2004 Higher Ed Overview

An Overview

Diversity,Access,United States:

of Higher Educationin the

American Council on EducationThe Unifying Voice for Higher Education

and the

Role of the Marketplace

By Peter D. Eckel and Jacqueline E. King

American Council on Education

ACE and the American Council on Education are registered marks of the American Council on Education.

American Council on EducationOne Dupont Circle NWWashington, DC 20036

This publication originally appeared as a chapter in J. Forest and P. Altbach (Eds.), The International Handbook of Higher Education (two volumes), published by Springer. Available at http://www.springeronline.com.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

The Distinctive Characteristics of U.S. Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Size and Composition of U.S. Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Curriculum and Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Faculty and Their Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

University Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Student Life and Athletics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Marketplace (Not Government) as Key External Driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Higher Education as an Engine of Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Other Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table of Contents

higher education borrows its structure from both the British

undergraduate college and German research university, but its

character is profoundly influenced by three major philosophical

beliefs that shape American public life.1 Informed by the Jeffersonian ideals of limited

government and freedom of expression, states, religious communities, and individuals

established and maintain a range of higher education institutions and continue to protect

these institutions from the levels of government control seen in most other countries.

The second set of influences is capitalism and the belief in the rationality of markets.

American colleges and universities vie for students, faculty, and funding under the

assumption that diversity and high quality are best achieved through competition rather

than centralized planning. The final major philosophical influence on American higher

education is a widespread commitment to equal opportunity and social mobility. Higher

education was an elite activity for much of its history, excluding individuals based on

gender, religion, race/ethnicity, and social class. However, during the 20th century,

economic and social changes transformed higher education into a primary gateway to the

middle-class, and women and minorities made inroads against longstanding exclusion

from mainstream higher education. Americans came to view broad access to higher

education as a necessary component of the nations ideal as a land of opportunity.

Higher education responded by broadening access. Indeed, the one uniquely American

type of institutionthe community collegewas founded in the 20th century to ensure

open access to higher education for individuals of all ages, preparation levels, and incomes.

Guided by these beliefs, U.S. higher education reflects essential elements of the

American character: independence, suspicion of government, ambition, inclusiveness,

and competitiveness. This publication describes the major characteristics of American

higher education and important issues that challenge it, linking back as appropriate to

these essential philosophical underpinnings.

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n i i i

Introduction

1 In the United States, several important terms differ in meaning from most of the rest of the world. The term college refers to an institution that typicallyawards only undergraduate degrees. The term faculty can refer either to an individual professor or to all instructors (e.g., The Harvard faculty approveda new degree program.)

U.S.

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n 1

ecause American higher educa-tion is so diverse and complex,any description of standardpractice inevitably misstatesmuch about individual colleges

and universities. Indeed, important exceptions to most of the characteristicsdescribed in this paper exist. Nonetheless,this section provides an overview of howmost colleges and universities are governedand financed, their students and faculty,and the nature of the curriculum and student life.

Size and Composition of U.S. Higher EducationIn addition to diversity, autonomy, com-petition, and accessibility, size is a distin-guishing feature of U.S. higher education.The U.S. Department of Education counts6,500 postsecondary institutions that participate in its student financial aid programs, including 4,200 colleges anduniversities that award degrees and 2,300institutions that award vocational certifi-cates. These 6,500 institutions enrolledapproximately 16 million full- and part-time students, including 14 million under-graduates and 2 million graduate and professional students, in fall 2001. The4,200 colleges and universities awardedmore than 2.4 million degrees in academicyear 200001. In addition, an untold number of other institutions offer post-secondary instruction of some typebut do not choose to participate in the

The Distinctive Characteristics ofU.S. Higher Education

B federal student aid programs and thereforeare not counted by the federal government(U.S. Department of Education, 2003).Degree-granting institutions are typically divided into four major groups,and a considerable amount of diversityexists within each group: Americas 1,100 public two-year insti-

tutions, or community colleges, enrollthe largest share of undergraduates (6 million students in 2001). Theseinstitutions award associate degrees invocational fields, prepare students fortransfer to four-year institutions, andserve their communities by providing awide array of educational services.These services range from specializedtraining for large employers, to Englishlanguage instruction for recent immi-grants, to recreational courses. Almost4 million students attended communitycolleges part-time in 2001. The U.S.government does not track enrollmentfigures for noncredit adult education orrecreational courses, but the AmericanAssociation of Community Collegesestimates that an additional 5 millionstudents enroll in these types of coursesat community colleges every year.

There are only 630 public four-year colleges and universities in the UnitedStates. But these institutionswhichinclude regional comprehensive universities that concentrate on under-graduate teaching and graduate preparation in professional fields such

2 A N O V E R V I E W O F H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S

as teaching and business, as well asresearch universities that offer a comprehensive set of undergraduate,graduate, and professional degree programsenrolled 6.2 million students in 2001. This figure includes 5 million undergraduates and slightlymore than 1 million graduate students.2

Private not-for-profit institutions areextremely diverse, including researchuniversities, four-year liberal arts colleges that focus on undergraduateteaching, a small number of two-yearinstitutions, faith-based institutionsthat maintain strong links with religious denominations, womens colleges, historically black colleges and universities, and specialized institutions that focus on a single field,such as nursing or fine arts. Privatenot-for-profit institutions enrolled 3.2 million students in 2001, including2.3 million undergraduates and morethan 700,000 graduate students.

For-profit institutions primarily offervocational programs that result in certificates rather than degrees. Of themore than 2,400 for-profit institutionscounted by the U.S. Department ofEducation, 500 offer two-year associatedegrees and 320 offer bachelorsand/or graduate degrees. In total, for-profit institutions enrolled morethan 750,000 students in 2001, all but 50,000 of whom were at the undergraduate level.

