Higher education in the United States includes a variety of institutions of higher education. Strong research and funding have helped make United States colleges and universities among the world's most prestigious, making them particularly attractive to international students, professors and researchers in the pursuit of academic excellence. According to the Shanghai Jiao Tong University's Academic Ranking of World Universities, more than 30 of the highest-ranked 45 institutions are in the United States (as measured by awards and research output).[1] Public universities, private universities, liberal arts colleges, and community colleges all have a significant role in higher education in the United States.
The United States has a total of 4,495 Title IV-eligible, degree-granting institutions, 2,774 4-year institutions and 1,721 2-year institutions.[2], an average of more than 115 per state. As of 2010, the US had 20.3 million students in higher education, roughly 5.7% of the total population.[3] About 14.6 million of these students were enrolled full-time.[4]
The 2006 American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau found that 19.5 percent of the population had attended college but had no degree, 7.4 percent held an associate's degree, 17.1 percent held a bachelor's degree, and 9.9 percent held a graduate or professional degree. Only a small gender gap was present: 27 percent of the overall population held a bachelor's degree or higher, with a slightly larger percentage of men (27.9 percent) than women (26.2 percent).[5] However, despite increasing economic incentives for people to obtain college degrees, the percentage of people graduating from high school and college has been declining as of 2008.[6] 70.1% of 2009 high school graduates enrolled in college. Historically, 76% of those who graduate in the lower 40% of their high school class will not obtain a college degree.[7]
The survey found that the area with the highest percentage of people 25 years and over with a bachelor's degree was the District of Columbia (45.9 percent), followed by the states of Massachusetts (37 percent), Maryland (35.1 percent), Colorado (34.3 percent), and Connecticut (33.7 percent). The state with the lowest percentage of people 25 years and over with a bachelor's degree was West Virginia (16.5 percent), next lowest were Arkansas (18.2), Mississippi (18.8 percent), Kentucky (20 percent), and Louisiana (20.3 percent).[8]
The American university system is largely decentralized. Public universities are administered solely by the individual states. Public universities generally offer lower tuition rates for in state students than out of state students. In 2002, the average in-state tuition was $4,081 and $18,273 for those who paid out of state rates.[9]
American universities developed independent accreditation organizations to vouch for the quality of the degrees they offer. The accreditation agencies rate universities and colleges on criteria such as academic quality—the quality of their libraries, the publishing records of their faculty, and the degrees which their faculty hold. Nonaccredited institutions are perceived as lacking in quality and rigor, and may be termed diploma mills.
Colleges and universities in the U.S. vary in terms of goals: some may emphasize a vocational, business, engineering, or technical curriculum while others may emphasize a liberal arts curriculum. Many combine some or all of the above.
Two-year colleges (often but not always community colleges) usually offer the associate's degree such as an Associate of Arts (A.A.). Community colleges are often open admissions, with generally lower tuition than other state or private schools. Four-year colleges (which usually have a larger number of students and offer a greater range of studies than two-year colleges) offer the bachelor's degree, such as the Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) or Bachelor of Science (B.S.). These are usually primarily undergraduate institutions, although some might have limited programs at the graduate level. Many students earn an associate's degree at a two-year institution before transferring to a four-year institution for another two years to earn a bachelor's degree.[10]
Four-year institutions in the U.S. which emphasize the liberal arts are liberal arts colleges. These colleges traditionally emphasize interactive instruction (although research is still a component of these institutions). They are known for being residential and for having smaller enrollment, class size, and higher teacher-student ratios than universities; a typical liberal arts college is pictured on the right. These colleges also encourage a high level of teacher-student interaction at the center of which are classes taught by full-time faculty rather than graduate student teaching assistants (TAs), who do teach classes at some Research I and other universities. Most are private, although there are public liberal arts colleges. In addition, some offer experimental curricula, such as Hampshire College, Beloit College, Bard College at Simon's Rock, Pitzer College, Sarah Lawrence College, Grinnell College, Bennington College, New College of Florida, and Reed College.
Universities are research-oriented institutions which provide both undergraduate and graduate education. For historical reasons, some universities—such as Boston College, Dartmouth College, and The College of William & Mary—have retained the term "college," while some institutions granting few graduate degrees, such as Wesleyan University, use the term "university." Graduate programs grant a variety of master's degrees—such as the Master of Arts (M.A.), Master of Science (M.S.), Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.), or Master of Fine Arts (M.F.A.)—in addition to doctorates such as the Ph.D. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education distinguishes among institutions on the basis of the prevalence of degrees they grant and considers the granting of master's degrees necessary, though not sufficient, for an institution to be classified as a university.[11]
Some universities have professional schools, which are attended primarily by those who plan to be practitioners instead of academics (scholars/researchers). Examples include journalism school, business school, medical schools (which award either the M.D. or D.O.), law schools (J.D.), veterinary schools (D.V.M.), pharmacy schools (Pharm.D.), and dental schools. A common practice is to refer to different units within universities as colleges or schools (what is referred to in other countries as faculties). Some colleges may be divided into departments–such as an anthropology department within a college of liberal arts and sciences within a larger university.
Except for the United States service academies and staff colleges, the federal government does not directly regulate universities, although it can give federal grants to them. The majority of public universities are operated by the states and territories, usually as part of a state university system. Each state supports at least one state university and several support many more. California, for example, has three public higher education systems: the 11-campus University of California, the 23-campus California State University, and the 109-campus California Community Colleges System. Public universities often have a large student body, with introductory classes numbering in the hundreds and some undergraduate classes taught by graduate students. Tribal colleges operated on Indian reservations by some federally recognized tribes are also public institutions.
Many private universities also exist. Among these, some are secular while others are involved in religious education. Some are non-denominational and some are affiliated with a certain sect or church, such as Roman Catholicism (with different institutions often sponsored by particular religious institutes such as the Jesuits) or religions such as Lutheranism or Mormonism. Seminaries are private institutions for those preparing to become members of the clergy. Most private schools (like all public schools) are non-profit, although some are for-profit.
Tuition is charged at almost all American universities, except 1) the five federally sponsored service academies, in which students attend free and with a stipend in exchange for a service commitment in the U.S. armed forces after graduation; and 2) a few institutions where offering tuition-free education is part of their mission, such as Cooper Union, Berea College, Olin College and Webb Institute. Public universities often have much lower tuition than private universities because funds are provided by state governments and residents of the state that supports the university typically pay lower tuition than non-residents. Students often use scholarships, student loans, or grants, rather than paying all tuition out-of-pocket. Several states offer scholarships that allow students to attend free of tuition or at lesser cost; examples include HOPE in Georgia and Bright Futures in Florida.
Most universities, public and private, have endowments. A January 2007 report by the National Association of College and University Business Officers revealed that the top 765 U.S. colleges and universities had a combined $340 billion in endowment assets as of 2006. The largest endowment is that of Harvard University, at $29 billion.[12]
The majority of both liberal arts colleges and public universities are coeducational; the number of women's colleges and men's colleges has dwindled in past years and nearly all remaining single-sex institutions are private liberal arts colleges. There are historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), both private (such as Morehouse College) and public (such as Florida A&M).
