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

Baccalaureate origins of doctoral recipients

Here's a little data for you: 61 years of it, to be precise.  The National Science Foundation publishes its data on US doctoral recipients sliced a variety of ways, including some non-restricted public use files that are aggregated at a high level to protect privacy. The interface is a little quirky, and if you're doing large sets, you need to break it into pieces (this was three extracts of about 20 years each), but it may be worth your time to dive in. I merged the data set with my mega table of IPEDS data, which allows you to look at institutions on a more granular level:  It's not surprising to find that University of Washington graduates have earned more degrees than graduates of Whitman College, for instance.  So, you can filter the data by Carnegie type, region or state, or control, for instance; or you can look at all 61 years, or any range of years between 1958 and 2018 and combine it with broad or specific academic fields using the controls. High school and indep

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

So you think you're going back to the SAT and ACT?

Now that almost every university in the nation has gone test-optional for the 2021 cycle out of necessity, a nagging question remains: How many will go back to requiring tests as soon as it's possible?  No one knows, but some of the announcements some colleges made sounded like the kid who only ate his green beans to get his screen time: They did it, but they sure were not happy about it.  So we have some suspicions about the usual suspects. I don't object to colleges requiring tests, of course, even though I think they're not very helpful, intrinsically biased against certain groups, and a tool of the vain.  You be you, though, and don't let me stop you. However, there is a wild card in all of this: The recent court ruling prohibiting the University of California system from even using--let alone requiring--the SAT or ACT in admissions decisions next fall.  If you remember, the Cal State system had already decided to go test blind, and of course community colleges in