AAEA would like to make continued comments on what the US College Presidents opinion on current and future US education system.  The College Presidents say that reformers pay too much attention on cutting college cost than finding new ways to change the model of teaching and learning as summarized in the Chronicle’s survey results.  The Association believes that both objectives need to be done simultaneously.  Finding the new and improved model of teaching and student learning efficiently is the main goal of reforming and revitalize the US higher education.  Those two objectives are complementary to each other and they are not mutually exclusive.  Reducing cost of education cannot be justified or achieved by lowering quality of teaching and student learning. It is one of the College Presidents’ jobs to achieve such two important objectives at the same time.  However, the Chronicle’s survey confirms AAEA’s previous statistical study in that most, if not all US College administrators did not applying minimum cost mindset in managing their institution.  AAEA has applied econometric analyses to estimate the cost function in the US higher education industry.  However, it does not exist.

The important notes that the Association would like the readers to think about.

1. The fact of the matter is that over many years federal, state and non-profit organizations have sponsored many studies that aimed to find ways or models to improve teaching and learning at US Colleges.  Therefore, the US College Presidents’ opinion as expressed by the Chronicle’s recent study may reflect total failure of those research projects.  In other words, the results of such research are not applicable.  It is just good in theory, but cannot be applied in the real world or are they just another academic exercise?
2. AAEA recent studies found strong positive statistical correlations among administrative or overhead cost, college cost and student loans increases.  While point one above has been handled and given significant attention and research funding in the past, the tax payers are hoping that students’ learning are improving overtime (this is another maintained hypothesis that need to be proved).  On the other hand, college cost increases and the out-of control of student loans growth seem to be ignored for many years.  Only until recently when the Association starts raising the issues; make its analytical studies available to the American public and when the student loans passed the $1 trillion mark, then the interests on such topics are growing.  The American public starts asking the questions and wanted to know the reasons behind student loans and college cost skyrocketed.  AAEA has revealed the results based on Delta Cost data and rigorous statistical analyses.
3. By reading the overall results, it seems that the Presidents are not up-to-date or fully aware on what has happened at the operational level of their institution.  The results could be different if the studies are directed toward the Chief Operating Office, the Provost or person who actually runs the show.
4. Point 3 above may lead one to make a deduction that most College Presidents in the US are holding a PR or a ceremonial position only.   He or she may know the big picture, but may not have hand-on or detailed knowledge to actually manage the institution.  Somebody else might be the “true” administrator.
5. The sampling error could have been committed on the Chronicle’s recent studies such as identifying inappropriate target of audience to answer such important issues.  This may result of inflating the measurement errors.  For example, perhaps, somebody else i.e. the administrative secretary filled out the survey for them?  As said before, it is important to conduct the validity and other tests before publishing the results.  Do the questions asked on the survey measured what they are intended for, or other systematic errors have been done as discussed in the Classical Test Theory?

Please let us know what do you guys think?