Religious denominations established most early colleges in order to train ministers. They were modeled after Oxford and Cambridge universities. Harvard College was founded by the colonial legislature in 1636, and named after an early benefactor. Most of the funding came from the colony, but the college early began to collect endowment. Harvard at first focused on training young men for the ministry, and won general support from the Puritan colonies. The College of William & Mary was founded by Virginia government in 1693, with 20,000 acres (81 km2) of land for an endowment, and a penny tax on every pound of tobacco, together with an annual appropriation. James Blair, the leading Anglican minister in the colony, was president for 50 years, and the college won the broad support of the Virginia gentry, most of whom were Anglicans, and trained many of the lawyers, politicians, and leading planters. Students headed for the ministry were given free or in tuition. Yale College was founded in 1701, and in 1716 was relocated to New Haven, Connecticut. The conservative Puritan ministers of Connecticut had grown dissatisfied with the more liberal theology of Harvard, and wanted their own school to train orthodox ministers. New Side Presbyterians in 1747 set up the College of New Jersey, in the town of Princeton; much later it was renamed Princeton University. Rhode Island College was begun by the Baptists in 1764, and in 1804 it was renamed Brown University in honor of a benefactor. Brown was especially liberal in welcoming young men from other denominations. In New York City, the Anglicans set up King's College in 1746, with its president Doctor Samuel Johnson the only teacher. It closed during the American Revolution, and reopened in 1784 under the name of Columbia College; it is now Columbia University. The Academy of Pennsylvania was created in 1749 by Benjamin Franklin and other civic minded leaders in Philadelphia, and unlike the others was not oriented toward the training of ministers. It was renamed the University of Pennsylvania in 1791. the Dutch Reformed Church in 1766 set up Queen's College in New Jersey, which later became Rutgers University. Dartmouth College, chartered in 1769, grew out of school for Indians, and was moved to its present site in Hanover, New Hampshire, in 1770.[13][14]
All of the schools were small, with a limited undergraduate curriculum oriented on the liberal arts. Students were drilled in Greek, Latin, geometry, ancient history, logic, ethics and rhetoric, with few discussions and no lab sessions. The college president typically enforced strict discipline, and the upperclassman enjoyed hazing the freshman. Many students were younger than 17, and most of the colleges also operated a preparatory school. There were no organized sports, or Greek-letter fraternities, but literary societies were active. Tuition was very low and scholarships were few.[15]
There were no schools of law in the colonies. A few lawyers studied at the highly prestigious Inns of Court in London, while the majority served apprenticeships with established American lawyers.[16] Law was very well established in the colonies, compared to medicine, which was in rudimentary condition. In the 18th century, 117 Americans had graduated in medicine in Edinburgh, Scotland, but most physicians learned as apprentices in the colonies.[17] In Philadelphia, the Medical College of Philadelphia was founded in 1765, and became affiliated with the university in 1791. In New York, the medical department of King's College was established in 1767, and in 1770 awarded the first American M.D. degree.[18]
Summarizing the research of Burke and Hall, Katz concludes that in the 19th century:.[19]
- The nation's many small colleges helped young men make the transition from rural farms to complex urban occupations.
- These colleges especially promoted upward mobility by preparing ministers, and thereby provided towns across the country with a core of community leaders.
- The more elite colleges became increasingly exclusive and contributed relatively little to upward social mobility. By concentrating on the offspring of wealthy families, ministers and a few others, the elite Eastern colleges, especially Harvard, played an important role in the formation of a Northeastern elite with great power.
In the United States, the term college is frequently used to refer to stand-alone higher level education institutions that are not components of a university as well as to refer to components within a university. Stand-alone institutions that call themselves colleges are universities in the international sense of the term. Typically in the United States, a university is composed of an academically diverse set of units called schools or colleges, whereas a college—whether it is a stand-alone institution of higher learning or a component within a university—typically focuses on one academic sector that is self-chosen by that institution, where that college is composed of departments within that sector. Note that the multiple colleges or schools composing a university are typically collocated on the same university campus or near each other on adjacent campuses within the same metropolitan area. Unlike colleges versus universities in other portions of the world, a stand-alone college is truly stand-alone and is not part of a university, and is also not affiliated with an affiliating university.
Each institution may choose from several different schemes of organization using the terms, in most-macroscopic to most-microscopic order: university, college, school, division, department, and office. To illustrate the finer points of how these terms are used, consider four example institutions:
- Purdue University is composed of multiple colleges—among others, the College of Agriculture and the College of Engineering. Of these Purdue breaks the College of Agriculture down into departments, such as the Department Agronomy or the Department of Entomology, whereas Purdue breaks down the College of Engineering into schools, such as the School of Electrical Engineering, which enrolls more students than some of its colleges do. As is common in this scheme, Purdue categorizes both its undergraduate students (and faculty and programs) and its post-graduate students (and faculty and programs) via this scheme of decomposition.
- Compare this to Brown University, which is composed of one college (The College, which is for undergraduates) and two schools (the Graduate School, which is for post-graduate students, and the Medical School, which is for the preparation of medical doctors).
- Likewise, Dartmouth College is a stand-alone institution that names itself using the college term, but is organized similarly to Brown University with undergraduates enrolled in Dartmouth College (directly) and Dartmouth College containing three graduate schools that enroll the post-graduate students: the Tuck School of Business, the Thayer School of Engineering, and Dartmouth Medical School.
- Compare this to an entirely undergraduate liberal-arts college that is a stand-alone institution, Carleton College, which is composed of only the college that contains departments for arts, languages, natural sciences, and physical sciences. Carleton is a pure example of a stand-alone college in the USA sense of the term "college". Carleton confers no graduate degrees. Carleton has no schools that focus on a non-liberal-arts mission, such as a school of technology or engineering or nursing. Analogous to the Purdue University’s use of the term college, Carleton College is an academic sector composed of related departments that share a common liberal-arts philosophy of education. Analogous to the Brown and Dartmouth uses of the term college, Carleton College is entirely undergraduate.
In the Purdue University example, a college as a component of the university is a topical decomposition, focused on an academic sector of directly related academic disciplines. In the Brown University example, a college as a component of the university focuses on the undergraduate mission. In the Dartmouth College example of a college as a stand-alone institution, a college focusing on the undergraduate mission is the prevailing but distinct identity of what is arguably a university when the collective of college and schools are considered. In the Carleton College example, the purest example of the USA's use of the term college is displayed in two ways:
- a homogeneous collection of academic-discipline departments that are unified under a common philosophy of education; and
- an undergraduate focus on four-year degrees.
Additionally, a college or university may have residential colleges as do Oxford, Harvard, and Rice University.
Students can apply to some colleges using the Common Application. There is no limit to the number of colleges or universities to which a student may apply, though an application must be submitted for each. With a few exceptions, most undergraduate colleges and universities maintain the policy that students are to be admitted to (or rejected from) the entire college, not to a particular department or major. (This is unlike college admissions in many European countries, as well as graduate admissions.) Some students, rather than being rejected, are "wait-listed" for a particular college and may be admitted if another student who was admitted decides not to attend the college or university. The five major parts of admission are ACT/SAT scores, GPA, College Application, Essay, and Letters of Recommendation.[20] Not all colleges require essays or letters of recommendation, though they are often proven to increase chances of acceptance.
Universitas 21 ranked the country as having the best higher education system in the world in 2012. Cost was not considered in the rankings.[21]
Numerous organizations produce rankings of universities in the United States each year. A 2010 University of Michigan study has confirmed that the rankings in the United States have significantly affected colleges' applications and admissions. [22]Referred to as the "granddaddy of the college rankings", [23] America's best–known American college and university rankings have been compiled since 1983 by U.S. News & World Report and are widely regarded as the most influential of all college rankings.[24]
On 19 June 2007, during the annual meeting of the Annapolis Group, members discussed the letter to college presidents asking them not to participate in the "reputation survey" section of the U.S. News & World Report survey (this section comprises 25% of the ranking). As a result, "a majority of the approximately 80 presidents at the meeting said that they did not intend to participate in the U.S. News reputational rankings in the future." [25] However, the decision to fill out the reputational survey or not will be left up to each individual college as: "the Annapolis Group is not a legislative body and any decision about participating in the US News rankings rests with the individual institutions." [26] The statement also said that its members "have agreed to participate in the development of an alternative common format that presents information about their colleges for students and their families to use in the college search process." [26] This database will be web based and developed in conjunction with higher education organizations including the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities and the Council of Independent Colleges.