Table 1 provides an overview of enroll-ment in each of these four sectors. Thislarge number and wide range of institu-tions offer both access and choicetwohallmarks of American higher educationthat respond to the previously describedvalue placed on opportunity and faith inthe market.

Table 1. U.S. Postsecondary Institutions and Enrollments: Fall 2001

Public Private Private TotalNot-for-Profit For-Profit

Institutions 2,099 1,941 2,418 6,458Four-Year 629 1,567 324 2,520Two-Year 1,165 269 779 2,213Less than Two-Year 305 105 1,315 1,725

Enrollment 12,370,079 3,198,354 765,701 16,334,134Four-Year 6,236,486 3,120,472 321,468 9,678,426Two-Year 6,047,445 63,207 241,617 6,352,269Less than Two-Year 86,148 14,675 202,616 303,439

2 The number of graduate and undergraduate students does not add to the total number of students because some students may take courses outside a

formal degree program and, in other cases, the degree level of students was not reported.


GovernanceAnother of the philosophical underpin-nings of U.S. higher education is theJeffersonian notion of limited and, whenever possible, locally controlled government. Based on this model, the U.S. Constitution reserves for the states all government functions not specificallydescribed as federal. Among those func-tions is education. As a result, each of the50 states is responsible for governing public colleges and universities (whichenroll 75 percent of students), rather thanthe federal government. The degree ofcontrol by the states varies tremendously.Some institutions, such as the Universityof California and the University ofMichigan, enjoy constitutional autonomyas separate branches of state government.At the other extreme, locally electedboards of trustees govern some commu-nity colleges. In some states, a governingboard appointed by the governor and/orlegislature oversees all institutions, settingfunding levels, establishing accountabilitymeasures, setting policies, and approvingnew academic programs. In others, thestate board plays only an advisory functionand has little direct authority over institu-tions. In many others, a state agency ispoised between the institutions and stategovernment, implementing statewide policy but also attempting to insulate institutions from ill-advised or overlyintrusive state policies.

Some public universities are part of statewide multi-campus systems inwhich an additional layer of oversightexists between the campus and state government. System administrators mayoversee campus budgets, set policies such as admissions standards, coordinatedegree programs, and facilitate credittransfer and articulation between thestates public colleges and universities.Additionally, and importantly, they

advocate to the legislature on behalf ofpublic colleges and universities. In somestates, more than one multi-campus system exists, such as Californias distinctsystems of community colleges, compre-hensive state colleges and universities,and research universities.

Because the Constitution does notmention education as a federal responsi-bility, the federal government plays a lim-ited role and the United States has neverhad an education ministry, such as thosefound in most other countries. With theimportant exception of the Morrill LandGrant Act of 1862, which donated federalterritory to the states for the establish-ment of public universities, the federal gov-ernment played almost no role in highereducation until the middle of the 20thcentury, when World War II necessitatedthe establishment of federal funding forscientific research at colleges and univer-sities to build U.S. military capacity. In1944, President Franklin Roosevelt signedthe G.I. Bill of Rights, which grantedreturning veterans funding to attend col-lege as a way to integrate servicemen backinto the U.S. workforce. As the civil rightsmovement took hold in the 1960s, the fed-eral role in supporting students expandedto include grant and loan programs forlow- and moderate-income students. Sincethat time, federal support has expanded sothat it is now the primary financier of both scientific research and student financialaid.

While the federal government generally does not provide direct operational support to colleges and uni-versities, this special-purpose funding isan extremely important revenue sourceand, in turn, has increased the ability ofthe federal government to influence colleges and universities in areas outsideresearch and financial aid. For example, inorder for institutions to participate in the


financial aid programs, they must complywith a wide range of federal reportingrequirements on topics ranging fromteacher preparation to gender equity inintercollegiate athletics. However, despitethe growing influence of the federal gov-ernment, its role is still limited and hasnot yet intruded into core academic decisions, which are generally left to theinstitutions and, in the case of some public institutions, the states.

Two sets of voluntary organizations actas bulwarks against excessive governmentcontrol of higher education: accreditingorganizations that monitor quality assur-ance, and membership associations thatrepresent institutions to the federal andstate governments. Accrediting organiza-tions are membership organizations of colleges and universities and rely on volunteers who work at colleges and universities and who agree to assist otherinstitutions by providing evaluationthrough peer review. There are threetypes of accrediting organizations: region-al organizations, which review the qualityof entire institutions and focus almostexclusively on public and private not-for-profit degree-granting institutions;national organizations, which monitor thequality of most for-profit and nondegree-granting institutions; and specializedaccrediting organizations, which evaluateacademic programs within a specific fieldsuch as medicine, law, or teacher education.

American accreditation differs fromthe type of quality assurance conducted by governments in most other countries.Federal and state governments can and doimpose their own accountability require-ments on institutions, but they generallyhave left the assessment of academic quality to institutions themselves throughthe self-study and peer review processes ofaccreditation. The federal government, inparticular, relies on recognized regional

and national accreditation organizationsto determine whether institutions are ofsufficient academic quality and manage-rial soundness to merit inclusion in thefederal student financial aid programs.When the U.S. Department of Educationofficially recognizes an accrediting organi-zation, it certifies that the organizationadequately monitors quality in areas mandated by the federal government, suchas fiscal soundness and managerial compe-tence, fair admissions and recruiting prac-tices, and evidence of student success.

