College study time: low priority

Declining Study Time Signals Falling Standards, Report Says (Chronicle of Higher Education)

The amount of time spent studying has fallen drastically among full-time students in all demographic groups, whether they work or not, at all types of four-year colleges, according to a report released on Thursday by the American Enterprise Institute. The report, "Leisure College, USA," cites data from various national surveys to show that the average student studied 24 hours a week in 1961 and 14 hours a week in 2003. Colleges' "standards for effort have plummeted" as they cater to students' preferences for leisure, the report says, a shift that may slow economic growth. But there's good news: "College is cheaper than most people think." Modern college students' time savings, the report says, more than compensate for increased tuition.

Graphs from "Leisure College, USA"

We’ve long carped about this particular phenomenon. We last did so two months ago: More absurdo-scandalosity: for-profit universities and credit inflation

The SOCCCD board pulls an agenda switcheroo: IVC dean position approved

     I just realized that the board had at some point revised the agenda for yesterday’s special meeting. The following item had been added:

     I’ve been told that the discussion yesterday was very heated and that, in the end, there were four votes in favor of the dean position (i.e., it was approved). I don't know, but, based on the discussion of the July 26 meeting, it would seem likely that the vote would have been Wagner/Padberg/Jay/Milchiker in favor with Fuentes/Lang/Williams against.
     At last week’s board meeting, the discussion of this item became quite ugly. The item (actually, a portion of a larger item) was tabled. See "I would urge caution".
     Assuming that the board followed the Brown Act, this agenda revision illustrates one of the weaknesses of that law. I had assumed that the originally posted agenda was final. If I had known they were going to discuss the dean position, I would have attended the meeting. Sheesh.

The “student recruitment experience” at for-profit colleges: my, my, my

Shellacking the For-Profits (Inside Higher Ed)

     Senate Democrats made it clear Wednesday that their examination of for-profit higher education has only just begun, and that they plan to pursue legislation aimed at reining what they see as the sector’s dishonest – if not fraudulent – practices.
     At a hearing on the “student recruitment experience” at for-profit colleges that began Wednesday morning and carried on through the mid-afternoon, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, outlined plans to hold more hearings on the sector, to collect broad sets of information from for-profit colleges, and to begin drafting legislation aimed at cleaning up the sector.
     “Education is too important for the future of this country,” he said. “Facing the budget problems we have in the next 10 years, we just can't permit more and more of the taxpayers' dollars that are supposed to go for education and quality education … to be going to pay shareholders or private investors.”
     Much of Harkin’s motivation came from the findings of a Government Accountability Office “secret shopper” investigation of recruiting practices at 15 for-profit campuses, the results of which – including a powerful videotape visible [above] – were officially released at the start of the hearing. The probe identified “fraudulent, deceptive or otherwise questionable marketing practices” at all 15 institutions, and inducements to commit fraud on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid at four institutions. Coupled with a former recruiter’s account of his experience on the job, the evidence presented at the hearing depicted an industry aggressively and universally going after “leads” and “starts” with the institutional objective of securing federal financial aid dollars….

Oops

At the OC Fair