On 22 June 2007, U.S. News and World Report editor Robert Morse issued a response in which he argued, "in terms of the peer assessment survey, we at U.S. News firmly believe the survey has significant value because it allows us to measure the "intangibles" of a college that we can't measure through statistical data. Plus, the reputation of a school can help get that all-important first job and plays a key part in which grad school someone will be able to get into. The peer survey is by nature subjective, but the technique of asking industry leaders to rate their competitors is a commonly accepted practice. The results from the peer survey also can act to level the playing field between private and public colleges." [27] In reference to the alternative database discussed by the Annapolis Group, Morse also argued, "It's important to point out that the Annapolis Group's stated goal of presenting college data in a common format has been tried before [...] U.S. News has been supplying this exact college information for many years already. And it appears that NAICU will be doing it with significantly less comparability and functionality. U.S. News first collects all these data (using an agreed-upon set of definitions from the Common Data Set). Then we post the data on our website in easily accessible, comparable tables. In other words, the Annapolis Group and the others in the NAICU initiative actually are following the lead of U.S. News." [27]
An Ohio University professor and member of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, has been a vocal critic of how institutions of higher education are financed. He claimed that tuition increases have rapidly outpaced inflation; that productivity in higher education has fallen or remained stagnant; and that third-party tuition payments from government or private sources have insulated students from bearing the full cost of their education, allowing costs to rise more rapidly.[28] According to Robert E. Wright, tuition costs will continue to rise rapidly without attendant increases in quality until professors are encouraged to own colleges in private partnership, like attorneys and that that won't happen until barriers to entry are decreased and government education subsidies are paid directly to students instead of to colleges and universities.[29] A report in The Economist criticized American universities for generally losing sight of how to contain costs.[30] Second-tier schools with Ivy League Envy had become "so obsessed with rising up the academic hierarchy" that they focus too much on research while neglecting undergraduate education, and the report chronicled an environment in which universities have been slow to embrace Internet technology and online software to streamline costs.[30]
Another issue is the rising cost of textbooks.[31] There are textbook exchanges for students who will accept a used text at a lower price. Lower priced alternatives offered by Flat World Knowledge are now available but have yet to make a significant impact on overall textbook prices.
Many students lack the financial resources to pay tuition up front and must rely on student loans and scholarships from their university, the federal government, or a private lender.[citation needed] All but a few charity institutions and the United States Service academies charge students tuition, although scholarships (both merit-based and need-based) are widely available. Generally, private universities charge much higher tuition than their public counterparts, which rely on state funds to make up the difference. Because each state supports its own university system with state taxes, most public universities charge much higher rates for out-of-state students. In 2002, state governments gave their state colleges a total of $66 billion to partially subsidize students tuition. The average tuition then of a state college was $4,081 annually for a four-year college. The average cost of a private school was $18,273.[32]
The total cost of all higher education in 2002 was $289 billion.[32]
Annual undergraduate tuition varies widely from state to state, and many additional fees apply. Listed tuition prices generally reflect the upper bound that a student may be charged with regards to tuition. In many cases, the “list price” of tuition-- that is, the tuition rate broadcast on a particular institution’s marketing platforms-- may turn out to be different from the actual (or net) tuition charged to a student. A student that has applied for institution-based funding will know his or her net tuition upon receipt of a financial aid package. Since tuition does not take into account other expenses such as the cost of living, books, supplies and other expenses, such additional fees can cause the overall cost of college to exceed the tuition rate multiplied by the number of courses the student is planning to take.[33]
In 2009, average annual tuition at a public university (for residents of the state) was $7,020.[34] Tuition for public school students from outside the state is generally comparable to private school prices, although students can often qualify for state residency after their first year. Private schools are typically much higher, although prices vary widely from "no-frills" private schools to highly specialized technical institutes. Depending upon the type of school and program, annual graduate program tuition can vary from $15,000 to as high as $50,000. Note that these prices do not include living expenses (rent, room/board, etc.) or additional fees that schools add on such as "activities fees" or health insurance. These fees, especially room and board, can range from $6,000 to $12,000 per academic year (assuming a single student without children).[35] Such fees are not at all government-regulated, allowing a theoretically enormous increase each year. While tuition is monitored to some degree in legislature and often publicly discussed, fees on the side are frequently overlooked in public opinion and regulatory policies.[36]
In addition to tuition, living expenses, books, supplies and fees, students also face a less-acknowledged opportunity cost in years of missed potential income. A high school educated person could expect to earn about $84,000 for four years of work. In choosing to attend and pay for college, an individual also forgoes those earnings.[37]
Study comparing college revenue per student by tuition and state funding in 2008 dollars.
[38]
In 2010, community colleges cost an average of $2,544 per year for tuition and fees. A private 4-year college cost an average of $26,273 annually for tuition and fees.[39]
College costs are rising at the same time that state appropriations for aid are shrinking. This has led to debate over funding at both the state and local levels. From 2002 to 2004 alone, tuition rates at public schools increased by just over 14 percent, largely due to dwindling state funding. A more moderate increase of 6 percent occurred over the same period for private schools.[35] Between 1982 and 2007, college tuition and fees rose three times as fast as median family income, in constant dollars.[40]
To combat costs colleges have hired adjunct professors to teach. In 2008 these teachers cost about $1,800 per 3-credit class as opposed to $8,000 per class for a tenured professor. Two-thirds of college instructors were adjuncts. There are differences of opinion whether these adjuncts teach better or worse than regular professors. There is a suspicion that student evaluation of adjuncts, along with their subsequent continued employment, can lead to grade inflation.[41]
Additionally, schools are increasingly using price discrimination as a strategy across different programs to increase revenue (i.e. employing strategies like a for-profit business). Yet the school is still fundamentally different from a for-profit business entity in that it is restricted by its school mission. For example, a school may charge particular types of students (such as low-income or moderate-income students) less tuition in order to help them. Another example is merit-based aid, in which the school will grant high achieving students money.[42]
Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford published a book-length study of admissions that found that an upper-middle-class white applicant was three times more likely to be admitted to an American college than a lower-class white with similar qualification. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has cited this as an example of how U.S. universities can exacerbate wealth inequality.[43] A 2006 report by Future of Children, a collaboration of Princeton and the Brookings Institution, concluded that "the current process of admission to, enrollment in, and graduation from colleges and universities contributes to economic inequality as measured by income and wealth."[44]
Every state has an entity designed to promote coordination and collaboration between higher education institutions. A few are listed:
In the 1980s and 1990s significant changes in the economics of academic life began to be felt, identified by some as a catastrophe in the making and by others as a new era with potentially huge gains for the university. Some critics identified the changes as a new "corporatization of the university." Academic jobs have been traditionally viewed by many intellectuals as desirable, because of the autonomy and intellectual freedom they allow (especially because of the tenure system), despite their low pay compared to other professions requiring extensive education. And until the mid-1970s, when federal expenditures for higher education fell sharply, there were routinely more tenure-track jobs than Ph.D. graduates.
Now, by contrast, despite rising tuition rates and growing university revenues (especially in the U.S.) well-paid professorial positions are rarer, replaced with poorly paid adjunct positions and graduate-student labor. People with doctorates in the sciences, and to a lesser extent mathematics, often find jobs outside of academia (or use part-time work in industry to supplement their incomes), but a Ph.D. in the humanities and many social sciences prepares the student primarily for academic employment. However, in recent years a large proportion of such Ph.D.s—ranging from 30 percent to 60 percent—have been unable to obtain tenure-track jobs. They must choose between adjunct positions, which are poorly paid and lack job security; teaching jobs in community colleges or in high schools, where little research is done; the non-academic job market, where they will tend to be overqualified; or some other course of study, such as law or business.
