As you know, we have no physical classrooms at AMU and APU.  Our campus consists of 15 administrative buildings for our leadership and staff in Charles Town, West Virginia and Manassas, Virginia.  Over 90 percent of our students are not first time freshmen transitioning from high school to college.  Yet, for some reason, many of our adult students choose to come back to college in the fall.  Even though we accommodate the schedules of many working adults with 12 monthly semester starts, the fall is usually a busy time of the year for us.

Hosting a back-to-school picnic or cocktail party is more than a little difficult for a university with students in all 50 states and 100+ countries.  Virtually, I welcome you to our university and hope that you will find our continuing efforts at academic and social integration helpful.  As technology changes and improves, effectively shortening the distance between people, we hope that our abilities to integrate students academically and socially improve as well.

Welcome back and thanks for making us your choice for college.

John Thelin is a research professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation at the College of Education at the University of Kentucky.  He also authored A History of American Higher Education.  The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) recently sponsored a working paper (#2010-01) authored by Thelin entitled The Attrition Tradition in American Higher Education:  Connecting Past and Present.  Thelin’s research documents that attrition in higher education has been a problem since the early 1900’s, but that it has only been the focus of research, discussion, and improvement efforts for the past 30 years.  He cites several recent publications, AEI publication Diplomas and Dropouts:  Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Don’t) and a publication of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College and America’s Public Universities, which both deliver distressing news about college graduation rates.  The first publication indicates that graduation rates are not entirely a function of the selectivity of admissions by the school and the type of institution.  The second publication focuses on the 20-year decline in state university graduation rates noting that few state universities graduate more than 65 percent of their students in six years.

Thelin states that the result of generally bad news in education is to either “discredit the data or kill the messenger.”  His essay is intended to place current graduation rates in an historical context in order to facilitate a more measured discussion of the topic.  I suggest that anyone interested in the topic of retention spend a few minutes reading this 21 page essay as it provides a balanced and illuminating historical perspective of the issue.  Thelin’s recommendation is thoughtful as well.  He suggests that the statistical results as portrayed in the Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and other databases do not explain the qualitative reasons for attrition at most schools.  He suggests that provosts examine the educational culture of their institutions for explanations of a student’s integration/socialization into academic life.  His final paragraph states that combating the problem of attrition is expensive, difficult, and persistent (particularly throughout the past 100 plus years). 

Thelin’s comment about the IPEDS data is accurate, but slim with data supporting it.  The system was designed during an era when more college students were “traditional,” i.e. first-time, full-time freshmen whose goals were to graduate in four years.  Over time, the system evolved to track students who graduate at 150 percent of the time expected to earn a degree (2 years times 150 equals 3 years for an associates’ degree; 4 years times 150 equals 6 years for a bachelor’s degree).  By the Department’s estimates, approximately 75 percent of today’s college students are “non-traditional,” meaning that they do not conform to the first-time, full-time freshman category when they start.  Not only does that fact suggest that the IPEDS data collected may not be relevant to the average college, but it also stresses the importance of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of retention by provosts and presidents.

There are many other research articles and publications that address the topic of college student retention.  Over the next few months, I intend to discuss a few of them that are relevant to institutions that focus more on the “non-traditional” student.

Over the next year, I would like to interview a few alumni who are willing to share their stories about either the experience of learning at AMU/APU or the opportunities through which they were able to apply the knowledge that they acquired to their career.  If you are an alum and interested in sharing a story or two, please e-mail me at presblog@apus.edu.  Thanks.

In Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Pink analyzes motivation through decades of research. He organizes his book into three parts. Part 1 provides the reader with a background of studies that determine what motivates people. Carrots and sticks (rewards and punishments) are touted as being successful for jobs in which only mechanical skills are necessary. For creative, right-brain tasks, Pink states that “after the fact” rewards offering praise and feedback are much better than the carrot and stick approach. He creates a “Type I” personality that describes someone whose behavior is more powered by “intrinsic” desires than “extrinsic” desires. People who exhibit Type I behavior are more concerned with the inherent satisfaction of the activity itself rather than any particular external rewards. Part 2 discusses three elements, autonomy, mastery, and purpose that are necessary for motivation. In the chapter on autonomy, Pink cites numerous examples where companies have empowered employees to think more independently and creatively with fantastic results. Within the chapter on mastery, Pink provides relevant research under the headings of “Mastery is a Mindset,” “Mastery is a Pain,” and “Mastery is an Asymptote.” In describing Purpose, the author states that the most motivated people attach themselves to a cause that is larger than themselves. Part 3 is cleverly named and designed as “The Type I Toolkit.” In this section of the book, Pink provides seven different guides for scenarios in which an individual or group of individuals could apply the lessons learned in Drive. He also encourages individuals who think of additional lessons and scenarios to contact him for future updates of the Toolkit.