Accrediting organizations establishminimum standards that institutions mustmeet in a range of areas such as the curri-cula, faculty qualifications, student learningoutcomes, co-curricular student services,and financial health. Accrediting organi-zations do not, however, mandate howinstitutions go about meeting those stan-dards. Further, because accreditationmeasures institutions against a set of standards, it generally does not provide a gauge of how well an institution is performing relative to other institutions.Accreditation is accomplished throughinstitutional self-study and a peer reviewprocess to determine whether the institu-tion has met the organizations standards.Accreditors typically review institutionson a three- to five-year basis (Eaton, 2000).

Membership associations, which canhave either institutions or individuals(such as business officers) as members,represent the interests of colleges and universities to the federal governmentand, in some cases, state governments.Many colleges and universities alsoemploy their own staff to advocate forthem, but in most cases, those staff workonly on issues of concern to the individualinstitution, such as state appropriations orfederal research contracts for the institu-tion. Membership associations championthose public policies that are in the


collective best interest of either all or somemajor segment of higher education. InWashington, DC, colleges and universitiesare represented by hundreds of organiza-tions, which also provide networking andprofessional development opportunitiesfor their members.

FinanceColleges and universities are financed inways consistent with both the Jeffersonianideal of limited government and the beliefthat market competition tends to improvequality and efficiency. While governmentplays a very important role in financing,American colleges and universities aresupported further by diverse revenuesources that reflect the market choices of students and parents as well as otherconsumers of the goods and services thatinstitutions provide. The major sources ofrevenue include tuition and fee paymentsfrom students and families (including thegovernment-backed financial aid that students use to pay tuition); appropria-tions, grants, and contracts from federal,state, and local governments; private gifts;endowment and other investment earn-ings; and sales from auxiliary enterprisesand services.

Some of these sources are more important to some types of institutionsthan to others. For example, local govern-ments account for 18 percent of revenue at community colleges but 1 percent of revenue at private not-for-profit institu-tions. Similarly, private gifts contribute 14 percent of revenue to private not-for-profit institutions, but only 1 percent of revenue to community colleges (U.S.Department of Education, 2003). Whilethe revenue sources of American institu-tions are diverse, two sources are of part-icular importance to most institutions:state appropriations, particularly for public institutions; and tuition and fees.

These two sources (along with local app-ropriations at community colleges and federal research grants and contracts atresearch universities) provide the bulk offunds for general operating expenses. Oneof the perennial questions in Americanhigher education finance is how much ofthe cost of education should be borne bygovernment, and how much by studentsand families.

Traditionally, state appropriationshave made up the bulk of institutional revenue at public institutions, but they arediminishing both as a share of state expen-ditures and as a percentage of institutionalrevenue. In response, state governmentsand public institutions have raised tuition,shifting the responsibility from taxpayers

One of the perennial questions in American highereducation finance is how much of the cost of education should be borne by government, and howmuch by students and families.

to students. In most states, higher educa-tion is the third largest item in the budget,after health care and elementary/secondaryeducation. Because health care costs areescalating rapidly and voters demand thatspending on elementary/secondaryschools be protected, higher educationfalls logically into legislators sights whenthey are forced to make budget cuts. Notonly does higher education represent a significant portion of state budgets, but(unlike other programs such as prisons) it has a natural alternative source of revenuetuition payments from parentsand students. Typically, in good economictimes, states will raise appropriations tocolleges and universities and demand that,in return, institutions keep tuitionincreases low. When the economy is in


trouble and state tax revenue falls, statescut spending on higher education andexpect institutions to make up the difference through tuition increases.

Private donations from individuals andcorporations provide another source ofrevenue for American colleges and univer-sities that is typically not found outsidethe United States. Total voluntary supportfor higher education, encouraged by theU.S. tax structure, surpassed $23 billionin fiscal year 2003, of which $11 billionwas donated by individuals (Council forAid to Education, 2004). To this end,many colleges and universities constructsophisticated approaches to fund raising,and college and university presidents dedicate much of their time to raising private gifts.

A significant and growing set of expenditures at many private not-for-profitinstitutions is institutional financial aid,sometimes called tuition discounting.Private colleges have a long tradition of providing financial assistance to low-income students. In addition, most ofthese institutions (and, increasingly, manypublic institutions as well) have turned to institutional financial aid to attract students who may be able to pay the fullprice but who are unwilling to attend without a discount. For some institutions,tuition discounting is a way to competewith other institutions for the best andbrightest. For others, it is a necessarypractice that fills enrollment places thatotherwise would remain vacant. In eithercase, these discounts contribute toincreases in the posted or sticker price.

All institutions face real increases in the cost of providing education.Technology and equipment costs are rising, as are the prices of journals andbooks, health care for employees, andbuilding maintenance. Institutions areworking to update and expand facilities

and services to meet student demand forstate-of-the-art technology, small classsizes, and world-class academic and recreational facilities.

In the face of these increased costs and reduced revenue from states and other sources, universities and collegeshave three options. They can cut back,improve efficiencies, and/or generate newrevenue. For the most part, institutions areengaged in some combination of all three.They cut back by reducing travel and equipment purchases, postponing salaryincreases, leaving vacant faculty andadministrative positions, reducing adminis-trative and support staff, and postponingbuilding and renovation. Rarely do institutions cut academic programs.

Institutions also strive to become moreefficient. Much of this effort focuses onadministrative and student service functions, such as lowering electricalusage, streamlining purchasing and procurement processes, and alteringfinancial systems. Some institutions arepursuing efficiencies in academic areas,such as using technology to reach morestudents, increasing class size, and hiringadjunct instructors. However, most efficiencies are being sought outside theclassroom.

