New England’s traditional public and private nonprofit colleges and universities conferred more than 201,000 degrees at all levels in 2010—or more than 6% of the U.S. total, compared with the region's less than 5% of the U.S. population. However, those traditional public and private nonprofit colleges make up an ever-smaller portion of the ...]]> Updated November 2012

New England’s traditional public and private nonprofit colleges and universities conferred more than 201,000 degrees at all levels in 2010—or more than 6% of the U.S. total, compared with the region's less than 5% of the U.S. population. However, those traditional public and private nonprofit colleges make up an ever-smaller portion of the U.S. total, and the U.S. represents a shrinking part of the global higher education market.

Among other highlights in NEBHE's annual update on measures of "College Success" ...

• Amid national calls for increasing degree attainment, only 16% of students at New England’s traditional two-year community colleges graduate within three years of enrolling—and the rate is even lower among U.S. minority groups.
• NEBHE and other experts are refocusing attention on student transfer between institutions—and not simply from two-year to four-year institutions, but also “reverse transfer” in an age of student "swirl."
• Nearly 60% of all higher education degrees awarded in New England are conferred on women.

For other trend data, visit our continually updated Trends & Indicators or Newslink.

Figure CS 1: Graduation Rates by State, Race/Ethnicity and Type of Institution, 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: The graduation rate is the percentage of students who complete an associate degree (at two-year institutions) within three years, or a bachelor's degree (at four-year institutions) within six years.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 2: Graduation and Transfer Rates by State and Type of Institution, 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: The graduation rate is the percentage of students who complete an associate degree (at two-year institutions only) within three years or a bachelor's degree (at four-year institutions) within six years. Figures are based on cohorts entering in 2002 (four-year institutions) or 2005 (two-year institutions). New England data is based on the aggregate numbers of all institutions of a given type, rather than an average of the states' graduation rates.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 3: Total Degrees Awarded at New England's Colleges and Universities and New England's Share of U.S. Degrees, 2000 to 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 4: Degrees Awarded in New England by Gender, 1972 to 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 5: Attainment of College (Tertiary-Type A) Degrees for 25- to 34-Year-Olds in OECD and Partner Countries, 2009

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: Tertiary-type A programs are largely theory-based and designed to provide sufficient qualifications for entry to advanced research programs and roughly correspond to bachelor's and master's degree programs in the U.S. Advanced research programs correspond to doctorate programs.

Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2010, Table A1.3a.

Figure CS 6: Associate Degrees Conferred on Men, Women, Minorities and Foreign Students, 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: The graduation rate is the percentage of students who complete an associate degree (at two-year institutions) within three years, or a bachelor's degree (at four-year institutions) within six years.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 7: Associate Degrees Awarded at New England Colleges and Universities by Selected Fields of Study, 1971 to 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: Disciplines not listed include: Arts and Music, Education, Social Service Professions, Communication and Librarianship, Psychology, Social Sciences, Geosciences, Law, Interdisciplinary or other Sciences, Architecture and Environmental Design, Humanites, Religion and Theology, Math and Computer Sciences and unknown disciplines. These unlisted disciplines awarded 13,869 degrees in 2010.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 8: Bachelor's Degrees Conferred on Men, Women, Minorities and Foreign Students, 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 9: Bachelor's Degrees Awarded at New England Colleges and Universities by Selected Fields of Study, 1971 to 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: Data from 1971 to 2001 reflect 10-year intervals and data from 2003 to 2008 reflect one-year intervals. Disciplines not listed include: Communication and Librarianship, Math and Computer Sciences, Engineering, Vocational Studies and Home Economics, Science and Engineering Technologies, Social Service Professions, Physical Sciences, Architecture and Environmental Design, Geosciences, Religion and Theology, Interdisciplinary or other Science, Law and unknown disciplines. These unlisted disciplines awarded 29,977 degrees in 2010.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 10: Master's Degrees Conferred on Men, Women, Minorities and Foreign Students, 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 11: Master's Degrees Awarded at New England Colleges and Universities by Selected Fields of Study, 1971 to 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: Data from 1971 to 2001 reflect 10-year intervals and data from 2003 to 2008 reflect one-year intervals. Disciplines not listed include: Physcial Science, Geosciences, Math and Computer Science, Psychology, Science and Engineering Technologies, Interdisciplinary or other Sciences, Religion and Theology, Arts and Music, Architecture and Environmental Design, Communication and Librarianship, Law, Social Service Professions, Vocational Studies and Home Economics and unknown disciplines. These unlisted disciplines awarded 13,460 degrees in 2010.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 12: Doctorates Conferred on Men, Women, Minorities and Foreign Students, 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: Includes all doctorate degrees, doctorate degree professional practice, doctorate degree research/scholarship and other doctorate degrees.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 12a: Doctorate Research and Scholarship Degrees Conferred on Men, Women, Minorities and Foreign Students, 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: A Ph.D. or other doctor's degree that requires advanced work beyond the master’s level, including the preparation and defense of a dissertation based on original research, or the planning and execution of an original project demonstrating substantial artistic or scholarly achievement. Some examples of this type of degree may include Ed.D., D.M.A., D.B.A., D.Sc., D.A., or D.M, and others, as designated by the awarding institution.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 12b: Doctorate Professional Practice Degrees Conferred on Men, Women Minorities and Foreign Students, 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: A doctor’s degree that is conferred upon completion of a program providing the knowledge and skills for the recognition, credential, or license required for professional practice. The degree is awarded after a period of study such that the total time to the degree, including both pre-professional and professional preparation, equals at least six full-time equivalent academic years. Some of these degrees were formerly classified as “first-professional” and may include: Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.); Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.); Law (L.L.B. or J.D.); Medicine (M.D.); Optometry (O.D.); Osteopathic Medicine (D.O); Pharmacy (Pharm.D.); Podiatry (D.P.M., Pod.D., D.P.); or, Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.), and others, as designated by the awarding institution.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