Drive is well-written and thought-provoking for anyone interested in learning more about motivation. Pink makes a valid case for senior management in any business, non-profit, or for-profit, to evolve their corporate culture and incentive programs from Motivation 2.0 to Motivation 3.0. His toolkit is designed to encourage discussions among individuals about the concepts and the benefits of implementing a Motivation 3.0, Type I rewards system. The increasing availability of knowledge through the Internet encourages individuals to become more creative and right-brain-driven. Pink’s encouragement of the development of Type I’s may be prescient for a shift in management thinking given the widening availability of technology and knowledge. I encourage you to read Drive.

Historically, states and local governments have provided the lion’s share of direct funding to public higher education.  Over the past 25 years, state and local direct support for general operating expenses of public higher education has increased from $25.7 billion in 1984 to $88.7 billion in 2008.  In 2009, state and local support was flat at $88.8 billion and that number included allocations from the states’ share of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, or Stimulus Bill).  In addition, public colleges and universities collected net tuition revenue of $44.5 billion in 2009.  Thus, for every $1 in tuition collected, states contributed $2 toward the cost of higher education.

During the same period of time (1984-2009) that states increased their funding three fold, the full-time equivalent enrollment of students in higher education increased from 7.4 million to 10.8 million or a 46 percent increase in FTE enrollment.  Figure 3 of the report entitled Public FTE Enrollment and Educational Appropriations per FTE, U.S. Fiscal 1984-2009 shows the relative costs of public education over the past 25 years.  While the state and local funded dollars per FTE (calculated in constant dollars) have ranged from $6,621 in 1984 to $6,928 in 2009 (a very narrow band), the net tuition revenue per FTE has nearly doubled from $2,147 to $4,108 during the same period.  Net tuition as a percentage of total educational revenue increased to an all-time high of 37.3 percent in 2009.  Because higher education is not a mandated benefit/expenditure as K-12 education is, the states’ contribution varies.  Generally, during good economic times, the states increase funding and in recessions, the states decrease funding.

For those of us with a quantitative bent, the significance of the SHEEO report is not limited to averages; it also provides state specific data and figures that are very enlightening.  For example, Figure 5  shows the average change in FTE enrollment over the past five years (2004-2009) at 8.9 percent but it also displays the range of the change in FTE Enrollment over the same period with a low of -7.5 percent in Louisiana to a high of 26.9 percent in Maryland.  Hurricanes Katrina and Rita influenced Louisiana’s enrollment decrease.  Maryland’s enrollment increase was most likely influenced by a pledge by its current governor and the system president to hold tuition constant for in-state students as long as possible if funding from the legislature did not decrease over most of this period.

The report also notes that 15 states utilized a total of $2.3 billion in ARRA funds during 2009.  As those funds expire, either the states, the institutions, or the students will have to make up the shortfall, and that troubling series of choices is  what the LSU System has to prepare for in 2011-2012.

Table 5 in the report lists the Public Higher Education Appropriations per FTE over the same five-year period as the enrollment changes in Figure 5.  While the FY 2009 average appropriate per FTE was $6,928, the numbers vary widely from state to state.  Wyoming, the smallest population state in the U.S., provides the highest contribution per FTE at $15,391 and Vermont provides the lowest contribution per FTE at $2,654.  These figures contribute to the results outlined in Figure 7 that is entitled Net Tuition as a Percent of Public Higher Education Total Educational Revenue by State, Fiscal 2009.  While the U.S. average is 37.3 percent for 2009, Vermont receives the highest support from tuition at 83.9 percent and Wyoming receives the lowest support from tuition at 11.8 percent.  Vermont’s net tuition revenue per FTE averaged $12,025 in 2009, the only state with an average tuition cost per FTE over $10,000.

When the state and local contribution is added to the net tuition revenue per FTE, the total educational revenue per FTE is derived.  Table 7 of the report entitled Public Higher Education Total Educational Revenue per FTE shows the variability among states in 2009.  While the average total educational revenue per FTE was $10,998, the total ranged from lows of $8,426 in California and $8,660 in South Dakota to highs of $17,460 in Wyoming and $17,317 in Alaska.

The data in the SHEEO report are enlightening for several reasons.  First, they show the gradually increasing reliance on tuition revenues by all states.  Second, they demonstrate the variance in the range of financial support for higher education by state.  Not included in the SHEEO report are the non-tuition costs of room and board, transportation, books, and incidentals that SHEEO documents as adding another $10,000 to tuition costs.  Adding $10,000 of non-tuition costs to tuition that ranges from $1,528 in California to $12,025 in Vermont makes a tremendous difference in the affordability of a state-supported institution, particularly for a person who is in the lower income bracket and who is eligible for a Pell Grant.  In evaluating the cost of higher education, the relative costs of state and local support as well as federal support (typically Federal Student Aid and research grants) need to be aggregated along with the net tuition costs and non-tuition costs.  In the case of academic institutions that are not exempt from state and federal taxes, the taxes should be subtracted from other costs in order to compare the costs of higher education equally.  As we continue to strive to find affordable ways in which to educate more of America’s citizens, we cannot choose to ignore the very real, but easily overlooked expenses of higher education beyond the cost of tuition.

