I guess I better start by saying that my comments are my own opinions and do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the university that employs me. Just felt like a little disclaimer was appropriate here . . .
Here in Oregon, our legislature is talking about a bill mandating that colleges number their courses all the same and guarantee that they'll accept courses taken at other Oregon institutions. I understand there are three bills floating around and I managed to find info on two:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2012.intro.pdf
http://gopher.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/sb0300.dir/sb0342.intro.html
A Legislative Newsletter I read last Friday tried to summarize the first one as follows:
HOUSE VERSION OF COMMON COURSE NUMBERING BILL SCHEDULED MONDAY
"HB 2012, sponsored by House Speaker Karen Minnis (R-Fairview), Representatives Gordon Anderson (R-Grants Pass), Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) and Alan Brown (R-Newport) and others is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday, March 14 at 1:00 p.m., HR E, before the House Education Committee. The bill directs the State Board of Higher Education and the State Board of Education to jointly develop a common course numbering system to be in place by the 2005-2006 academic year.
"It further directs post-secondary institutions to accept, for credit toward degree, credits granted by other post-secondary institutions. HB 2012 is drafted to apply to all post-secondary institutions that have students enrolled at the institution who receive Oregon Opportunity Grants under ORS 348.260. Technically, the requirements of the measure apply to an Oregon-based, generally accredited, not-for-profit institution of higher education"
Honestly, I can't imagine that these bills will go anywhere in reality but, c'mon, why are legislators wasting their time and taxpayers' money on this type of discussion? They are revealing how little they really know about how higher education works:
1. The House bill apparently wants to place this requirement on the private colleges as well as publics, but private colleges in Oregon operate on different academic calendars than the publics (semester vs. quarter) and often offer different majors (e.g., Christian ministry). This one-size-fits-all approach won't work.
2. I can't see where the lawmakers have placed any limit on this. For instance, many community colleges offer courses that are technical in nature. They may be college-level but have nothing at all to do with the academic programs at another institution. Will every four-year institution have to accept all 100-level and higher technical courses taken at a community college? Again, one-size-doesn't-fit-all.
3. Finally, and this may only be an issue with regard to the bills currently proposed: Do they really think that we should have this in place within the next six months? If so, they have no concept at all of the cycles in higher education. Colleges are preparing their catalogs right now for next fall. To renumber courses, etc., is a massive undertaking. There is no way on earth for colleges to make this kind of change, even if it was a good idea, in the next six months.
On a similar note here in Oregon, some legislators are saying that the public universities are spending too much on "fee remissions" for students. What are fee remissions? That's our lingo for scholarships and grants that are paid from the university's tuition income. Another term for it is "tuition discounting" and, essentially, it is a way to make your college more affordable for the needy and more attractive to the meritorious.
These lawmakers say that none of the Oregon public universities should spend more than 10% (I think that's the figure they ultimately want to reach) of their tuition on fee remissions. (And, at the same time, they want us to increase "access" for students so that more of them enroll in Oregon institutions. Go figure.)
These legislators fail to recognize three things. First, with regard to access, even though the cost of a public university education is relatively low, it still adds up very fast, especially for low income students. Sure, $4500 for tuition and fees is a great bargain, but when you add on room and board (perhaps $6000 or more on campus), books and supplies ($1000 a year) and personal expenses, you might end up with a total cost in excess of $12,000. That sounds great when compared to a private college where tuition alone is far north of that figure, but for a family with an income of $40,000 and government grants that total $7000, for example, coming up with $5000 or more a year may not be very reasonable.
Second, we may need to use fee remission dollars to keep Oregon's "best and brightest" here at home and to lure other states' good students across state lines. In doing so, we strengthen the tax base and economic future of Oregon.
Third, continuing my one-size-fits-all (not!) theme, it doesn't make sense to say that all Oregon University System institutions should have the same cap on fee remissions. The needs of each institution vary. For instance, because the University of Oregon has greater name recognition, a more centralized location and a wider variety of majors than Oregon Institute of Technology, it probably can meet its enrollment targets and access goals more easily than OIT can while committing a smaller percentage of income to fee remissions. In fact, the legislature itself has acknowledged this in the past when it gave Eastern Oregon University the opportunity to enroll non-residents at in-state rates, in essence recognizing that EOU's location--far from Oregon's population base and near the state line--and its relatively limited number of offerings put it at a disadvantage in its enrollment efforts.
Time and time again, I see federal and state lawmakers putting forth what appear to be unilateral and ill-informed bills that impact students and colleges. I wish they would just let the "free market," so to speak, drive these decisions. If the students start attending schools that make transferring easy, then those schools will thrive and the rest of us will hustle to catch up. If we give too much or too little financial aid, then students will enroll (or not) and our budgets will balance (or not). It'll all work out in the end.
OK, you can click somewhere else now that I've had the chance to vent. Thanks for indulging me.
