend (26%). 12% report that their harasser was a romantic partner. It is rare that students will report that their instructors/professors (4% of cases) or another adult at college (3%) are the harassers. Sexual harassment on college campuses appears to be mostly peer-to-peer.

Unique to this study, we also asked college students if they had done anything since they had been a student that could be correctly interpreted as being sexual harassment. Seventeen percent (17%) of students said they had – including 28% of all college males. To repeat: more than one in four (28%) of college males admit that they have done something to sexually harass another student since they have been in college.

Perhaps most troubling is how infrequently instances of abuse are reported. This study indicates that just 37% of harassment gets reported. Females (reporting 24% of instances) are less likely than males (54%) to make a report. For every report made by a college female, there are three incidents that are not reported.  And, our study also found that instances where the harasser was a fellow student are the ones that are least likely to be reported.

This issue has been brought more front and center at colleges in the past few years. College culture is moving towards supporting the victim/accuser. Compared to a year ago, about half (52%) of students are more likely to believe someone that reports being sexually harassed and 15% are less likely to believe someone who reports harassment. About two-thirds (65%) of students think the greater focus on these issues will result in a long-term change in attitudes about sexual harassment at college. Three-quarters (74%) feel that unreported sexual harassment is a bigger issue than false reporting of sexual harassment.

College students are largely satisfied with how their administration has addressed sexual misconduct and harassment. Overall, just 6% felt that their administration is not taking this issue seriously. Seventy percent (70%) feel that their college provides enough protection against sexual harassment and abuse.

In sum, sexual harassment and abuse occurs at a troubling level at colleges – and both college females and males are victims. Students are rallying behind the accusers, yet far too few victims are reporting harassment incidences, especially when they happen student-to-student. It appears that students have confidence in their administrators to handle these issues and protect them.

Why aren’t there more digital textbooks?

Published June 1, 2018 Education , Millennials Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

On college campuses, technology is like air – always present, necessary, and only noticed when it is lacking. College networks reach seemingly everywhere. Today’s courses use technology for enrollment, collaboration, communication, etc. Much of the basic research that underlies technological breakthroughs in business and industry is pioneered on college campuses. We find on employee surveys that recent Millennial graduates are often underwhelmed by the technology they have access to at their employers because they became accustomed to a higher standard when they were students.

Why then has a technological revolution that colleges are such a central part of seemingly skipped over what is at the core of most college courses:  the college textbook?

Depending on which source you consult, digital textbooks currently comprise between 10% and 15% of college textbooks and this percentage has been growing glacially … at like 1-2% per year.

Contrast this with other types of books. There are currently nearly half a billion digital trade books sold each year. In the “normal” (non-textbook) book world, there are about two digital books sold for every three printed books sold. In trade publishing the conversation isn’t about whether digital books will continue to grow and dominate (as there is a consensus that they will), but more about how massive Amazon will become in the space and what the impact of a growing audiobook segment will be.

Clearly, penetration of digital books is happening much slower in college textbook world than the trade book world.

But why?

First and foremost, the role of publishers in the college textbook market is different than in the trade book world. About 80% of the college textbook market is controlled by just five publishers and there is a trend towards further market consolidation. Publishers have the lion’s share of market power; after all, they control nearly all the content. So they can also control how this content is distributed.

Publishers’ market power is even greater than one might initially imagine. There might be just one or two viable choices for textbooks to select for a course. The result has been an increase in textbook prices of +1,000% or more since the mid-seventies, and, importantly, little incentive on the part of publishers to innovate. Publishers have created digital options and online learning systems, but these aren’t terribly innovative and largely serve to protect existing (and profitable) print textbook franchises. Textbook publishing is a cash cow and publishers protect it.

A finger can also be pointed at colleges. The college bookstore was once seen as an essential service to provide for students. It is now viewed as a profit center, giving colleges little incentive to push back on publishers to keep prices low and to innovate. The college bookstore’s mission has moved from being educational to being profit-centered.

