When a university says “Everything is on the table” during budget cuts, could that possibly mean athletics? (San Francisco Chronicle)

Is it time for an Office of Consumer Protection—for higher ed? (American Progress)

Where are they raising entry standards for new teachers? (Hint: entrants will need higher grades in maths.) (London Independent)

Even though online grading systems are great at letting parents know that, no, Junior didn’t turn in his algebra, are there still ways to improve this communication tool? (Sherman Dorn)

• $690-million in new building and renovations to date. Highlights include the Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, the Computational Center for Nanotechnology Innovations, the Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center, and the East Campus Athletic Village.
• Completed $1.4-billion fund-raising campaign, including a $360-million unrestricted gift in 2001.
• More than 230 new faculty hires since 2000, including a net of 74 new positions.
• Improved academic profile of students, with average SAT scores up 59 points over a decade ago while applications have increased 114 percent.
• Increase in annual sponsored research from $37-million in 1999 to $73-million in 2008.

One can learn a great deal about American higher by considering what is on this list, and what is not. Specifically, there is no mention of how well students at RPI were taught, how much they learned, whether they graduated, and what became of them after they left.  As is common practice, the academic prowess of RPI students is measured ex ante, based on a test administered during the junior year of high school, well before students even applied.

Instead, Jackson’s accomplishments are measured purely in dollars raised, buildings constructed, and faculty hired. Students are mentioned only in terms of generated demand, not education applied.

There’s much discussion in the halls of Congress and public policy circles these days about higher education accountability. I’ll be speaking at an conference on the topic in a few weeks (sign up here). But the real accountability system–the measures that matter, the forces that influence and bind–doesn’t live inside of any laws or regulations or systems of governance. It’s right there–and only there–on the list. That’s what higher education leaders are paid top dollar to achieve. That’s how you end up with your picture in the Chronicle of Higher Education. It’s hard to fault Shirley Ann Jackson or anyone else for acting rationally within that system. And perhaps she and her faculty have done a fantastic job of teaching the students in their charge. But if they have, it wasn’t considered a “key accomplishment.” And until that changes, colleges and universities won’t work as hard or as well on behalf of their students as they should.

Who is the biggest supporter of Title IX? Quite possibly the father of an eight-year-old daughter who’s a Yankee hopeful. (American Prospect)

Is there a school funding crisis? Or are all those gloomy reports written by Chicken Little? (Education Next)

While they’re pulling out all the stops for RTT in Denver, why are they just pulling out in Baton Rouge? (Baton Rouge News Star)

As state budgets head into another year of decline, is the U.S. close to losing the “public” in public higher education? (Higher Ed Watch Blog)

UPDATE: He is testifying live as of 11:05 EST. Welcome to Legislative Time. (Which bears virtually no relationship to, say, clocks.)

Crossing the Finish Line has things to say about virtually every important factor in college life, but by far the most important thing is this:

The SAT and ACT do not matter in predicting college success.

I have been an unequivocal supporter of using the SAT/ACT* in making college admissions decisions (see here and here), but this sample of students and the rigor of this study are impossible to ignore. Here’s what the authors found:

• Taken separately, high school GPA is a better predictor of college graduation rates than SAT/ACT score. This findings holds true across institution type, and gets stronger the less selective an institution is. High school GPA is three to five times more important in predicting college graduation than SAT/ ACT score.
• SAT and ACT scores are proxies for high school quality. When the authors factored in which high schools students attended (i.e. high school quality), the predictive power of high school GPA went up, and the predictive power of SAT/ ACT scores fell below zero.
• High school quality mattered, but not nearly as much as the student’s GPA. Other research, most notably on Texas’ ten percent admission rule, has proven this before. It’s somewhat counter-intuitive, but it shows that a student’s initiative to succeed, complete their work, and jump any hurdles that come up matters more than the quality of their high school.

What should various actors do with this information? First, colleges and universities need to take a hard look at this new research. It’s one thing when a few rogue institutions go test-optional and claim it works well for them. It’s quite another when a robust, empirical study with a sample of thousands of students at 50 different public institutions shows the SAT and ACT to be so poor at predicting student success.