Figure CS 12c: Other Doctorates Conferred on Men, Women, Minorities and Foreign Students, 2010

Click on the chart to enlarge.

Note: A doctorate degree that does not meet the definition of a doctorate degree-research/scholarship or a doctorate degree-professional practice. An example would be doctorate degrees awarded in a single subject non-education field.

Source: New England Board of Higher Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education data.

>>Back to Trends & Indicators

“Few philosophers have shown much interest in examining the moral problems …” in academe, their own bailiwick, complains Steven Cahn, a philosopher and former president of The Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New York (CUNY).

Cahn initiated a course in ...]]> Moral Problems in Higher Education, Steven Cahn, editor, Temple University Press, 2011.

“Few philosophers have shown much interest in examining the moral problems …” in academe, their own bailiwick, complains Steven Cahn, a philosopher and former president of The Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New York (CUNY).

Cahn initiated a course in academic ethics at CUNY and is the author of the 1980s book called Saints and Scamps: Ethics in Academia.

His newer volume, Moral Problems in Higher Education, provides at least two points of view about major and recurring issues in higher education, including hate speech restrictions versus free speech, affirmative action in recruiting students and faculty, the ethical issues around sponsored research, peer review, letters of recommendation, institutional neutrality and university athletics. Cahn recruited more than a dozen philosophers and a few lawyers and former university presidents to offer alternative analyses on moral dilemmas.

The list of readings, some of them classics 20 or more years old, is designed for university courses in academic ethics or contemporary issues.

Education scholars Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom attempt to rebut Derek Bok and William Bowen’s argument that universities must make extra efforts to admit previously excluded and underenrolled racial and ethnic groups. The Thernstroms argue that this policy parallels the caps on Jews at selective ivy colleges decades ago and could jeopardize the opportunities for high-scoring Asian students who enroll in high numbers at California public universities today. How do universities expand opportunity and play fair with all qualified applicants?

University athletic programs on occasion fall victim to highly publicized betting and athlete recruiting scandals. Provoking thought are the arguments of Myles Brand, a philosopher and president of both the University of Oregon and Indiana University who went on to direct the NCAA. He contends that physical health, once celebrated by the Greeks, has been subordinated to the humanities including the fine arts. He would have universities treat athletic directors as deans and members of the president’s cabinet, and basketball treated with the cultural enthusiasm afforded ballet!  Universities provide “entertainment” in the form of concerts and plays, so why not respect football games as well?

Ours is an age where candor and transparency are honored. But are there limits? What about academic references? One chapter features an amazingly honest (mock) letter of recommendation for a doctoral student performing in the “third quartile” that might never become a great scholar but could probably be relied upon to meet classes. Philosophers can provoke us to discussing moral issues with humorous examples.

Universities, one philosopher contends, should be, but cannot be, completely “neutral”.  Over the past decades, they have contracted with the Department of Defense and pharmaceutical companies, allowed the CIA to recruit graduates on campus, and accepted funds from donors with questionable values and habits. Avoiding outright partisanship, how do colleges and universities find a moral compass to guide the turning down of gifts and contracts that might compromise the integrity and independence of the campus?

Study questions follow each chapter. This book would be useful for courses in higher education leadership or new president seminars offered by collegiate associations and schools of education. We yearn for morality in public life, and need more discussion of the moral issues facing higher education.

Joseph M. Cronin is former president of Bentley University.

New England universities performed more than $4 billion worth of research and development in 2009, but the region’s share of total R&D performed by all U.S. universities remained at 7.3%, down from more than 10% in the 1980s.

The region's university research labs have been world-famous for ideas that breed companies and whole ...]]>

New England universities performed more than $4 billion worth of research and development in 2009, but the region’s share of total R&D performed by all U.S. universities remained at 7.3%, down from more than 10% in the 1980s.

The region's university research labs have been world-famous for ideas that breed companies and whole industries in fields ranging from biotechnology to photonics.

New England universities capture a disproportionate share of research dollars in fields such as environmental sciences. But the region has been overly reliant on federal research funds and underfunded by the New England states.

