Are Ivy League Institutions Playing Politics With Honorary Degrees?

LL.D. The University of Pennsylvania 

LL.D. The College of William and Mary in Virginia 

In a post on the Library of Law and Liberty blog, Professor John McGinnis calls out seven universities in the Ivy League for ideological discrimination in the distribution of honorary degrees. (One Ivy League institution, Cornell, does not award such degrees.)  Professor McGinnis points out that: "of the fourteen honorary degrees bestowed by Ivy League institutions to living Supreme Court justices, twelve went to those on the left of the Court."   Justice Ginsburg, he continues, "is the champ," having received "an honorary degree from every Ivy League university except Cornell[.]" In addition to the twelve degrees conferred on those on the left, he says, Brown and Yale have each conferred honorary degrees on retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Professor McGinnis characterizes as "a moderate conservative."

According to Professor McGinnis, no Ivy League university has conferred an honorary degree on any of the sitting Justices that he characterizes as "on the right of the Court."  Presumably Professor McGinnis is referring to Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. 

Professor McGinnis has certainly identified a curious pattern. Additional research reveals that these schools have had ample opportunity to honor Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.  (Justice Scalia joined the Court in 1986, Justice Kennedy in 1988, and Justice Thomas in 1991.)  These jurists have served on the Supreme Court for a combined 90 years and performed over 125 years of public service in various positions with the national government. Over the past 25 years, Yale has awarded 241 such degrees, the University of Pennsylvania  has awarded 170, Harvard has awarded 234 (see here and here), and Princeton has awarded 156.  Penn, it should be noted, has awarded the "Doctor of Laws" (LL.D.) degree to such noted jurists as Bono (pictured above), Billie Jean King, Candice Bergen, and Ted Koppel.  Harvard has awarded the LL.D. degree to Bill Russell and Oprah Winfrey, and Princeton to Harry Belafonte.  Moreover, the published criteria for the award of such degrees seem tailor-made for these five justices. Yale, for instance, awards such degrees "to signal pioneering achievement in a field or conspicuous and exemplary contribution to the common weal." Penn states that "candidates should exemplify the highest ideals of the University, which seeks to educate those who will change the world through innovative scholarship, scientific discovery, artistic creativity, and/or societal leadership."  Nonetheless, these seven institutions, which purport to value public service and inclusion, have excluded each of these distinguished public servants from the highest honors they confer.

Fortunately, some colleges and universities are more inclusive when it comes to awarding such degrees, perhaps on the theory that individuals perceived as "conservative" sometimes make positive contributions to the common weal.   Way back in 1991, for instance, the College of William and Mary in Virginia, conferred an honorary LL.D. upon Justice Scalia.  Previously the College had conferred such degrees on Chief Justice Warren Burger (1973) and (then) Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist (1977). (For a list of past recipients of such degrees, go here.)  William and Mary is not the only institution with such good judgment.  Justice Scalia has also received honorary degrees from the University of Notre Dame, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Marymount University.  He received the Marshall-Wythe Medallion from the nation's first Law School in 2013, and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law from the University of Virginia, which does not confer honorary degrees, in 2008.   Moreover, one or more of the remaining four jurists that Professor McGinnis characterizes as "on the right" have received honorary degrees from New York University, the College of the Holy Cross, the University of the Pacific, and St, Mary's College.  (See here).

Perhaps the seven Ivy League institutions will catch up with institutions such as William and Mary and correct the oversights that Professor McGinnis has identified.  If so, these five jurists will proudly join the ranks of Bono, Oprah, Ted Koppel, Billie Jean King and other recipients of Ivy League LL.D. degrees.   

On the Cause(s) of and Cure(s) for Low College Graduation Rates

In a thoughtful essay Thomas K. Lindsay explores several causes of insufficient graduation rates at the nation's public universities and suggests some possible cures.  As he notes, Department of Education Data demonstrate that fewer than half of the nation's college students graduates in four years.  Even after six years, more than 40 percent still have not obtained a degree, he says.  (Go here for some recent Department of Education data showing that, for those students who entered college in 2006, about 41 percent had not graduated after 6 years.) As Lindsay points out. these low graduation rates impose various costs.  Perhaps most importantly, the annual cost of attending college is significant, particularly when one includes the opportunity cost in the form of income that students forgo.  Lindsay quotes a study concluding that: "the average added cost of just one year at a four-year public university is $63,718 in tuition, fees, books, and living expenses, plus lost wages each of those many students could have been earning had they finished on time." Lindsay also points out that students who have not graduated thereby delay their entry into the workplace, reducing their own lifetime earnings.  