Second, higher education rankings need to drop the SAT and acceptance rate as measures of institutional quality. These were always indicators of prestige as opposed to quality, but the rankings definitely need to re-think their inclusion now. Back in August I wrote about how institutions going SAT-optional actually improved their SAT scores. Because only students with high scores submitted them, the colleges were able to report much higher scores. And, since the institutions received more applications, they were able to reject more students. All of this boosted their rankings in the eyes of US News.

These steps would pave the way for a more rational college admissions process. We’d get rid of the SAT, that manipulable gatekeeper to higher education opportunity, and move towards an increased reliance on high school GPA, a better predictor of college success. I’ll eat crow in the process, but the research says it’s the right thing to do.

*The SAT and ACT are two very different tests, of course, but they both claim the same benefit of being able to predict a first-year college student’s grades, they are becoming increasingly similar, and there is quite a bit of correlation between scores. The authors use them interchangeably, as do most statisticians when trying to control for incoming academic achievement of a sample of kids who take one or the other entrance exam.

Who writes the best education blog? (Hint, hint—we have some ideas). Tell Valerie or Jay at the WaPo. (Answer Sheet)

If the President wants to talk about school reform, why did he head to Wisconsin? (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

Can a classroom look like a Winnebago? And why are a growing number of families taking learning on the road? (Today)

Is our economy at risk because other countries educate more engineers and scientists? With  today’s flawed methods of data collection, how will we ever know? (Inside Higher Ed)

• Maine voters elected to keep a 2007 school consolidation law. The school’s 285 school districts must now consolidate to 80 or face penalties from the state. This vote has been overshadowed by the state’s gay marriage repeal and a vote against a Colorado-like Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) that would have severely restricted government spending.
• Seven Texas universities will now have access to a $25 million annual fund to hire faculty members and expand research efforts. This is part of an explicit effort to expand the number of “tier-one” research institutions in the state. The fund is not new money, but is merely re-purposed from a dormant account.
• Similar to Maine, Washington voters appear to have rejected Initiative 1033, which would have limited revenue increases by state, county, and city governments to growth in inflation and population.  These bills are generally bad ideas, because they assume that whatever current revenue the government brings in is the right level, and they fail to account for boom and bust cycles in revenue receipts.
• Voters in Ohio decided one way to solve budget problems was to permit casinos in the state. A ballot issue yesterday opens the doors to casinos in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo.

The common thread in all these votes is the recession. Despite the stimulus and a tentatively growing economy, voters are still concerned, justifiably, about how their state and local government budgets will hold up.

Students may be hurting from too much student loan debt, but it’s not a problem for the University of Phoenix, which, according to the story, earned $3 billion last year. The vast majority of that money came straight from the federal government in the form of grants and loans to students. And there are no consequences to Phoenix if students have trouble repaying their loans – Phoenix gets the money up front and doesn’t lose money if students default after they leave school.

Surely, the University of Phoenix would do better in the long run by providing a quality education at a reasonable price—students would be more likely to stay (it’s cheaper to keep a customer than find a new one, right?), they would tell their friends about the great deal they got on a worthwhile degree, and all these pesky news stories about fraudulent behavior would stop. Perhaps most importantly, Phoenix could substantially reduce its political risk (the federal government could, after all, stop the grant and loan money train at any time).

But it’s much easier to churn through students and get student loan money than to invest in retention programs and high quality instruction. One gives you quick financial returns, while the other takes a while to see the results.

I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with making a profit on providing a college degree, assuming the profit motive results in better service and higher quality for students (the benefits of increased competition, right?). But, I’m starting to wonder if it is possible for a publicly held for-profit company, one with shareholders that are far removed from the business of educating students, to balance the interests of students with the interests of shareholders. And ultimately shareholders will come first—even if it means sacriticing the long-term success of the company for a short-term financial gain.

There are a whole host of smart, experienced persons working 24/7 to deliver the plan to Congress by the February 17, 2010 deadline. But, they need to hear from educators and experts in the field.

The Public Notice for comments on educational-related broadband needs, including input into changes to the E-rate program, is now open.