College professors are unwittingly part of the problem. We have done studies that show that students largely buy the textbooks professors tell them to buy. Publishers market textbooks one professor at a time. There are no buying groups or purchasing departments negotiating prices on behalf of students. Our studies show that professors don’t think much about the cost of a book to a student before putting it on the list for the semester. Textbook costs and innovation just aren’t something professors seem to think much about.

There are a few countervailing forces. Used textbook distributors help recycle books and keep prices down. Textbook rental firms have had a similar effect. Increased online buying options have created price competition. But, these forces are swimming upstream in the face of the power held by publishers. Our data show that although the total textbook market is growing (because more students are going to college) the average number of textbooks obtained is decreasing. But, the average price per textbook continues to increase. This leads us to conclude that students are managing increasing textbook costs by going without some books to compensate for increased prices on books they cannot do without. This clearly isn’t the right thing to do from an educational standpoint. Students should be able to afford the materials they need to learn.

The internet has a way of being a disintermediater – of removing barriers between buyers and sellers and decreasing transaction costs. This effect has taken some market power away from publishers of traditional books. The ease of buying online at Amazon, the growth of digital books, etc., has served to make trade publishers less dominant than they used to be. And, in the non-textbook world, there has been a proliferation of self-publishing. An author no longer needs a publisher to reach an audience. Publishers are still important, but they are getting repositioned.

This hasn’t happened with textbooks. Academic book authors still largely use the traditional route via publishers (although some do self-publish, but mostly for students at their own universities).

What is most troubling about the lack of innovation in college textbooks is the academic impact it can have. There is lots of grumbling among student groups and elected officials about the cost of college textbooks. Few mention how true digital innovation in college textbooks would transform education.

We’ve often talked about how when a new medium arises, it initially isn’t all that innovative from a content standpoint. As an example, when television first became established, its content was largely just adapted from the successful radio content of the day (news, variety shows, serials, etc.). Once the new, innovative delivery mechanism was established, the content itself changed to take advantage of the unique features of the new media. The Internet was similar – initially its popularity was as a new delivery mechanism for content that could be found on other media (information like news, weather, encyclopedias, etc.). Once the mechanism was established, the unique power of the Internet (communication, collaboration, etc.) became evident.

Digital textbooks are following this pattern. Currently, digital textbooks are pretty much printed textbooks forced into a digital format – not much more exciting than a PDF copy of a textbook. But, digital textbooks hold much greater potential than printed textbooks. They can share highlights across students, catalyze students to collaborate on content they don’t understand, link to additional sources of information if an area is unclear, illustrate concepts with animations and video, adapt content based on formative assessments along the way, etc. It is easy to get enthusiastic about what a digital textbook could potentially do. It could transform education and teaching. It is easy to see a future where the textbook is the primary method of instruction and the professor becoming more of a coach and less of a lecturer.

The incredible potential of digital textbooks won’t happen until textbook authors see this and start creating textbooks differently and until publishers move past their reliance on traditional printed textbooks and find a profitable path. This seems to be an industry ripe for disruption.

We’d like to say this change is coming soon and is inevitable – but this entire blog post was based on a presentation we gave eight years ago to an industry event, so we have reservations that this change is impending.

Millennial College Students Are Torn Between Open Speech and Protecting the Vulnerable

Published March 1, 2018 Education , Generations , Millennials , New Studies Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , ,

We recently completed a poll of 1,000 college students on the topic of free speech on campus. Previous postings (here and here) have shown that students are reticent to support controversial speakers on campus and do not support any speakers who might have viewpoints that some students find to be uncomfortable.

In this final post on our poll results, we take a look at some contradictions in our data that demonstrate that today’s college students are torn between a desire to favor a campus that promotes free and open debate and an ethos that makes them want to protect the vulnerable from feeling uncomfortable.