Finally, American colleges and univer-sities are pursuing many efforts to diversifyand expand their revenue streams, such asdeveloping online education and niche-oriented degree and non-degree academicprograms, expanding research capacities,engaging in licensing and sponsorshipagreements, and pursuing auxiliary enter-prises, such as managing real estate andrunning conference centers. Because aprimary source of additional revenue isstudent tuition and fees, they have risen attwice the rate of inflation over the past 20 years, outstripping increases in bothfamily income and financial aid resources.


The implications of increasing pricesfor students and families are a matter ofconstant policy debate. Despite tuitionincreases, demand for higher educationcontinues to increase. Further, a widearray of government and private financialaid programs provides assistance to stu-dents, based on both financial need andacademic merit. Financial aid to studentstotaled more than $105 billion in 200203,including $71 billion in federal grants,loans, and tax credits; $6 billion in stategrants; and $20 billion in grants providedby colleges and universities, as well as private organizations (College Board,2003). Despite these resources, accessand success in higher education continueto be stratified according to income, withstudents at the upper end of the incomespectrum far more likely to attend collegeand earn a degree than those from disad-vantaged backgrounds. Of course, manyfactors play into college access and suc-cess, not the least of which is studentslevel of prior academic preparation.Because the quality of U.S. elementaryand secondary schools varies widelydepending on the wealth of communities,tuition prices alone cannot be blamed for disparities in education opportunity.However, even if low-income students areable to overcome the academic and finan-cial barriers to enrolling in college, theirability to succeed once enrolled can beimpeded because they must work andattend part time in order to pay theirtuition, suggesting that financial mattersplay a crucial role.

StudentsDespite increases in the price of attendingcollege, the American student populationcontinues to grow rapidly in both size anddiversity. As noted previously, there aremore than 16 million individuals seekingdegrees at U.S. postsecondary institutionsand an estimated 5 million additional students enrolled in noncredit courses.American college students are diverse inage, race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomicstatus, and academic interests. The majorityof undergraduate students are women and

Despite increases in the price of attending college,the American student population continues to growrapidly in both size and diversity.

one-third are racial or ethnic minorities.More than 40 percent are age 25 or older(U.S. Department of Education, 2002b).About 20 percent come from families withincomes at or below the federal povertylevel (King, 2004). Three out of fourAmerican college students are considerednontraditionalthat is, they possess one or more of the following characteristics:They are age 25 or older, have delayedentry into higher education after completing high school, did not earn a traditional high school diploma, are married, attend part time, work full time,or have children (U.S. Department ofEducation, 2002a). Eighty percent of students work during the academic year.Half attend part time (U.S. Department ofEducation, 2002b).

In part because most nontraditionalstudents juggle college attendance withwork and family responsibilities, it isbecoming increasingly unusual for students to enroll at one institution and remain there for their entire


undergraduate career. Sixty percent ofbachelors degree recipients attend morethan one institution. In about half of thesecases, the student formally transfers fromone institution to another. The most common form of transfer is from a commu-nity college to a four-year institution. Inthe remaining half of these cases, studentsmay maintain their primary enrollment atone institution but also take classes atother institutions, sometimes attendingtwo different institutions simultaneously.Students also may move among multipleinstitutions, often suspending enrollment(or stopping out) for some period beforeenrolling at a new institution.

This student mobility is possiblebecause the American system of highereducation uses a common currency tomeasure academic progressthe credit.Students earn credits toward their degreesby completing courses. These credits canthen typically be transferred to anotherinstitution if the receiving institutionagrees that the academic rigor and materialin the courses is roughly equivalent to itsown similar courses. Many institutionsdevelop transfer or articulation agree-ments to help facilitate student mobility,determining in advance which courses areof equivalent value. Institutions struggleto balance the goal of expanding access byallowing students to take classes whereand when they want with the need to main-tain the academic integrity of their degreeprograms and capture much-neededtuition revenue.

Although American college studentsenjoy a level of mobility unknown to mostof their peers around the world, they stillmust compete for admission to the moreselective colleges and universities.American higher education includes institutions with a wide range of admis-sions selectivity, from open-access

two- and four-year institutions that admitall students, to highly selective research universities and liberal arts colleges thatadmit only a small fraction of those whoapply. Many students apply to more thanone college or university and enroll in onefrom among those that offer them admis-sion. Admissions decisions at selectiveinstitutions are based on a fixed set of academic criteria, including high schoolcoursework, grade point average and classrank, and admissions test score, as well asa more flexible set of nonacademic charac-teristics, such as demonstrated leadershipability, creativity, and community service.Because the United States has no nationalsecondary school curriculum or highschool exit examination, colleges rely on two privately developed admissionsexaminationsthe SAT and ACT. Thesetests, while important, are only one criterion among many that institutionsconsider. Indeed, the admissions decisionsat highly selective institutions are so complex and consider so many factors thatwealthy families often hire private admis-sions counselors to help them anticipatewhich factors a given institution is likely toweigh most heavily and to help their childcraft an application that best meets thosecriteria.

Consistent with American faith in themarket, institutions compete heavily toattract the most talented students. Whilethis competition spurs improvements inquality and keeps institutions focused onmeeting student needs, it also can havenegative effects, sometimes promptinginstitutions to make academic and finan-cial choices that may improve studentrecruitment but that are inconsistent withthe institutions mission, the best interestsof the public, or the long-term financialhealth of the enterprise.