When I read that Carr had written a new book, The Shallows, I ordered a pre-publication copy.  The subtitle, What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, did not surprise or alarm me since another one of Carr’s books, Does IT Matter, established his provocative thinking about technology and its potential uses.

In The Shallows, Nicholas Carr weaves the recent findings from neurological studies of the brain demonstrating the impact of Internet usage around an historical narrative of the evolution of learning.  Plato, Socrates, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, and Marshall McLuhan are some of the thinkers whose writings Carr utilizes to demonstrate a linkage between the introduction of new technologies and a change in the way we learn.

Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press led to the widespread dissemination of books, newspapers, and periodicals.  The act of reading a book stimulated the mind’s creativity and thought, allowing us to focus our attention on ideas and concepts.  The digitization of knowledge and dissemination through the Internet and indexing of that knowledge by Google changes that learning dynamic.  Instead of focused thinking, our minds are being retrained to think rapidly, skimming content for relevance.  Carr warns that we are losing our ability to concentrate.  He bolsters this thought with a small chapter that describes how he found the time to write The Shallows.  Because he is a writer, he disconnected from much of the technology that he had grown accustomed to over the years.

Carr writes that major changes in thinking shift over generations as technology becomes more embedded in work, education, and leisure.  Carr has thrown a different spin to those books and articles about our children becoming Digital Natives and what the benefits may be to our society.  Like Nicholas Carr, I have always been an early adopter of technology.  My first personal computer was an Apple IIB in the late 1970’s and I have gone through many upgrades, models, and brands since then as well as many versions of cell phones, smart phones, GPS devices, etc.  However, I am not a Digital Native.  I embraced reading and writing at an early age and am able to shut out the distractions of technology when I need or want to concentrate.  After reading Carr’s illuminating book, I wonder if he’s right about the potential effect of technology to reduce our abilities to think creatively, thoughtfully, and grasp new concepts.  I encourage everyone to read it.

All of the above performance categories are relevant to my personal area of interest for higher education research, student retention and degree completion.  Grades issued to the states on a macro basis for these categories may be relevant for evaluating performance at an institutional level, particularly for institutions whose enrollment draws heavily from a single state.

 In March of 2009, NCPPHE issued a report entitled “The Challenge to States:  Preserving College Access and Affordability in a Time of Crisis.” The report was written by the Center, but its content was guided by a group of influential thought leaders in higher education policies.  The report was issued shortly after passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus Act) and the report encouraged states to set priorities and spend the one-time federal funds wisely.

There were five Principles that the report encouraged policymakers, governing boards, and leaders to honor as they adjusted their budgets for both the economic impact of the recession as well as the application of stimulus funds for higher education.  These principles were:

•  Establish undergraduate access and affordability as the highest priority for state higher education policy and support.
• Protect access.  All eligible students seeking to enroll at two-and four-year public institutions should be accommodated by institutions that can meet their needs.
• Preserve the educational safety net by prioritizing enrollment capacity and affordable tuition at broad access institutions serving students from low- and middle-income families.
• Expect measurable productivity increases in education, both immediate and long-term, at all institutions.  Do not micromanage the process, but insist on accountability for resource use and performance from governing boards and institutional leaders.
• Use one-time revenues, including federal stimulus funds, to protect access and affordability and to leverage improvements in productivity, efficiency, and quality.  Avoid using one-time revenues in ways that defer productivity improvements or create long-term dependencies that may exacerbate future financial problems.

 The report provided specific recommendations in the areas of Capacity, Finance, and Productivity.  It concluded by stating that “The issues of how America will finance higher education in the 21^st century will require a new framework and consensus among taxpayers, public officials, state and federal government, and students and families.  But in the immediate crisis, the leadership of governors, legislatures, and governing boards is critical.  They must devise and implement strategies to preserve college opportunity while stimulating innovations to prepare for a future that will require enhanced access, quality, cost-effectiveness, and productivity.”

 I decided to write about this report because of the current discussions in Congress and in the press about higher education.  The Measuring Up 2010 report will be issued this year and given California’s financial crisis, all 50 states will more than likely receive an F in affordability (California’s grade in 2008 was C-, the only state with a passing grade in affordability but one in which the trend was downward). 

The Measuring Up 2008 report provided constant dollar figures showing the increases since 1982-84 in the United States in the Consumer Price Index (106%), Median Family Income (147%), Medical Care (251%), and College Tuition and Fees (439%). 