There has been a long-held belief by conservatives that colleges are bastions of liberal thinking and perhaps indoctrination. Our poll results lend support to this viewpoint, as 52% of college students feel their professors tend to be more liberal in their thinking than the nation as a whole while just 23% feel their professors are more conservative:

Compared to the views of the nation as a whole, would you say that your current professors/instructors tend to be:
More conservative in their thinking 23%
About the same as the nation as a whole 25%
More liberal in their thinking 52%

Students tend to express a desire for their professors to be given a wide latitude to express their views and are largely not in support of administrators censoring how professors express their views to students.

Which statement below comes closest to your opinion?
College administrators should closely monitor what professors/instructors teach to make sure all students are comfortable 33%
College professors/instructors should be given a wide degree of freedom to express their views to students 67%

The result below shows that students report that colleges should encourage students to have an open mind to ideas that they may find uncomfortable. At first glance, college students seem to favor an atmosphere of openness on campus.

Which statement below comes closest to your opinion?
Colleges should attempt to shield students from ideas and opinions they may find unwelcome and offensive 25%
Colleges should encourage students to be exposed to ideas and opinions they may find unwelcome and offensive 75%

Millennial college students also recognize that free and open speech is central to university life. For example:

  • Two-thirds (66%) agree that the intellectual vitality of a university depends on open and free expression of ideas.
  • 63% agree that free speech, including controversial speech, is central to college teaching and learning.
  • 57% agree that student-run newspapers have a first amendment right to publish controversial stories without running afoul of college administrators.

That said, this poll also shows that Millennials also hold some views that run counter to the free speech ethos they express:

  • 57% agree that students should be encouraged to report instances of professor bias to administrators.
  • 48% feel that students should be provided warnings in advance to alert them to potentially troublesome readings.
  • 45% feel that colleges should provide intellectual safe spaces, where students can retreat from ideas and perspectives that are at odds with their own.

And, as we discussed in our previous postings, students shy away from permitting almost any type of speaker on campus that could potentially communicate anything that might cause a subgroup of students discomfort.

So, there are some contradictions in our findings that needs explaining. We feel that there is likely some nuance on Millennial opinion. The Millennial college student seems torn between realizing that exposure to ideas counter to their own is essential to their education and a strong ethos of protecting the vulnerable.

Which statement below comes closest to your opinion?
It is more important that colleges stick up for the vulnerable 50%
It is more important that colleges stand up for a spirit of inquiry 50%

This nuance is difficult for Boomer and Xers (who make up most college administrators and professors) to grasp. Older generations grew up not only at a time when free and open speech was held to a higher standard but also at a time where the college/university campus was the nexus of student opinion and influence. Today’s Millennial student has experienced more cultural diversity on campus and has established digital meeting spaces are their nexus for opinion and community. Millennials are exposed to diverse and controversial opinions constantly, to the point where their desire to protect the campus from controversy and discomfort may be a defense mechanism. It is an environment they can control.

What this all means for the university has yet to be seen. But, campus life is changing, and it will be key that the pendulum that is now swinging towards safety and comfort doesn’t swing so far as to limit student exposure to valuable viewpoints and a well-rounded worldview.

Students Are More Likely to Oppose Campus Speakers Than to Support Them

Published February 15, 2018 Education , Millennials , New Studies Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

We recently posted a result from an in-depth poll we conducted among 1,000 college students last fall. In this poll we asked students about specific speakers they may or may not support coming to their campus. Among our conclusions was that students largely aren’t supportive of very many speakers – particularly individuals who might be considered to be controversial or present ideas some might find uncomfortable.

In this same poll, we asked students about types of speakers that might come to a college campus. We included speaker types we felt most observers would feel are appropriate as well as speaker types that we felt even the most passionate free speech advocates might question. Our goal was to see where “the line” might be for today’s college students. The answer is the line is very high – students largely don’t want campus speakers at all.