The Curriculum and DegreesFive types of degrees exist in the UnitedStates. Two-year colleges (community colleges) and a small number of four-yearinstitutions grant associate degrees, typically awarded after the completion of 60 credits. Associate degrees may represent a terminal degree in a vocationalfield or may prepare students to completea bachelors degree at a four-year institu-tion. The bachelors degree is by far themost common type of degree awarded,preparing students for most jobs thatrequire a college degree and for furthergraduate study. Three degrees exist at thegraduate level: 1. The masters degree is the most

common type of graduate degree.About 75 percent of graduate studentsare enrolled in masters degree programs, divided roughly evenlyamong students in education, businessadministration, and all other fields(U.S. Department of Education,2002c). A masters degree may haveeither a professional or theoreticalfocus and usually requires a compre-hensive examination and/or thesis or other original piece of work. The masters degree either prepares graduates for future advanced study at the doctoral level or is itself a terminal degree.

2. A professional degree provides access toadvanced professions in fields such aslaw and medicine.

3. The doctoral degree is the highest academic award and recognizes thegraduates ability to conduct indepen-dent research. The most commondegree of this type is the doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.), but it also includesthe doctor of education (Ed.D.).

No national laws govern the titles ofdegrees, although each state typically regulates the level of degree that institutions located within its borders can award. Each institution has the autonomy to determine its own programrequirements, typically following broaddegree guidelines set by the states or byspecialized accrediting agencies.

The bachelors degree is by far the most commontype of degree awarded, preparing students for mostjobs that require a college degree and for furthergraduate study.

The undergraduate curriculum typicallyconsists of two componentsgeneral education and the major field of study(the major). The purpose of general education is to provide students withbroad knowledge and prepare them to beengaged and informed citizens. Generaleducation is delivered predominantlythrough either a core curriculum, inwhich all undergraduate students take the same courses, or an elective or distri-butive format, in which students choosecourses from a pre-specified list repre-senting a range of topics (such as science,art and aesthetic appreciation, mathe-matics, humanities, etc.). General edu-cation requirements typically constitutebetween one-quarter and one-half of a students courses, depending upon theinstitution and the students major. Theother courses include those related to themajor. Students choose their major eitherupon enrolling or after completing theirsecond year of studies, depending uponinstitutional policy. Students may changetheir majors if their interests change andkeep most of their credits earned towardtheir degree.

1 0 A N O V E R V I E W O F H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S

Although most institutions continue to rely on a traditional nine-month (twosemesters) academic calendar, many colleges and universities are innovatingwith their academic calendars, and addi-tionally offer short month-long courses,overlapping semesters, and courses in acondensed weekend format, as they try tocreate programs that meet student needsand schedules.

Faculty and Their AppointmentsMore than 1 million academic staff (faculty) work at American colleges anduniversities. Faculty appointments may befull time or part time and may be tenured/tenure-track or nontenure-track. Tenureis an academic employment arrangement,granted after a probationary period, thatensures holders a series of rights, includ-ing academic freedom and participationin institutional governance. It oftenimplies continuous employment, barringdismissals for cause or financial exigency.Not all academic positions carry tenure.See Table 2 for a list of faculty titles in thetenure and nontenure tracks.

Faculty responsibilities typically fallinto three basic categories: teaching,research, and service to the campusand/or community. However, faculty jobsare by no means uniform, and the timeand attention that faculty devote to these

three roles depend upon the mission of the institution at which they work, their academic discipline, and their rank andcareer stage. For example, faculty at com-munity colleges more often tend to teachand be engaged in service activities, whilemany senior faculty at research universi-ties spend more time engaged in researchthan in the other two areas.

Thirty-eight percent of all full-time faculty are women, but women hold only21 percent of full professorships. At theassistant professor rank, 46 percent of full-time faculty are women. However,womens larger presence at the juniorranks does not guarantee future propor-tionality at senior ranks. The number of full-time faculty from racial/ethnicminority groups almost doubled over thelast 20 years, yet only 14 percent of all full-time faculty are racial/ethnic minori-ties. The largest minority group is AsianAmerican/Pacific Islander, comprising 6 percent of the total full-time faculty population, with African Americans at 5 percent, Hispanics at 3 percent, andNative Americans at less than half of 1 percent (Harvey, 2003).

In 1999, according to an AmericanCouncil on Education study (Anderson,2002), approximately half of all facultywere employed part time and/or in nontenure-track positions. These faculty

Table 2. Faculty Rank and Titles, by Tenure/Nontenure Track

Tenured/Tenure Track Nontenure Track

Full Time Professor LecturerAssociate Professor InstructorAssistant Professor Professor of PracticeResearch Professor Research Professor

Part Time Professor Emeritus Adjunct ProfessorLecturerInstructor

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n 1 1

include those who are qualified for andseek full-time, tenure-track appointmentsyet do not obtain them, as well as individ-uals who do not have doctorates and/orteach in addition to other professionalresponsibilities. Debate and discussioncontinue to focus on the increasing use of part-time and nontenure-track faculty.Much of this growth accommodatesincreasing student enrollments. Anotherimportant reason for hiring part-time andnontenure-track faculty is to reduce personnel costs and increase institutionalflexibility in course offerings, as these faculty can be hired and fired as interest in their academic fields ebbs and flows.However, critics charge that reliance onpart-time and nontenure-track faculty hashidden institutional and educational costs,lowering quality as these individuals do little student advising and research and do not participate in non-instructionalactivities such as faculty governance.

University AdministrationAlthough the internal organization andstructure of U.S. institutions vary basedupon size and mission, some common elements exist. Lay boards of trustees whotend not to be academics govern most college and universities. These boards arethe legal agents for the institution and areresponsible for ensuring and monitoringits financial health, setting strategy to fulfill its mission, and evaluating bothinstitutional and presidential perform-ance. The size, structure, and appoint-ment of boards vary. For example, someboards of private nonprofit institutionsexceed 50 members. Public institutionboards tend to be much smaller. Accordingto the Association of Governing Boards ofUniversities and Colleges (AGB), the meansize of public boards is approximately 10people and the mean size among

independent institutions is 30. For mostpublic institutions, the state governmenttypically appoints board members, oftenafter nomination by the governor andapproval by the legislature. However, insome states and at many community col-leges, board members are chosen throughgeneral elections. For private institutions,boards select their own members (calledself-perpetuating boards). The length ofboard members terms varies from fouryears to as long as 12 years. In some cases,board members can be reappointed toadditional terms.