The data in Figure 5 of the report was used to demonstrate in subsequent tables how the increases in college tuition and fees had outpaced family income and other costs to create a situation where a college education was essentially unaffordable for members of the lowest two quintiles of family income.  The Measuring Up reports provide additional data from time to time.  It will be interesting to see if this year’s report provides any commentary related to the March 2009 Challenge to States report.  Based on many of the articles that I read regarding state higher education financial challenges, I doubt that many states followed many of the principles and recommendations in the report.  Given that President Obama has recommended another stimulus act for colleges, perhaps recommendations from this report could be utilized as guidelines for dispensing further funds otherwise as a country, we will continue to expand the gap of access and affordability in higher education for many of our citizens.

The “myths” that AMU or APU are diploma mills or unaccredited are invalid.  In most cases, the myths are more than likely disseminated by individuals who do not care for online colleges and universities.  Faculty and staff members of accredited institutions that operate partially online or totally online have heard the negative perceptions about online education for years and have worked hard to demonstrate the evidence that supports learning in online programs.  A May 2009 study published by the U.S. Department of Education entitled Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning:  A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies stated that students learn better in online programs than in face-to-face programs .  The researchers examined over 1,000 published research papers involving online and face-to-face learners.

The FACTS about AMU’s existence and accreditation are irrefutable.  AMU is one of two universities that form the American Public University System (APUS).  APUS is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association (NCA), one of eight regional accrediting bodies in the United States and the largest regional accrediting body in terms of the number of colleges that it accredits.  You can find our name, accreditation status, and other pertinent information listed on its website at:   http://hlcommission.org/component/option,com_directory/Action,ShowBasic/Itemid,184/instid,2853/lang,en/.     Among the 1,000 plus colleges and universities accredited by NCA are the University of Chicago, the University of Notre Dame, and Northwestern University.  The accreditation process is lengthy and complex and includes many visits by very well educated academics.  A diploma mill would not survive such a review process.  The American Public University System has also been accredited by the Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council since 1995.  The link for AMU is at this address:  http://detc.org/school_details.php?id=169.  APUS is licensed in West Virginia and Virginia which are the two states where we have offices with our administrative and academics leadership and staff.  We have over 60,000 students and over 10,000 alumni.  Two-thirds of our students are active duty military personnel.  The Department of Defense requires all colleges and universities that participate in its tuition assistance program to be accredited and licensed by a recognized accrediting body.

Additionally, APUS has over 1200 faculty members whose names and credentials are listed on our website.  These professionals would not stake their reputation by working for a diploma mill or unaccredited institution.  Our faculty and staff present at many conferences each year and proudly list their affiliation.  Most, if not all, of these conferences would not accept presenters from unaccredited institutions. 

Lastly, whenever anyone has a concern about a statement that is made about our accreditation, please do not hesitate to contact our Office of Institutional Advancement at accreditation@apus.edu.  They will be glad to help you set the record straight.

The authors point out that for an individual to make a change, changes must be made in their environment, heart, and mind.  Unfortunately for most of us, the heart and the mind generally do not agree.  The Heaths cite more than a few psychological studies that profile the conflicts and benefits between the emotional and rational sides of our thinking.  In order to make change successful, both sides have to be satisfied.  Companies have people who are more emotional and people who are more rational.  Successful teams need to recommend solutions that meet the needs of both of those emotional/rational profiles.

The Heaths have a three-pronged framework for initiating successful change.  They refer to the heart/emotional side as the Elephant, the mind/rational side as the Rider, and the environment as the Path.  Simplistically, their theory is that Riders need direction.  What is sometimes perceived as resistance is in reality a lack of clarity.  Elephants may appear to be lazy when in reality they may be exhausted from trying to keep up with the Riders in the group.  Appealing to their emotions rather than ignoring them will help move them toward the change.  Lastly, individuals who can shape the Path, i.e., change the environment around the situation, will move the Riders and the Elephants toward making the change.

Dan and Chip introduce their framework concept early in the book and provide a significant amount of content with psychological studies that support their theory and practical examples that demonstrate how individuals were able to make changes happen through either influencing the Riders, Elephants, Paths, or all three.  One of my favorite chapters entitled “Shrink the Change” is about making the change seem smaller so that the Elephant can be persuaded to move rather than resist the change.  According to the authors, “when you engineer early successes, what you’re really doing is engineering hope.”

I enjoyed reading Switch.  Once again, the Heaths have taken a topic related to psychology, built a framework, and grounded it with a simplistic explanation of the theory and research and supported it with numerous examples of successes of the framework’s components.  It’s an easy-to-read book and one that might easily be pulled off the shelf and re-read before initiating the next change project in your company or at home.