The table below shows the percentage of US college students who would support each type of speaker coming to their campus to speak:

Support
A leader from the Black Lives Matter movement 50%
An advocate for the legalization of marijuana 46%
An elected official with views that are vastly different than yours 22%
A publisher of pornographic videos 21%
An activist who has a different view on abortion than you do 19%
A speaker who strongly opposes the Black Lives matter movement 19%
A politician who is against gay marriage 17%
A speaker who believes that there are racial differences in intelligence 17%
A tobacco company executive 14%
A speaker who is known to have sexually harassed a colleague in the past 11%
Muslim who advocates hatred towards the United States 10%
A speaker who believes that the Holocaust did not happen 10%
A white supremacist 10%

Some interesting conclusions can be made by looking at whom students are willing to support coming to their campus to speak:

  • Even the most highly supported type of speaker (A leader from the Black Lives Matter movement) is only supported by half (50%) of students. Support for any type of campus speaker is tepid.
  • Two types of speakers stood out as having the most support: Leaders from the Black Lives Matter movement and advocates for the legalization of marijuana.
  • It is perhaps troubling that only about 1 in 5 students (22%) support an elected official with views different from their own.
  • Racially insensitive speakers (white supremacists and Holocaust deniers) are the least supported types of speakers.

We can also look at the same list, but this time sorted by the percentage of students who oppose this type of speaker coming to their campus to speak:

Oppose
A white supremacist 68%
A speaker who believes that the Holocaust did not happen 68%
A speaker who is known to have sexually harassed a colleague in the past 67%
Muslim who advocates hatred towards the United States 66%
A speaker who believes that there are racial differences in intelligence 51%
A politician who is against gay marriage 50%
A tobacco company executive 49%
A speaker who strongly opposes the Black Lives matter movement 46%
A publisher of pornographic videos 39%
An activist who has a different view on abortion than you do 27%
An elected official with views that are vastly different than yours 25%
An advocate for the legalization of marijuana 16%
A leader from the Black Lives Matter movement 16%

Here we see that:

  • In general, students are more passionate in their opposition to speaker types than in their support.
  • Speakers with racially insensitive views and those known to have sexually harassed someone are the most opposed types of speakers. Speakers who have sexually harassed are opposed just as much as white supremacists.
  • About half of students oppose politicians who are against gay marriage and tobacco company executives. This is about the same level of opposition as to a speaker who believes there are racial differences in intelligence.
  • About 1 in 4 students would oppose an elected official that has different views than the student.

Because there have been instances of speakers being shouted down and even physically confronted by college students, we posed a question that asked students what they felt were acceptable ways to protest against a campus speaker.

Which of the following actions would you take if you were strongly opposed to a speaker your college had invited to speak on campus?
Disagree with the speaker during a question-and-answer period 25%
Organize a boycott of the speech 22%
Stage a protest outside of the building where the speech is taking place 21%
Host a concurrent speech from a speaker with an opposing view 16%
Stage a sit-in at an administrative building 12%
Physically confront the speaker 8%
Disrupt the speech while it is going on 7%

For the most part, students don’t support any actions if they strongly oppose a campus speaker. While it is encouraging to see that they do not support disrupting the speech or physically confronting a speaker, it is perhaps just as disheartening to see that only 1 in 4 would be willing to disagree with the speaker during a Q&A period. So, not only do students not want most types of speakers, they aren’t willing to step up and do something if a speaker they find controversial does come to campus.

Just as we found when we looked at specific speakers, students seem to be shying away from not just controversial speakers, but also those that might make some portion of the student body uncomfortable. Based on these results, we predict that there will be fewer speakers invited to college campuses in the future and that attendance at these events will decline.

Who is an appropriate campus speaker? Almost nobody!

Published February 1, 2018 Education , Generations , Millennials Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

US colleges face many free speech challenges. Traditionally, colleges have been places where diverse viewpoints are encouraged even if ideas expressed are seen as controversial. But recently, there have been many instances of invited speakers to college campuses sparking protest, being shouted down, and even being physically confronted by students on campuses. It seems that a generational shift is taking place whereby Millennial students are highly concerned about inclusiveness and protecting vulnerable groups from potentially harmful speech. Prior generations of college students (Xers and especially Boomers) seemed to hold the concept of free speech in higher regard and seemed willing to permit more controversial speech on campus.