Boards hire and delegate much of theadministrative responsibility for managingthe institution to the president (sometimescalled a chancellor). The president isresponsible for providing overall leader-ship to the institution, managing itsfinances and budget, developing and executing the institutions strategic plan,and establishing systems of accountabilityand performance. However, much of thepresidents work lies outside the institution.The president advocates for the institutionsneeds and seeks support from legislativeand other external audiences, meets withalumni and prospective students, developsrelationships with corporations and com-munity groups, and provides the publicpersona of the institution. The presidentserves either at the pleasure of the boardor on a fixed-term contract, eligible forrenewal.

Beyond the president, other senioradministrators provide the leadership forthe institutions various divisions. The typical structure includes academic affairs,responsible for academic programs andresearch; student affairs, overseeing stu-dent services and student life; businessand administration, accountable for thefinancial operations, auxiliary services,and campus facilities; and development,


focusing on fund raising and alumni relations. Within each division, a varietyof deans, directors, and department chairscomplete the administrative structure.Figure 1 provides an overview of a typical college or university administrative structure (American Council onEducation, 2001).

Although presidents have primaryresponsibility for the institution, most rely upon a system of shared governancebetween faculty and administrators for key institutional decisions. The primaryorganizational structure for shared governance is the faculty senate. The senate is responsible for recommendingacademic decisions and policies, such asthose affecting new curricula and courses, degree requirements, and academic hiring and workloads. Its members typically include full-time faculty,although students, administrators, staff,and part-time faculty sometimes partici-pate as well. At some institutions, the senate has the ability to make final decisions; at others, the senate makes recommendations for administrative orboard action. In smaller institutions, allfaculty typically participate in the senate.In larger institutions, senators are elected, frequently representing particular departments or colleges.

Student Life and AthleticsThe U.S. collegiate experience is stronglyshaped by a residential tradition, althoughtoday more than half of undergraduatestudents are older and/or enrolled parttime and less than 20 percent of all under-graduates live on campus. Building uponthe foundations of the British residentialcollege, U.S. institutions have developedan expansive infrastructure to meet theneeds of students. Most four-year colleges

and universities provide housing for students during the academic year. These residence halls, in addition to providing food service and sleepingrooms, provide programming to studentson a variety of topics, both academic andsocial, such as AIDS awareness, alcoholabuse, and study skills. Colleges and universities additionally provide a rangeof student support services, includingpersonal counseling, career placementand advising, recreation and physical fitness, child care, transportation, banking, health care, and tutoring.

Beyond these services, colleges anduniversities host various student organi-zations and clubs, including academicallyfocused groups (such as the NationalSociety of Black Engineers or the PublicRelations Student Society of America), aswell as athletic (such as rugby and waterpolo clubs), cultural and religious (such as the Muslim Student Society orAssociation of Asian Students), and socialorganizations. A familiar type of studentsocial organization is the Greek-letteredfraternity or sorority. Another importantstudent organization is student govern-ment, which is the formal, recognized student advocacy body on campus.However, for the most part, its influenceis limited and its agenda constrained, particularly when compared with similarstudent governments or student unions inLatin America and Europe.

Finally, any discussion of student life at American colleges and universitiesmust include athletics, which plays a major role on manybut not allcampuses. The influence of athletics oncampuses tends to be disproportional tothe small number of student athletes. At institutions with big-time sportsprograms, the athletics budget can reach


Figure 1. The University: Administrative Organization

This diagram illustrates the administrative organization of a large university. The structure of most colleges issimilar, but with a less diversified administration.

* Administrators usually have the title of Dean. Administrators usually have the title of Graduate Dean.

Building & GroundsCampus SecurityReal Estate ManagementSuburban CampusUniversity Engineer

ControllerAuditingBudget SupervisionBursarData ProcessingVeterans Affairs

BookstoreHousing & Food ServicesPurchasing

Fund RaisingBusiness and Industry

CouncilAssociates ProgramNational Council

Legal Counsel Editorial AssistantFederal Relations Administrative Assistant

Alumni Records &Mailing Control Center

Alumni RelationsInformation ServicesUniversity PublicationsUniversity Relations

AdministrativeComputer ServicesAdmissionsEducational ResourcesLibraryOccupational Information CenterOffice ServicesPersonnelRegistrars

Academic ComputerServices

Basic CollegesBusiness Admin.*Education*EngineeringLiberal ArtsNursing*Pharmacy*Bureau of Business &

Economic ResearchCenter for Reading

ImprovementContinuing Education*

Graduate DivisionArts & Sciences Business Admin.Education Pharmaceutical

Sciences Marine Science InstituteMedical SchoolRehabilitation InstituteResearchUniversity College Urban Affairs Office