For other trend data, visit our continually updated Trends & Indicators or check back to last year's Trends & Indicators 2010 or Newslink.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

The nation seems to have suddenly awoken to the reality that for-profit academic institutions are a force to be reckoned with. For so long, they have been ignored as inconsequential, second-rate competition, and vilified for their greed and lack of quality. Two events seemed to have changed their image into something far more formidable: the ...]]>

The nation seems to have suddenly awoken to the reality that for-profit academic institutions are a force to be reckoned with. For so long, they have been ignored as inconsequential, second-rate competition, and vilified for their greed and lack of quality. Two events seemed to have changed their image into something far more formidable: the realization that government-sponsored financial aid goes disproportionately (and with a dangerously high default rates) to the for-profit sector, and the excellent exposé on Frontline (College, Inc.) that slammed the aggressive recruiting practices of these schools.

There is much hypocrisy as newspapers, themselves for-profits, and the politicians who previously promoted the development of more storefront enterprises in their own districts, now question the fundamental ability of for-profit universities to deliver higher education—and “not-for-profit” universities now feel the threat of this competition. This is not to say that for-profits haven’t been guilty of excessive behavior, but they operate in a much larger academic ecosystem, which needs to be acknowledged. I offer these five uncomfortable observations.

First is that the for-profits fill the void relinquished by the rest of us. A case in point is the University of Phoenix, which began in the 1970s as a small for-profit program aligned with the Jesuit University of San Francisco, then moved to Phoenix to escape the scrutiny of the California accreditors, and slowly morphed from a bricks-and-mortar enterprise to mostly online in just the last decade. At no point did the University of Phoenix invent anything especially new, discover something that wasn’t otherwise obvious, or unearth a market that wasn’t being systematically neglected by the mainstream educational establishment. I recall asking a senior administrator at an urban flagship state university on the East Coast why Phoenix was able to develop such a successful presence there. She replied that the business school faculty at her university were not interested in teaching part-time adult students and simply surrendered that market to the for-profit.

Second is that the for-profits make the equivalent of hamburgers, and sell them in large quantity to a mass market—nothing exotic, nothing even especially novel or risky. Credit for every academic invention should go to highly acclaimed universities. The for-profits simply took those innovations and turned them into commodities, and high-priced ones at that. While originality, creativity, and academic imagination reside in the nation’s most prominent universities, the will and the way to cast a wide net for students exists in the for-profit world, which produced major marketing machines. The numbers are staggering: The four largest companies/universities have a combined headcount of more than one million students and annual revenues of $11.7 billion. Their stocks, though, are plummeting under the pressures to reform.

Third is the painful reality that the for-profits are not so different from the rest of us. All major colleges and universities engage in glitzy self-promotion, student recruiting, and assistance with procuring federal financial aid. We try, however, not to cross the line into misrepresentation and manipulation. What was portrayed on College, Inc. occurs in the not-for-profits as well, just, one hopes, less aggressively and deviously.

Fourth is the simplistic backlash that anything for-profit is inherently evil and any association between a nonprofit and a for-profit is inevitably corrupting. The more nuanced question is how to divide the labor and determine a legitimate space for the profit motive. For example, few colleges, other than Cornell University, make their own ice cream—this is something easily outsourced. But we do make our own education, which shouldn’t be subcontracted to an outside vendor. There are fundamental skills and defining features of our institutions that simply cannot be compromised or confused by outsourcing. While a partnership of for-profits and nonprofits, in so many domains, is inevitable, where the line is drawn between the two is not.

For-profits are now enormous and here to stay, though perhaps humbled and constrained by the barrage their reckless behavior inspired. We now need a détente rather than a blanket and universal rejection or a see-no-evil approach between mainstream academe and this emerging giant. But the traditional universities and accrediting bodies need to reassert their say over what is educationally credible.

Fifth is the dangerous convergence, in the public’s perception, of distance learning and for-profit corporations. Distance learning is not the exclusive domain of the for-profits, most of which developed first in the conventional classroom offered at convenient sites. And prominent universities should not shy away from online learning for fear of guilt by association. Quality online learning is often lost in the schlock being peddled to the naïve consumer. There are important opportunities, if not a responsibility, to embrace the role that technology can play in providing powerful educational options for adult learners. These shouldn’t be stigmatized because of the mass marketing of online programs by for-profits or the mistaken notion that distance learning and the profit motive are somehow synonymous. I am concerned that important, laudable online initiatives might become collateral damage of the front-page exposés on for-profit mischief.

And now a sixth observation, perhaps more of a prediction: We ain’t seen nothing yet. While legislators wring their hands on how to get the genie back in the bottle, the for-profits are moving quietly and imperialistically throughout the world where the fine distinctions between for-profit and nonprofit are less clear. At some point, U.S. institutions will wake up to an even more glaring case of neglect—and find the for-profits have gobbled up the global marketplace with their version of U.S. higher education.

________________________________________________________________________

Jay A. Halfond is dean of Metropolitan College and Extended Education at Boston University.