Indeed, with academic institutions producing Ph.D.s in greater numbers than the number of tenure-track professorial positions they intend to create, there is little question that administrators are cognizant of the economic effects of this arrangement. The sociologist Stanley Aronowitz wrote: "Basking in the plenitude of qualified and credentialed instructors, many university administrators see the time when they can once again make tenure a rare privilege, awarded only to the most faithful and to those whose services are in great demand".[45]
Most people who are knowledgeable of the academic job market advise prospective graduate students not to attend graduate school if they must pay for it; graduate students who are admitted without tuition remission and a reasonable stipend are forced to incur large debts that they will be unlikely to repay quickly. In addition, most people recommend that students obtain full and accurate information about the placement record of the programs they are considering. At some programs, most Ph.D.s get multiple tenure-track offers, whereas at others few obtain any; such information is clearly very useful in deciding what to do with the next 5–7 years of one's life.
Some believe that, as a number of Baby Boomer professors retire, the academic job market will rebound. However, others predict that this will not result in an appreciable growth of tenure-track positions, as universities will merely fill their needs with low-paid adjunct positions. Aronowitz ascribed this problem to the economic restructuring of academia as a whole:
In fact, the program of restructuring on university campuses, which entails reducing full-time tenure-track positions in favor of part-time, temporary, and contingent jobs, has literally "fabricated" this situation. The idea of an academic "job market" based on the balance of supply and demand in an open competitive arena is a fiction whose effect is to persuade the candidate that (he or she) simply lost out because of bad luck or lack of talent. The truth is otherwise.
[46]
The effects of a growing pool of unemployed, underemployed, and undesirably employed Ph.D.s on many countries' economies as a whole is undetermined.
262,416 American students studied outside the country in 2007-8. More than 140,000 of these are studying in Europe.[47]
671,616 foreign students enrolled in American colleges in 2008-9.[48] This figure rose to 723,277 in 2010-2011. The largest number, 157,558, came from China.[49]
Financial assistance for both private and public higher education comes in two primary forms: Grant programs and loan programs. Grant programs consist of money the student receives to pay for higher education that does not need to be paid back, while loan programs consist of money the student receives to pay for higher education that must be paid back. Public higher education institutions (which are partially funded through state government appropriation) and private higher education institutions (which are funded exclusively through tuition and private donations) offer both grant and loan financial assistance programs. Grants to attend public schools are distributed through federal and state governments, as well as through the schools themselves; grants to attend private schools are distributed through the school itself (independent organizations, such as charities or corporations also offer grants that can be applied to both public and private higher education institutions).[50] Loans can be obtained publicly through government sponsored loan programs or privately through independent lending institutions.
Grant programs, as well as work study programs, can be divided into two primary categories: Need-based financial awards and merit-based financial awards. Several need-based grants are provided through the Federal Government based on information provided on a student's Free Application for Federal Student Aid.[51] The Federal Pell Grant is a need-based grant available from the Federal government. The federal government also has two other grants that are a combination of need-based and merit-based: the Academic Competitiveness Grant, and the National SMART Grant. In order to receive one of these grants a student must be eligible for the Pell Grant, meet specific academic requirements, and be a US citizen.[52]
A student's eligibility for work study programs is also determined by information collected on the student's FAFSA. [53] Need-based financial awards are money or work study jobs provided to students who do not have the financial resources by themselves to pay for higher education. The intent of need-based financial aid is to close the gap between the required cost to pay for the higher education and the money that is available to pay for the education.
Merit-based financial awards are money given to a student based on a particular gift, talent, conditional situation, or ability that is worthy of the monetary award, regardless of economic standing. The intent of merit-based financial aid is to encourage and reward students who exhibit these qualities with attendance at a school of higher education through the financial incentive. Not only does merit-based assistance benefit the student, but the benefit is seen as reciprocal for the educational institution itself, as students who exhibit exceptional qualities are able to enhance the development of the school itself.
Student loan debt owed in the United States currently totals over $1 trillion.[54] There are many different types of loans that can be taken out by a student or the student's parents in order to pay for higher education. In general these can be divided into two categories: Federal Student Loans and Private Student Loans.
There are five kinds of student loans available through the government: Perkins Loans, subsidized Stafford Loans, unsubsidized Stafford Loans, direct loans, and PLUS loans. A student's eligibility for any of these loans, as well as the amount of the loan itself is determined by information on the student's FAFSA. The interest rate and whether or not interest accrues on the loan while the student is in school depends of the type of Federal loan.
Students can also acquire loans privately, through banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, or other finance companies (ref. article pg. 3). Private loans are typically used to supplement federal student loans, which have a yearly borrowing limit. However, private loans typically have higher interest rates than federal loans and may have more rigid repayment policies.
US tax payers maybe eligible for tax credits designed to help make higher education more affordable. There are two different tax credits meant to help defray the costs of higher education: the Hope Tax Credit and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit.
The portion of state budget funding spent on higher education has decreased by 40 percent since 1978, while at the same time most tuition fees have significantly increased. [55] Between 2000 and 2010, the cost of tuition and room and board at public universities increased by 37 percent. [56] The misconception persists that there simply is less money in "the system" to help pay for college these days. Actually, the reverse is true. In 1965, $558 million was available for financial aid. In 2005 more than $129 billion was available. As college costs have risen, so has the amount of money available to finance a college education. The kernel of truth in this myth is that the proportion of gift aid and self-help funding has shifted: loans and work make up a larger percentage of aid packages than they once did.[57] During the early 1980’s, higher education funding saw a shift from reliance on state and federal government funding, to a greater reliance on family contributions and student loans. Pell Grants, which were created to offset the cost of college for low-income students, started funding more middle-class students, stretching the funds thinner for everyone. During the mid-1990’s only 34 percent of the cost for college was covered by the maximum offered Pell Grant, compared to 84 percent during the 1970’s.[58]
During Clinton’s presidency, funding for higher education was focused on creating tax benefits tied to attending college. These proposed policies put less emphasis on developing grants to allow students to attend college. Some have argued that this approach did not adequately provide aid to those students most in need of it. Furthermore, there was fear that tax deductions or credits would actually work to drive up tuition costs.[59]
The federal government also began funding fewer grant programs and more loan programs, leaving students with higher amounts of debt. In 2003, almost 70 percent of federal student aid awarded was student loans, which was a much higher percentage than just a decade before.[58] In fact, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that during the 2007-2008 school year, 66% of degree recipients had borrowed money to complete their degree. 36% of these graduates had to borrow from state or private sources, averaging total loan amounts of $13,900. 95% of these loans were private. On average, a student borrowed $24,700.36 during the 2007-2008 school year.[60] One estimate of total debt of all ex-students in 2011 was $1 trillion.[30] Furthermore, the economic troubles of the recent decade has left higher education funding being shifted towards other needs because higher education institutions have the ability to gain extra funds through raising tuition and private donations.[61]
Policy changes in higher education funding raise questions about the impact on student performance and access to higher education. Many early studies focused on social integration and a person’s individual attributes as the factors for degree completion. [55] More recent studies have begun to look at larger factors including state funding and financial support.It has been found that providing need-based aid proved to increase degree completion in 48 states.There has also been a positive correlation between providing merit-based aid and degree completion. [55] Also, as the level to qualify for state need-based aid is lowered, the probability of persistence increases. Low-income families now have to pay more to attend college, making it harder for such populations to attain higher education. In 1980, low-income families had to use 13 percent of their income to pay for one year of college. In 2000, this proportion grew to 25 percent of their income, while high-income families use less than 5 percent of their income. [58] Thus, fully understanding how need and merit (non-need) aid is determined is critical when looking to ensure greater access to higher education. It is clear that at both private and public colleges and universities family income has a significant impact on need-based financial aid. As colleges and universities compete for students, the demarcation between merit-based aid and need-based aid is less clear. While there has been a traditional distinction between need-based and merit-based funding, recent trends indicate that these two categories are more blurred than their labels would suggest. Specifically, research confirms that merit-based financial aid often takes into account student need and vice versa. [62]