This is a fascinating issue and we covered it in depth in a poll of 1,000 US college students conducted last fall. This poll tackled a number of issues regarding how today’s college students view the balance between free speech and protecting vulnerable groups. We will be making a number of posts to share the results of this poll, and our first one relates to who today’s college students view as appropriate speakers to bring to campus.

We brainstormed a number of potential speakers, some liberal and some conservative. We listed government officials who, even though they have strong political opinions, we felt most of academia would say have a legitimate right to be heard. And, we listed celebrities accused of some reprehensible acts, speakers who have already generated controversy on college campuses, and foreign leaders considered to be rivals of the United States. Our goal was to see where Millennials draw a “line” – at what point is a speaker so controversial or so offensive that he/she would not have the support of students to come to campus to speak. In total, we listed 24 individuals.

The table below shows the percentage of US college students who would support each speaker coming to their campus to speak:

Person Support
Barack Obama 71%
Bernie Sanders 59%
Joe Biden 48%
Hillary Clinton 39%
Colin Kaepernick 35%
Elizabeth Warren 27%
Donald Trump 24%
Caitlyn Jenner 23%
Paul Ryan 21%
Mike Pence 20%
Louis CK 20%
Chelsea Manning 19%
Bill Cosby 19%
Vladimir Putin 19%
Al Sharpton 18%
Rachel Maddow 17%
Bill O’Reilly 17%
Kevin Spacey 16%
Milo Yiannopoulos 16%
OJ Simpson 16%
Ann Coulter 14%
Kim Jong-un 13%
Steve Bannon 13%
Betsy DeVos 11%
Harvey Weinstein 10%

Some interesting conclusions can be made from whom students are willing to support coming to their campus to speak:

  • Only two speakers, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, receive support from a majority of college students.
  • Liberal politicians lead the way – with 5 of the top 6 most supported speakers being leading Democrats.
  • Donald Trump, our current president, is only supported by about 1 in 4 (24%) college students as a campus speaker.
  • Celebrities accused of sexual harassment (Louis CK, Bill Cosby, Bill O’Reilly, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein) are among the least supported potential speakers.

We can also look at the same list, but this time sorted by the percentage of students who oppose them coming to their campus to speak:

Person Oppose
Kim Jong-un 61%
Donald Trump 53%
Bill Cosby 47%
Vladimir Putin 47%
OJ Simpson 45%
Harvey Weinstein 45%
Mike Pence 39%
Kevin Spacey 34%
Caitlyn Jenner 33%
Betsy DeVos 33%
Bill O’Reilly 28%
Steve Bannon 28%
Louis CK 27%
Hillary Clinton 27%
Milo Yiannopoulos 25%
Paul Ryan 24%
Ann Coulter 23%
Colin Kaepernick 18%
Al Sharpton 18%
Rachel Maddow 16%
Chelsea Manning 16%
Joe Biden 15%
Elizabeth Warren 13%
Bernie Sanders 12%
Barack Obama 10%

Here we see that:

  • Donald Trump is clearly polarizing among college students, with 53% saying they would oppose him coming to their campus to speak.
  • The most opposed speakers are foreign leaders/rivals (Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin), Donald Trump, and celebrities who have been accused of serious crimes (Bill Cosby, OJ Simpson, Harvey Weinstein).
  • Surprisingly, some speakers who have had challenges when speaking at college campuses in the past (Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos) don’t have high levels of opposition in this poll.

These results are disheartening to those who feel that open expression of ideas is central to collegiate life. Perhaps the key conclusion from these data is how few speakers students support – showing a clear tendency of students to avoid perspectives they may find uncomfortable. This attitude has caused many college administrators to stop allowing potentially controversial speakers on campus as they worry about security and the unrest it may cause. Free speech advocates are likely to feel that today’s students are missing out on an educational opportunity – to listen to different perspectives to help shape a world view.

In either case, attitudes towards free speech on campus are very different than a generation ago – a topic we will be pursuing as we release other data from this poll.

Visit the Crux Research Website www.cruxresearch.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.