Skip to main content

Are we all doomed?

If you follow media following higher education, you know that for a while, many have been (somewhat gleefully) predicting the demise of the whole industry.  High costs, MOOCs, a weak job market, and shrinking confidence in the value of a college degree are all conspiring, they would say, to create a perfect storm that will be the end of us all.

I'm not saying these people are wrong;  you can get in trouble arguing with self-proclaimed prophets, and until something either comes to fruition or it doesn't, all you have is a lot of heated discussion. Personally, I take exception to the smugness of some who seem to revel in their predictions.

But that is, as they say, why they make chocolate and vanilla.

The heat (if not the light) increased this week when Sweet Briar College in Virginia announced it was closing.  The pundits came out of the woodwork, proclaiming that this was just the first domino to fall, all the time apparently reveling in this presumptive proof of their collective acumen in predicting such things.

But a look at publicly available data makes it hard to predict such things; many colleges soldier on despite numbers that make them look vulnerable, while a college like Sweet Briar, which occupied a pretty good position on the second chart, below, found itself a victim of the most obvious college problem, namely enrollment that was not large enough to support itself.

You might think that Sweet Briar is the first of many.  You could say the industry is collapsing.  And you might be right.

But it seems there is nothing a prophet likes to point at more than evidence he might be right.  There is no one saying (yet) some of the other possible reasons things might have gone south, even though there is much more attention paid to this college than the one per month that has closed since 1969. If it later turns out (and I have no reason to believe it will) that this was a board with no vision, or a horrible case of mismanagement, or one of dozens of other possible reasons we can point to, the pundits are unlikely to correct what they're suggesting today.

So take a look at this.  On the first chart, you can see the array of colleges and universities, and with a click of a bubble, find out who's where.  On the second, you can put any college in context with a couple of clicks.  Have fun. Don't get too worked up over what you see.  It's not destiny.

As for me, I'll tell you what Mark Twain once said: “I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn’t know.”  And I'm sticking to it.

Note: It's important to remember that IPEDS data that this is built with contains errors on occasion; don't make any bar bets on what you see here, and if your institution is incorrectly listed, take it up with your IR office.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

On Rankings, 1911, and Economic Mobility

If you're alive today, you have lived your whole life with college rankings.  Yes, even you.  You may not have knows you were living in the time of college rankings, but indeed, you have been, unless you were born before 1911 (or maybe earlier.)  If you're interested, you can read this Twitter thread from 2020 where I discuss them and include snippets of those 1911 rankings as well as those from 1957, written by Chesley Manly. You can read for yourself, or you can trust me, that in fact the rankings as we know them have been surprisingly consistent over time, and most people would have only minor quibbles with the ratings from 1911.  Perhaps that's because they have always tended to measure the same thing. But what if we did different rankings?  No, not like the Princeton Review where they make an attempt to measure best party school, or best cafeteria food, or worst social life.  Something more quantifiable and concrete, although still, admittedly, a hard thing to get rig

Freshman Migration, 1986 to 2020

(Note: I discovered that in IPEDS, Penn State Main Campus now reports with "The Pennsylvania State University" as one system.  So when you'd look at things over time, Penn State would have data until 2018, and then The Penn....etc would show up in 2020.  I found out Penn State main campus still reports its own data on the website, so I went there, and edited the IPEDS data by hand.  So if you noticed that error, it should be corrected now, but I'm not sure what I'll do in years going forward.) Freshman migration to and from the states is always a favorite visualization of mine, both because I find it a compelling and interesting topic, and because I had a few breakthroughs with calculated variables the first time I tried to do it. If you're a loyal reader, you know what this shows: The number of freshman and their movement between the states.  And if you're a loyal viewer and you use this for your work in your business, please consider supporting the costs