A 2006 report by Michael S. McPherson and Morton Owen Shapiro indicated that financial aid to students in the 1990s held the strongest correlation with student SAT scores. The report was conducted in the interest of looking directly at the relationship between financial aid grants and various factors, with specific focus on the variables of family income level and SAT scores and minor focus on personal variables, such as race and gender. The reason these factors were given greater consideration was that, according to McPherson and Shapiro, the information was readily available and it led to a more meaningful comparison across students than variables like high school GPA. The report also made clear that it ignored the distinctions that universities make between “need based” and “merit based” aid. McPherson and Shapiro argued, “Although it is commonplace to track the importance of merit as opposed to need-based aid based on the responses given by college and university administrators on survey forms, we have argued that the distinction between ‘need-based’ and ‘non-need-based’ student grants is a slippery one.”[63] The findings in the report indicated that “the principle of awarding financial aid strictly in relation to ability to pay is becoming an increasingly less important factor in the distribution of aid in America’s private colleges and universities.”[64]
Most discussions on how higher education funding is determined have focused on the economic and demographic influences; however, according to a 2010 study on the relationship between politics and state funding many political factors influence higher education funding. First, as the number of interest groups for higher education in a state grows, so does the amount of money given to higher education. Second, states with a more liberal political ideology give more funding to higher education. Third, governors with more control over the state budget tend to award less money to higher education. This is attributed again to the fact that higher education funding is considered to be tradable with other programs. Fourth, a more professional state legislature correlates with more funding for higher education. Professional in this situation is referring to a legislature that acts similarly to the U.S. Congress in terms of having a large amount of staff members and spending more time in session. Fifth, the more diverse a state population becomes, the less support there will be for higher education funding. [61]
Different societal factors such as socioeconomic status can play a part in one’s chances of taking advantage of higher education. A 2011 national study found that college students with a high socioeconomic status persisted in college 25 percent more than students with a low socioeconomic status. [55] In fact, students with a high socioeconomic status are 1.55 times more likely to persist in college than students with a low socioeconomic status. A 2007 study found that only 52 percent of low-income students who qualified for college enrolled within 2 years of graduation compared to 83 percent of high-income students. [65] Attaining even higher degrees than a bachelor’s degree can also be affected by socioeconomic status. A 2008 study reports that only 11 percent of students with low socioeconomic status report earning a master’s, medical, or law degree compared to 42 percent of high socioeconomic students. [66]
Socioeconomic status can also affect which populations begin higher education after high school graduation. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that in 2009 high school graduates from low-income families enrolled in college immediately at a rate of 55 percent. In comparison, 84 percent of high school graduates from high-income families enrolled immediately into college. Middle-class families also saw lower rates with 67 percent enrolling in college immediately. [67] As the level of socioeconomic status increases, so does the likelihood that the student will enroll in college at some point. It also found that a high percentage of students who delayed enrollment in college attended high schools that had a high level of participation in the free and reduced lunch program. Furthermore, students who had access to financial aid contacts were more likely to enroll in higher education than students who did not have these contacts. [65]
Socioeconomic status can also influence performance rates once at a university. According to a 2008 study, students with a low socioeconomic status study less, work more hours, have less interaction with faculty, and are less likely to join extra-curricular clubs and groups. 42 percent of students with low socioeconomic status indicated that they worked more than 16 hours a week during school, with a high percentage working up to 40 hours a week.[68]
This is also evidence of a positive relation between socioeconomic status and social integration at university. In other words, middle-class students take part in more formal and informal social activities and have a greater sense of belonging to their universities than do working-class students.[69]
Race can also play a part in a student’s persistence rate in college. Drop out rates are highest with the Native American and African American population, both with drop out rates greater than 50 percent. [55] Caucasians and Asian Americans had the lowest dropout rates. Race can also play a part in which students even enroll in college. A 2007 study found that African Americans are more likely to delay enrolling in college. [65] The National Center for Education Statistics reports that between 2003 and 2009 rates of immediate college enrollment increased for Asian Americans and whites, but not for African Americans [67] The 2011 Condition of Education study found that in 2008, 63 percent of college students were white, while only 14 percent were African American and 12 percent were Hispanic. [67]
It is estimated that 65,000 unauthorized immigrants graduate from high school each year. These graduates have lived in the United States for more than 5 years and most were often brought to the United States by their parents as young children. [70] This leaves the U.S. Government with the question of what rights to give the unauthorized immigrants after their graduation, particularly with access to higher education. A 2010 study conducted at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) on unauthorized immigrants and higher education:
Installing pathways to higher education and in-state tuition for undocumented students in the United States presents both opportunities and constraints in developing practices that promote social justice, equity, and equality. Those who are sympathetic to the challenges facing undocumented students may support opportunities to promote the potential of those who are deserving of incorporation and membership in U.S. society. On the other hand, proponents of tighter borders and tougher immigration laws may view all undocumented people, including model, hardworking young people, as "illegals" or temporary workers and consider them to be drains on the resources of society. This puts educational administrators in precarious positions since they are professionals who are trained to promote and support students in their pursuit of knowledge and self-improvement. Therefore, many professionals are left with little choice but to search for individuals and resources already established within outlaw cultures." [71]
In 1996, the United States passed a law banning states from offering residency benefits to unauthorized immigrants that they didn’t then also offer to every U.S. citizen. This basically made it so that states could not offer in-state tuition to unauthorized immigrants, even if they technically qualified based on residency status. States have argued the clarity of this law and many have enacted their own laws allowing in-state tuition to be given on the claims that it’s based on high school attendance and not explicitly residency. [70] This law is especially important since unauthorized immigrants are also unable to obtain governmental financial aid and are unable to legally work, leaving them without sources to help pay for out-of-state tuition. [71]
The Dream Act was introduced in 2001 and aims to give more access to higher education for unauthorized immigrants by repealing the law 1996 law. It also aimed to set up pathways for students who obtain higher education to become legal residents. The act has been introduced in many states and many different times, but has still not been passed. Critics of the act argue that it encourages more illegal immigration, that schools will engage in grade inflation so that border-line students can take advantage of the act, and that a financial burden could be placed on taxpayers. Proponents argue the opposite, emphasizing that giving the unauthorized immigrants an opportunity at higher education means they will be more self-sufficient in the future, contributing more to taxes and relying less on state resources. They also claim that children should not be punished for the actions of their parents and that giving them this opportunity would encourage them to be contributing and law abiding citizens. Whether this act would have positive effects on unauthorized immigrants attending college is still hard to see since not many states have actually done it and the time span has not been enough for thorough research. [70]
The 2010 UNLV study recommends key policy changes to support unauthorized immigrants access to higher education.
In general, practitioners need to weigh opportunities against constraints and consider the potential opportunities to promote social justice, equality, and equity in higher education access. Rather than considering undocumented students as "illegals" and restricting their access to legitimate educational pathways, it is recommended that, at the very least, those in positions of power adopt an outlaw cultural framework to support the strengths inherent within diversity as well as pursue avenues of social justice for undocumented students who are seeking to access higher education to improve their future and secure permanent membership in U.S. society. [71]
In discussing student’s access to education in the United States, one area of concentration that current research has focused on in the last half century is the differences that exist between students entry and completion rates based on one’s gender. In a study done by Bailey & Dynarski (2011) it was observed that the increase in inequality that has been observed in the last 40+ years has been predominantly driven by the female population. That is to say that within higher-income families that are sending more children to universities and colleges, women make up a greater percentage (15% compared to 7%) of this growth. While the largest gap of educational attainment between men and women is seen in the highest income group, women are attaining higher levels of education than men in every income group. This observation poses a unique and confusing problem: if educational attainment has a positive correlation to familial income, why are more women entering and completing college than men? Following their research, Bailey and Dynarski propose that the observed educational gap among gender may be due to differing incentives to accumulate human capital. Men and women may participate in what they term “segregated labor markets” and “asymmetric marriage markets,” and perhaps, to make up for those perceived market differences, females are more motivated to obtain higher levels of education.