AthleticsChapelCounseling & TestingDeans of Men, Women,

& FreshmenFinancial AidHealth ServicesStudent ActivitiesStudent Center

Institutional ResearchUniversity Planning

Vice PresidentBusiness

Vice PresidentDevelopment

Vice PresidentUniversity Relations

Vice PresidentUniversity Planning

Accounting

Auxiliary Services

Assistants to thePresident The President ofthe University

The Board ofTrustees

Vice PresidentUniversity Administration

Vice PresidentAcademic Affairs Vice President

Student Affairs


millions of dollars, dwarfing those of academic departments, and coaches ofmens basketball and football teams arefrequently the universitys highest-paidemployees. At these institutions, athleticteams are divided into revenue sports(football, mens and increasingly womensbasketball, and in some cases, ice hockey)3

and nonrevenue sports (for example,track and field, swimming, wrestling,golf, tennis, field hockey, and soccer).The majority of student-athletes participate in the nonrevenue sports. The revenue sports tend to be highly

commercialized, garnering national television coverage and athletic apparelendorsement deals. Athletics on U.S. campuses is a double-edged sword. Insome situations, it can provide a unifyingcatalyst for the institution and its commu-nity and teach its participants valuablelessons. In other situations, it has beendescribed as an unstoppable arms race,exemplifying a winner-take-all attitude,spurring scandal, academic dishonesty,excessive commercialization, abuse of student-athletes, and distraction from theinstitutions academic priorities.

3 Much debate exists as to whether or not these sports ultimately generate actual revenue, given their expenditures.


he introduction to this publica-tion described the fundamentalbelief systems that shape thecharacter of American highereducation and distinguish it from

higher education in other countries. Thissection expands on that discussion,describing how the inherent tensionsamong these central beliefs have createdserious challenges for U.S. higher educa-tion. The section concludes with a shortoverview of additional issues on thenational higher education agenda.

The Marketplace (Not Government) asKey External DriverMany believe that the marketplace hasovertaken state government as the dominantexternal force shaping (and reshaping)American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. As notedearlier, government support is not keepingpace with educational expenditures. Thusin many ways, the market is having morebearing on higher education than govern-ment. To create more flexibility, manypublic colleges and universities are askingfor less government regulation and over-sight. In some instances, they are evenasking for less state money in return formore autonomy. Their argument is thatthe current structures and accountabilityrequirements impede their capacity to beeffective and efficient. The ability to settuition, seek block-grant funding, andsecure freedom from state policies andregulations in areas such as purchasing

Current Challenges ConfrontingU.S. Higher Education

and building represent just some of theadditional autonomy that public institu-tions are seeking. Many are pressing fornew legislation to provide this freedomthrough a range of innovations, includingpublic corporations, charter colleges,state enterprise status, and performancecontracts.

The result is that activities andresearch in certain fields and disciplines(such as engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science) becomehigher institutional priorities because

T

Many believe that the marketplace has overtaken government as the dominant external force shaping(and reshaping) American higher education

they have stronger market value than doother programs (such as humanities).Institutions create new programs, alteracademic calendars, and pursue differentfinancial aid policies to capture more andbetter studentsparticularly those whocan afford to pay high tuition prices. Forinstance, executive MBA programs areincreasingly popular. Institutions seekcontracts and partnership agreements,and enhance research programs with practical applications that have largefinancial payouts. They are changing theirinstitutional structuresfor example, byadding new units that focus on generatingexternal grants and bringing new tech-nology to market, by building conference


centers, and by creating for-profit subsidiaries. The implications of thegrowing privatization are that academicresearch is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurialpriorities are taking precedence, servicesare being outsourced, and students arecarrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition and fees for their education.

Administrators see little option exceptto respond to the marketplace, for if theirinstitution does not react effectively, itwill not have the necessary resources tooffer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to competemay face trying circumstances as publicsupport continues to fall, students becomebetter-informed consumers, and advancesin technology and new entrants into higher education widen the number andreach of competitors. In turn, the abilityto competefor students, resources, faculty, and prestigebecomes a drivingstrategic force. At its extreme, competi-tion can overtake more traditional academic values such as unfetteredinquiry, access and choice for a diversestudent population, and critical socialcommentary. The downside of pursingmarket goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good isthat institutions will no longer be able touphold their part of the social compact toproduce a well-educated citizenry and facethe threat of losing their privileged placein American society as they resemble moreclosely other market-driven organizations.

Higher Education as an Engine ofMobilitySince World War II, U.S. higher educationhas been engaged in a process of massifi-cation, that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivatingthis effort is a widespread belief in thepower of education to create social andeconomic mobility and in the morality andsocial value of making higher educationaccessible to everyone. Longitudinal databear out public perceptions: Young people from low-income backgrounds who complete a bachelors degree have income and employment characteristics aftergraduation equivalent to their peers frommore affluent backgrounds (Choy, 2002).Education truly can be the great equalizer.

Despite widespread public faith in thevalue of higher education, the process ofmassification has not been without itsdetractors, and progress has been slow anduneven. Higher education did not admitsignificant numbers of racial and ethnicminorities until after the civil rights move-ment of the 1960s forced change. Further,despite significant expenditures on finan-cial aid, minority and low-income individ-uals are still less likely to attend collegethan whites or students from middle- andupper-income familiesalthough thesegaps have narrowed somewhat. Despiteprogress in narrowing the access discrepancies, large gaps remain betweencompletion rates. Low-income studentscome to college less prepared, and mustbalance academic demands with work andfamily responsibilities.


Finding ways to increase the enroll-ment rates of low-income students andencourage their success once enrolled aretwo of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meeting these goals isthat they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher educa-tion: market competition and resistance togovernment control. For example, institu-tional competition for the most academi-cally talented students is likely to fosterincreased use of tuition discounting forstudents without financial need, whichcould divert resources away from need-based financial aid for low-income stu-dents. Similarly, institutions may seek todistinguish themselves in the academicmarketplace by becoming more selectivein admissions decisions, thereby reducingthe number of low-income students admitted. A primary role of government in the United States is to mediate thepotentially negative effects of competitionby insisting that institutions adhere totheir missions, providing need-basedfinancial assistance to students, and holding institutions accountable for theirperformance. Institutional resistance togovernment control provides a usefulcheck on the ambitions of government,pushing policy makers to focus on endsrather than means and to leave core academic decisions largely in the hands of institutions. Nonetheless, a constantpreoccupation of American higher educa-tion is this tension between the competi-tive, ambitious nature of institutions andthe interests of government in promotingimportant public goals, primary amongthem broad access and widespread successfor all students.