The gap of educational attainment between men and women is starting at a young age and affecting students access to higher education later on in life. According to a study done by Bailey & Dynarski (2011), there are two main explanations for the sex differences in educational attainment and inequality. First, men and women respond differently to family and/or school circumstances, and second, the differences in circumstances across men and women of the same family income and race have shaped inequality in educational attainment for some time. More specifically, the bulk of primary and secondary teachers are female and women run most single parent households. Males react and are affected differently than females with the absence of a strong male role model. Studies by Bailey & Dynarski have shown that teachers provide role models to demographically similar students, and their unintended biases affect their interactions and assessments of their students.
Similarly, when comparing the graduation rates between men and women, it was found that for children born after 1960, more white women were graduating from college than white men, a change from children born before this time[72]
Although academic degrees usually lead to more lucrative careers than associate degrees from community colleges, that tendency varies among the different majors.[73] Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce has released a study which essentially claims that colleges are not informing freshmen about the career prospects of various academic majors, thereby training many students for low-paying careers with a substantial risk of unemployment and intractable debt problems.[74] For example, majors in engineering, business administration, health care, computer science and mathematics usually lead to well-paid and secure jobs. On the other hand, majors in psychology, social work, the arts, education, communication, journalism, the humanities and liberal arts, result in too many graduates competing for available job opportunities. Even if they do get jobs, they are often vulnerable to layoffs.
There has been rapid growth in recent years of for-profit schools, of which the University of Phoenix is the largest with an enrollment over 400,000 nationwide. Other large institutions, with numerous branch campuses and online programs include Devry and Kaplan University. Altogether, they enroll 9% of the students. They have aggressively recruited among military veterans, and in 2010 received 36% percent of all the tuition aid paid by the federal government. The University of Phoenix received 88% of its income from federal aid to students; the maximum allowed is 90%. In 2001 the University of Phoenix opened a two-year online program oriented toward lower-income students who receive federal financial aid; in 2010 it had over 200,000 students seeking two-year degrees. Critics have pointed to the heavy dependence on federal loans and grants to students, the low student completion rate, and the inability of the majority of graduates to pay their student loans because they failed to secure high-paying jobs.[75] The University of Phoenix reports that in 2009, 23% of its students completed an associate degree within three years of enrolling, and for bachelor’s degree students, its six-year completion rate was 34%.[76]
The amount of debt that students have after graduation has become an issue of concern, especially given the weak job market after 2008.[77] Some loans are financed by the federal government, but students sometimes obtain private loans (which generally have higher interest rates and start accumulating interest immediately). In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education announced stricter eligibility rules for federal financing of loans to student at for-profit schools, which were experiencing higher default rates.[78]
Research since the 1970s have consistently found that professors are more liberal and Democratic than the general population.[79][80][81] Surveys conducted in the last 10 years indicate that between 44%-62% faculty self-identify as liberal, while 9%-18% self-identify as conservative. Conservative self-identification is higher in two-year colleges than other categories of higher education but has been declining overall.[82] Those in natural sciences, engineering, and business were less liberal than those in the social sciences and humanities. A 2005 study found that liberal views had increased compared to the older studies. 15% in the survey described themselves as right of center. While the humanities and the social sciences are still the most left leaning, 67% of those in other fields combined described themselves as left of center. In business and engineering, liberals outnumber conservatives by a 2:1 ratio. The study also found that women, practicing Christians, and Republicans taught at lower quality schools[clarification needed] than would be expected from objectively measured professional accomplishments.[83][84] One critic has suggested that "Groupthink" explains why liberals appear to be overrepresented.[85]
A 2007 study criticized some recent surveys, such as the above 2005 study, on methodological grounds as well as being motivated by conservative concerns. It also pointed to the influence of conservative think tanks outside academia. In its own survey it found that while conservatives were rare, there was a large centrist group between those self-identifying as liberals or conservatives. More moderate views were more common in younger professors, although also in this age group liberals were several times more common than conservatives. The age group with most liberal professors were the professors who were teenagers or young adults in the radical 1960s. Of all surveyed, 3% identified themselves as Marxists with the highest numbers being in social sciences (17%) and humanities (5%).[86][87]
A 2011 study disagreed with younger professors being more moderate and instead argued that the average view may shift further left in the future. The study also found that the years of college education had little effect on the political view of undergraduates. There was little evidence that right leaning professors were treated poorly. However, they may have difficulty publishing with a cited study finding that out of 494 books published by Harvard University Press eight were conservative or classical liberal in orientation. Regarding the cause of the apparent liberal overrepresentation, it found that conservative students preferred to major in fields leading to immediate employment, such as hotel management or accounting, rather than further studies.[88][89] Self-selection has also been suggested by others as the main explanation.[90][91]
In one study the researchers sent out e-mails to graduate studies directors at top ranked departments. They claimed to be an undergraduate asking for guidance regarding if this was a suitable department. The e-mails differed regarding which presidential campaign the undergraduate had worked for. There was no statical difference in the replies. On the other hand, a survey of sociology professors found that one quarter stated that they would be more likely to vote for hiring a declared Democrat and less likely to vote for hiring a declared Republican. Around 40% stated that they would be less likely to vote for hiring an Evangelical or a member of the National Rifle Association. Another survey found a similar situation for humanities and other social sciences professors.[92][improper synthesis?]
There are both older[93][94][95] and more recent (such as The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America) right-wing criticisms regarding the political views of the academia and the effects of these as well as counter-criticisms against these views.[96][97][98]
A 2007 poll found that 58% of Americans thought that college professors' political bias was a "serious problem". This varied depending on the political views of those asked. 91% of "very conservative" adults agreed compared with only 3% of liberals.[99]
- ^ The Academic Ranking of World Universities formula was based on alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (10 percent), staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (20 percent), "highly-cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories" (20 percent), articles published in the journals Nature and Science (20 percent), the Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (20 percent) and the size of the institution (10 percent).
- ^ http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_275.asp
- ^ http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
- ^ http://www.census.gov/hhes/school/data/cps/2010/tables.html
- ^ "Educational Attainment." American Community Survey and Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2006. United States Census Bureau.
- ^ [1]." Outside the Belt Way, 20068. Outside the Belt Way Blog.
- ^ ZAC BISSONNETTE (2010-04-28). "College Enrollment Hits New Record, but That's Not Necessarily Good News". dailyfinance.com. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/careers/college-enrollment-hits-new-record-but-thats-not-such-good-new/19456710/?icid=main.
- ^ "Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed a Bachelor's Degree: 2006." American Community Survey and Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2006. United States Census Bureau.
- ^ [2]
- ^ Beth Frerking, Community Colleges: For Achievers, a New Destination, The New York Times, April 22, 2007.
- ^ "Basic Classification Technical Details". Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=798. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
- ^ "NACUBO Endowment Study" (PDF). January 2007. http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf.
- ^ John R. Thelin, A History of American Higher Education (2004) pp 1-40
- ^ Lawrence A. Cremin, American Education: The Colonial Experience, 1607–1783 (1970)
- ^ Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University: A History (1991) pp 3-22
- ^ Anton-Hermann Chroust, Rise of the Legal Profession in America (1965) vol 1 ch 1-2
- ^ Genevieve Miller, "A Physician in 1776," Clio Medica, Oct 1976, Vol. 11 Issue 3, pp 135-146
- ^ Jacob Ernest Cooke, ed. Encyclopedia of the North American colonies (3 vol 1992) 1:214
- ^ Michael Katz, "The Role of American Colleges in the Nineteenth Century," History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer, 1983), pp. 215-223 in JSTOR, summarizing Colin B. Burke, American Collegiate Populations: A Test of the Traditional View (New York University Press, 1982) and Peter Dobkin Hall, The Organization of American Culture: Private Institutions, Elites, and the Origins of American Nationality (New York University Press, 1982)
- ^ US Application Process 2009
- ^ [3]
- ^ Bowman, Nicholas and Michael Bastedo,"Getting on the Front Page: Organizational Reputation, Status Signals, and the Impact of U.S. News and World Report Rankings on Student Decisions." personal.umich.edu Retrieved June 29, 2010.
- ^ Annaivey.com
- ^ Education-portal.com
- ^ Jaschik, Scott (20 June 2007). "More Momentum Against ‘U.S. News’". Inside Higher Ed. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/20/usnews.
- ^ a b "ANNAPOLIS GROUP STATEMENT ON RANKINGS AND RATINGS". Annapolis Group. 19 June 2007. http://www.collegenews.org/x7131.xml.
- ^ a b Morse, Robert (22 June 2007). "About the Annapolis Group's Statement". U.S. News and World Report. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2007/6/22/about-the-annapolis-groups-statement.html#read_more.
- ^ Vedder, Richard (July 2004). "Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much". American Enterprise Institute. http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.780,filter.all/book_detail2.asp.
- ^ Robert E. Wright, Fubarnomics: A Lighthearted, Serious Look at America's Economic Ills (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 2010).
- ^ a b c Schumpeter (December 10, 2011). "University challenge: Slim down, focus and embrace technology: American universities need to be more businesslike". The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/21541398. Retrieved 2011-12-23. "ex-students have debts approaching $1 trillion."
- ^ Buss, Dale (2005-09-04). "Sometimes, It's Not the Tuition. It's the Textbooks". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/business/yourmoney/04text.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=textbook%20exchange&st=cse. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
- ^ a b Linda Gorman (2009-12-05). "State Education Subsidies Shift Students to Public Universities". National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/digest/dec03/w9720.html.
- ^ Weisbrod, B. A. (2008). Mission and Money : Understanding the University [electronic resource]. 78-81.
- ^ Michelle Singletary (2009-10-22). "The Color of Money:Getting through college these days almost requires a degree in thrift". Washington Post. pp. 20A. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102103664.html?sub=AR.
- ^ a b Tuition Levels Rise but Many Students Pay Significantly Less than Published Rates. The College Board (2003). URL accessed on June 20, 2005
- ^ Weisbrod, B. A. (2008). Mission and Money : Understanding the University [electronic resource]. 79.
- ^ Weisbrod, B. A. (2008). Mission and Money : Understanding the University [electronic resource]. 84.
- ^ "Trends in College Spending 1998-2008" Delta Cost Project.
- ^ The Smartest Students in America go to...
- ^ Broder, David S. (columnist) (December 7, 2008). College affordability about future. Burlington Free Press (and other column subscribers).
- ^ Clark, Kim (November 17–24, 2008). Does it Matter That Your Professor Is Part Time?. US News and World Report.
- ^ Weisbrod, B. A. (2008). Mission and Money : Understanding the University [electronic resource]. 87.
- ^ Douthat, Ross (2010-07-18). "The Roots Of White Anxiety". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html?_r=2&hp.
- ^ The Role of Higher Education in Social Mobility. Robert Haveman and Timothy Smeeding. Opportunity in America Volume 16 Number 2 Fall 2006
- ^ Aronowitz, Stanley. The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate University and Creating True Higher Learning, p. 76. ISBN 0-8070-3123-2.
- ^ Aronowitz, The Knowledge Factory 75-76.
- ^ Marklein, Mary Beth (15 November 2010). "Learning abroad suffers". Melbourne, Florida: Florida Today. pp. 4A. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-11-15-studyabroad15_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip.
- ^ Marklein, Mary Beth (November 16, 2009). "More U.S. students groing abroad, and vice-versa". USA Today. pp. 5D. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-11-16-opendoors16_ST_N.htm.
- ^ Marklein, Mary Beth (November 14, 2010). "More foreign students in USA". Melbourne, Florida: Florida Today. pp. 4A. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-11-13/foreign-students-boost-usa-economy/51188560/1.
- ^ College Board (2007). "3". Meeting College Costs: A Workbook for Families. New York: College Board.
- ^ (FAFSA)
- ^ College Board (2007). "3". Meeting College Costs: A Workbook for Families. New York: College Board.
- ^ College Board (2007). "3". Meeting College Costs: A Workbook for Families. New York: College Board.
- ^ "Student Loan Debt Exceeds One Trillion Dollars". National Public Radio. http://www.npr.org/2012/04/24/151305380/student-loan-debt-exceeds-one-trillion-dollars. Retrieved 9 May 2012.
- ^ a b c d e Chen, R., & St. John, E. P. (2011). State Financial Policies and College Student Persistence: A National Study. Journal Of Higher Education, 82(5), 629-660.
- ^ Fast facts [Fact Sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences website: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
- ^ College Board (2007). "3". Meeting College Costs: A Workbook for Families. New York: College Board.
- ^ a b c Clinedinst, M. (2005, May). Investing in America’s future: Why student aid pays off for society and individuals (Policy Report). Retrieved from Institute for Higher Education Policy website: http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/g-l/InvestingAmerica.pdf
- ^ McPherson, Michael; Morton Owen Shapiro. "Financing Undergraduate Education: Designing National Policies". National Tax Journal 1 (3): 557-571.
- ^ Fast facts [Fact Sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences website: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=561
- ^ a b Tandberg, D. (2010). Politics, Interest Groups and State Funding of Public Higher Education. Research In Higher Education, 51(5), 416-450. doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9164-5
- ^ McPherson, M. S. & Shapiro, M. O. (2002) “The Blurring Line between Merit and Need in Financial Aid” in Change, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 38-46
- ^ Shapiro, Morton and Michael S. McPherson. 2006. "Watch What We Do (and Not What We Say)." In College Access: Opportunity or Privilege?, edited by McPherson, M.S. & Shapiro, M.O., 49-73. New York: The College Board
- ^ Shapiro, Morton and Michael S. McPherson. 2006. "Watch What We Do (and Not What We Say)." In College Access: Opportunity or Privilege?, edited by McPherson, M.S. & Shapiro, M.O., 49-73. New York: The College Board
- ^ a b c Rowan-Kenyon, H. T. (2007). Predictors of Delayed College Enrollment and the Impact of Socioeconomic Status. Journal Of Higher Education, 78(2), 188-214.
- ^ M. (2008). Emerging from the Pipeline: African American Students, Socioeconomic Status, and College Experiences and Outcomes. Research In Higher Education, 49(3), 237-255. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9079-y
- ^ a b c Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
- ^ Walpole, M. (2008). Emerging from the Pipeline: African American Students, Socioeconomic Status, and College Experiences and Outcomes. Research In Higher Education, 49(3), 237-255. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9079-y
- ^ Rubin, M. (2012). Social class differences in social integration among students in higher education: A meta-analysis and recommendations for future research. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 22-38. doi:10.1037/a0026162
- ^ a b c Zota, S. (2009, Spring/Summer). Unauthorized immigrants’ access to higher education: fifty states, different direction. Popular Government, 74(3), 46-54. Retrieved from http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pg/pgspsm09/article7.pdf
- ^ a b c Harmon, C., Carne, G., Lizardy-Hajbi, K., & Wilkerson, E. (2010, April 1). Access to higher education for undocumented students: "Outlaws" of social justice, equity, and equality. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 5(1), 67-82. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.library.unlv.edu/jpme/vol5/iss1/9/
- ^ Bailey, Martha; Dynarski, Susan (2011). Inequality in Postsecondary Education.
- ^ Fowler, Janet (26 August 2011). "Eight High Paying Jobs That Require 2-Year Degrees". Investopedia. http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0811/8-High-Paying-Jobs-That-Require-2-Year-Degrees.aspx#axzz1okK92tK0. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
- ^ Carnevale, Anthony; Jeff Strohl & Michelle Melton (24 May 2011). "What's It Worth: The Economic Value of College Majors". Georgetown University. http://cew.georgetown.edu/whatsitworth/. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
- ^ John Lauerman and Esmé E. Deprez, "Apollo, Education Shares Plunge on Enrollment Outlook" Bloomberg Oct. 14, 2010
- ^ Goldie Blumenstyk, "U. of Phoenix Reports on Students’ Academic Progress," Chronicle of Higher Education Dec. 9, 2010
- ^ http://www.wbur.org/2010/05/26/student-loans-iii
- ^ http://www.citytowninfo.com/career-and-education-news/articles/department-of-education-puts-restrictions-on-for-profit-college-student-debt-10072601
- ^ Everett Carll Ladd and Seymour Martin Lipset, Academics, politics, and the 1972 election (1973)
- ^ Jack H. Schuster and Martin J. Finkelstein, The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers (2008) p. 145
- ^ Louis Menand, The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University (2010) pp 137-9
- ^ Maranto, Redding, Hess (2009). The Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope, and Reforms. The AEI Press. pp. 25–27. ISBN 978-0-8447-4317-2. http://www.aei.org/docLib/9780844743172.pdf.