Other Current IssuesThis section explores some of the otherchallenges currently facing Americanhigher education. This list is not inclu-sive, but rather reflects some of the keyissues creating sleepless nights for academic leaders.

Public colleges and universities are in many waysbecoming private, as the percentage of state funds intheir budgets is droppingin some cases, to less than20 percent.

The Blurring of Institutional Types. Americanhigher education is known for its institu-tional diversity. However, the characteris-tics that make many types of institutionsdistinct are fading. For instance, in somestates, community colleges are seeking tooffer four-year degrees to meet growingdemand for higher education. Public colleges and universities are in many waysbecoming private, as the percentage ofstate funds in their budgets is droppingin some cases, to less than 20 percent.They are soliciting gifts and working tobuild endowments in ways similar to theirprivate counterparts, and are seekingmore procedural autonomy from stateoversight. At the same time, for-profitinstitutions are vying for public funds previously reserved only for nonprofitinstitutions.

Documenting Student Learning. Americancolleges and universities are facingincreased external scrutiny of the effectiveness of undergraduate education. As budgets become tighter and tuitioncontinues to rise, taxpayers and policymakersas well as students and their familiesare asking the extent to whichtheir investment is producing real educational results. Simply put, they want


to know what and how much students arelearning. Outside pressure is mounting oninstitutions to document student learning,in much the same way that the elementaryand secondary education sectors documentlearning through assessments linked tostandards of what students should knowand be able to do. Of course, the challengeof demonstrating student learning is muchmore difficult in higher education becauseof the diversity of the curricula. Nonethe-less, higher education leaders are beingchallenged to find some way to show that real learning takes place at their institutions.

Internationalizing the Undergraduate Experience. Many U.S. colleges and uni-versities are making a concerted effort tomake their institutions and curricula moreinternational and to provide experiencesfor students that broaden and deepen theirunderstanding of other cultures. At thesame time, U.S. institutions continue their efforts to train and educate foreignstudents, both by bringing them to campus but also through distance education and satellite programs abroad(although we do not know the extent ofU.S. involvement in such cross-bordereducation). However, recent U.S. visa andhomeland security policy changes, cou-pled with an increased desire by foreignuniversities to recruit abroad, mean thatthe U.S. share of the international studentmarket is shrinking. Institutions fromEngland, Australia, Canada, and NewZealand, for instance, are establishing apresence abroad and benefiting favorablyfrom their governments policies. Theeffect is slowed growth in the number ofinternational students enrolling inAmerican colleges and universities.

Increasing Productivity and Efficiency.Because of increasing pressure to reducecosts, keep tuition increases small, andserve more students, institutions are seeking ways to improve their productivityand efficiency. They are creating adminis-trative efficiencies, such as by stream-lining business processes. They are innovating with technology-based teaching to reach more students both oncampus and in the broader communitythrough distance education. Many institu-tions are also beginning to view collabora-tion as an important strategy. Partnershipsinclude (among other things) jointresearch, collaborative purchasingarrangements, shared financial services,and interinstitutional academic programs.These alliances allow partners to extendcapabilities; develop research, courses,and services more quickly; generategreater economies of scale; share costlyinvestments; gain access to knowledge andskills; and reduce expenses.


Conclusion

n many ways, the American system of higher education is unique in the world. In its

size, diversity of institutions and students, freedom from government controls, and

reliance on market forces, it is without peer. However, higher education systems

around the globe are struggling with many of the same issues as the United States and are

exploring similar strategies, such as imposing tuition to create greater access while

instituting student aid programs, creating a credit system to facilitate student mobility,

and standardizing degree programs. Other nations wrestling with these challenges may

benefit by understanding the philosophical beliefs that shape U.S. higher education

distrust of government, faith in markets, and reliance on education as a gateway to social

mobilityand the ways in which the United States continually struggles to balance market

forces, government intervention, and access to high-quality education.

I


American Council on Education. (2001). A brief guide to U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Anderson, E. (2002). The new professoriate: Characteristics, contributions, and compensation. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Choy, S. (2002). Access and persistence: Findings from 10 years of longitudinal studies of students. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

College Board. (2003). Trends in student aid: 2003. New York: College Board.

Council for Aid to Education. (2004). Charitable giving to higher education stabilizes in 2003; Gifts from alumni rebound after a sharp one-year decline. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, Council for Aid to Education. See http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/2004FullPressReleaseVSE2003.pdf.

Eaton, J. (2000). An overview of U.S. accreditation. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Harvey, W. B. (2003). Minorities in higher education: Annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

King, J. E. (2004). Choice of institution: Changing student attendance patterns in the 1990s. ACE Issue Brief. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2002a). Findings from the condition of education 2002: Nontraditional undergraduates. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2002b). Profile of undergraduates at U.S. postsecondary institutions: 19992000. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2002c). Student financing of graduate and first-professional education, 19992000. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Digest of education statistics: 2002. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

References

American Council on EducationOne Dupont Circle NW Washington DC 20036

Peter D. Eckel is the Associate Directorfor Institutional Initiatives in the Centerfor Institutional and InternationalInitiatives at the American Council on Education.

Jacqueline E. King is Director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the American Council on Education.

Documents

2004 Higher Ed Overview