- ^ Rothman, S.; Lichter, S. R.; Nevitte, N. (2005). "Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty". The Forum 3. DOI:10.2202/1540-8884.1067. edit
- ^ College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds, Howard Kurtz, Tuesday, March 29, 2005 Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
- ^ "Groupthink in Academia: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid." Pp. 79–98 in The Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope, and Reforms, edited by Robert Maranto, Richard Redding, and Frederick Hess. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
- ^ Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, "The Social and Political Views of American Professors" (paper presented at the Harvard University Symposium on Professors and Their Politics, Cambridge, MA, October 6, 2007).
- ^ The ’60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire, Patricia Cohen, July 3, 2008, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/arts/03camp.html?pagewanted=all
- ^ The Still Divided Academy: How Competing Visions of Power, Politics, and Diversity Complicate the Mission of Higher Education, Stanley Rothman, April Kelly- Woessner , Matthew Woessner, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011.
- ^ Five myths about liberal academia, Matthew Woessner, April Kelly-Woessner and Stanley Rothman Friday, February 25, 2011 Washtington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022503169.html
- ^ Diversity in American Higher Education: Toward a More Comprehensive Approach, Lisa Stulberg and Sharon Weinberg, eds, 2011, Routledge. Explaining professor's politics: An indirect text of the self-selection hypothesis,Neil Gross and Catherine Cheng
- ^ Maranto, Robert. 2009. "Why Political Science Is Left but Not Quite PC." Pp. 209–24 in The Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope, and Reforms, edited by Robert Maranto, Richard Redding, and Frederick Hess. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
- ^ The Left-Leaning Tower, John Tierny, The New York Times, July 22, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edl-24notebook-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
- ^ Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, Roger Kimball, New York: Harper&Row, 1990
- ^ The Hollow Men: Politics and Corruption in Higher Education. Sykes, Charles J T, Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway. 1990
- ^ The Universities Under Attack... Roger Rosenblat, April 22, 1990, Book Review Desk, http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/04/nnp/kimball-radicals.html
- ^ Epstein, Barbara. 1995. "Political Correctness and Collective Powerlessness," in Darnovsky, Marcy, Barbara Epstein, and Richard Flacks, (Eds.), Cultural Politics and Social Movements. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, pp. 3-19.
- ^ Messer, Ellen. 1995. "Manufacturing the Attack on Liberalized Higher Education." In: Callari, Antonio, Stephen Cullenberg, and Carole Biewener, (Eds.), Marxism in the Postmodern Age: Confronting the New World Order. New York, NY: Guildford Press, pp. 526-536.
- ^ "Facts Count: An Analysis of David Horowitz's "The Professors"," Free Exchange on Campus, 2006, http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=12&Itemid=25
- ^ Zogby Poll: Most Think Political Bias Among College Professors a Serious Problem, Jul 10, 2007, http://www.zogby.com/news/2007/07/10/zogby-poll-most-think-political-bias-among-college-professors-a-serious-problem/
- Barrow, Clyde W. Universities and the Capitalist State: Corporate Liberalism and the Reconstruction of American Higher Education, 1894–1928, University of Wisconsin Press 1990
- Bogue, E. Grady and Aper, Jeffrey. Exploring the Heritage of American Higher Education: The Evolution of Philosophy and Policy. Oryx, 2000. 272 pp.
- Brint, S., & Karabel, J. The Diverted Dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. Oxford University Press. (1989).
- Carney, Cary Michael. Native American Higher Education in the United States. Transaction, 1999. 193 pp.
- Cohen, Arthur M. (1998). The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Diamond, Sigmund. Compromised Campus: The Collaboration of Universities with the Intelligence Community, 1945–1955, Oxford University Press 1992
- Eisenmann, Linda. Higher Education for Women in Postwar America, 1945-1965. Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2006. 304 pp.
- Faragher, John Mack and Howe, Florence, ed. Women and Higher Education in American History. Norton, 1988. 220 pp.
- Frye, John H. The Vision of the Public Junior College, 1900-1940: Professional Goals and Popular Aspirations. Greenwood, 1992. 163 pp.
- Geiger, Roger L., ed. The American College in the Nineteenth Century. Vanderbilt University Press. (2000). online review
- Geiger, Roger L. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900-1940. Oxford University Press. (1986).
- Geiger, Roger L. Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II. Oxford University Press. (2001).
- Gleason, Philip. Contending with Modernity: Catholic Higher Education in the Twentieth Century. Oxford U. Press, 1995. 434 pp.
- Horowitz, Helen L. Campus life: Undergraduate cultures from the end of the eighteenth century to the present. (1987).
- Ihle, Elizabeth L., ed. Black Women in Higher Education: An Anthology of Essays, Studies, and Documents. Garland, 1992. 341 pp.
- Jarausch, Konrad H., ed. The Transformation of Higher Learning, 1860-1930. U. of Chicago Press, 1983. 375 pp.
- Johnson, Benjamin H. et al., eds. Steal This University: The Rise of the Corporate University and the Academic Labor Movement, Routledge Chapman & Hall, 2002, ISBN 0-415-93484-2
- Kerr, Clark. The Great Transformation in Higher Education, 1960-1980. State U. of New York Press, 1991. 383 pp.
- Leahy, William P. Adapting to America: Catholics, Jesuits, and Higher Education in the Twentieth Century. Georgetown U. Press, 1991. 187 pp.
- Levine, D. O. The American college and the culture of aspiration, 1915–1940. (1986).
- Lucas, C. J. American higher education: A history. (1994).
- Robson, David W. Educating Republicans: The College in the Era of the American Revolution, 1750-1800. Greenwood, 1985. 272 pp.
- Ruben, Julie. The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. University Of Chicago Press. (1996).
- Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University: A History (1991), a standard survey
- Thelin, John R. A History of American Higher Education. Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2004. 421 pp.
- Veysey Lawrence R. The emergence of the American university. (1965).
|
|
|
| Sovereign states |
|
|
Dependencies and
other territories |
|
|
![Bruno Mars - It Will Rain [OFFICIAL VIDEO]](http://web.archive.org./web/20131031220642im_/http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/W-w3WfgpcGg/default.jpg "Bruno Mars - It Will Rain [OFFICIAL VIDEO]")
![THE LEGEND OF ZELDA RAP [MUSIC VIDEO]](http://web.archive.org./web/20131031220642im_/http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/mO1QBTG6EXs/default.jpg "THE LEGEND OF ZELDA RAP [MUSIC VIDEO]")
![Bruno Mars - When I Was Your Man [Official Video]](http://web.archive.org./web/20131031220642im_/http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/ekzHIouo8Q4/default.jpg "Bruno Mars - When I Was Your Man [Official Video]")
![ULTIMATE ASSASSIN'S CREED 3 SONG [Music Video]](http://web.archive.org./web/20131031220642im_/http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/12PWq22E9CQ/default.jpg "ULTIMATE ASSASSIN'S CREED 3 SONG [Music Video]")
![Bruno Mars - Just The Way You Are [OFFICIAL VIDEO]](http://web.archive.org./web/20131031220642im_/http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/LjhCEhWiKXk/default.jpg "Bruno Mars - Just The Way You Are [OFFICIAL VIDEO]")
.JPG)