Lindsay attributes these low graduation rates to several factors. First, he cites evidence suggesting that students themselves are either unaware of graduation requirements or, if they are aware, fail to take the courses necessary to satisfy such requirements.  Second, Lindsay contends that some colleges and universities have de-emphasized the role of the faculty in academic advising, relying instead on what he calls "professional advising offices."  Compared to faculty, he says, such professional advisors have inferior knowledge about the "strengths and weaknesses of their advisees" and also lack the sort of "deeper understanding of which courses contribute best to a meaningful college experience."  More reliance on faculty advising, he concludes, will improve students' selection of courses and thus increase graduation rates.   Finally, Lindsay contends that some colleges do not offer "the courses required for graduation . . . with sufficient regularity to make a four year stint possible." He concludes by admonishing students and their parents to "get the message" about the importance of graduating in four years and urging universities "to devote more effort to making the four year degree a practical reality once again."

Lindsay has identified a significant shortcoming of American Higher Education, a shortcoming states and the industry itself should be working to address.  Here are a few reactions to Lindsay's thoughtful piece, most of which simply supplement what he has said.

1.  Graduation rates at public universities vary widely among the states, to say the least.  According to this 2012 article in the Washington Post, the 2008 four year graduation rates at state flagship institutions ranged from less than 25 percent (the Universities of Alaska, New Mexico and Nevada) to 85 percent (the University of Virginia).  Moreover, this site maintained by the Chronicle of Higher Education reports that overall four year graduation rates for states's public universities range from 8.2 percent, 14 percent and 20 percent (Alaska, Idaho and Arkansas, respectively) to 68 percent, 69 percent and 70 percent (Washington, Iowa and Delaware, respectively).  Thus, while some states have a large amount of work to do, others are already doing something right.  Perhaps the nation's system of competitive federalism will induce those states who lag to adopt reforms that help close the gap with leaders like Delaware.

2.  Advanced Placement Credits earned in high school can be an important tool for improving graduation rates.   According to this study, for instance, students who enter college with such credits are more likely to graduate on time than similarly-situated students who do not.  Unfortunately, some high schools offer few if any advanced placement courses, thereby hampering the ability of their graduates to complete college in four years.   Indeed, according to this source, slightly more than 40 percent of the nation's high schools offer no advanced placement courses at all.  Moreover, states and even individual universities within a state differ in their policies governing the acceptance of such credits. States that wish to improve the rates at which their citizens graduate from college (including those who attend colleges in other states), should consider expanding the number of high schools that offer Advanced Placement courses and accept such courses, where appropriate, for college credit.

3.  In my view Lindsay overstates the cost that students incur for an additional year of college, for two reasons.  First, like many others, Lindsay includes the cost of room and board in his calculation of this cost. However, and as previously explained on this blog, individuals must purchase food and housing whether or not they attend college.  Thus, policymakers and commentators should not include room and board in the "cost" of college, except to the extent that students attending college incur higher costs of such room and board than they would have incurred had they instead entered the job market without attending or completing college.  Second, the study on which Lindsay relies apparently employs the "sticker price," that is, the price that universities charge to those students who receive no financial aid.  As previously explained on this blog, however, many universities, including public universities, offer generous financial aid, including in some cases free tuition and room and board.   Thus, while colleges must themselves incur the (social) cost of educating such students, many students do not bear such costs themselves.  Thus, the average cost that students incur for an additional year of college is likely less than Lindsay supposes.  Nonetheless, even if one ignores the cost of room and board, the cost of an additional year of college is still substantial.

4.  Finally, there is one additional factor that may explain the failure of some students to graduate in four years, namely, the absence of meaningful employment opportunities upon graduation.  As explained previously on this blog, job growth during the current economic "recovery" has been slow to say the least.  As between remaining in college for an additional year and graduating into a dismal job market, many students will choose the former.  Put more technically, the opportunity cost of an additional year in college is likely lower for many students than the study Lindsay invokes supposes. Thus, policies that facilitate the creation of good, high paying jobs will likely encourage some students to graduate more quickly.

How Tenure Reduces Tuition

A recent article in CNNFortune repeats claims that eliminating tenure for law school faculty (and presumably university faculty generally) will reduce schools' costs, thereby allowing schools to reduce or stabilize tuition.  In particular, the article states as follows: 

"But with signs mounting that the law school predicament is not a blip, administrators are looking to address their biggest fixed cost -- the full-time faculty. . . .  While salaries and secure employment are not inextricably linked, they are related. With tenure comes the security of consistent paychecks, regular raises, and no abrupt layoffs -- and most universities bestow tenure, or near-guaranteed employment, to guard against firing teachers for expressing controversial or unpopular views. But decades ago, the American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, took it a step further by tying accreditation with tenure protection for most full-time professors. But last month, amid complaints from graduates who cannot find sufficient work, the professional body decided to float two proposals that would sever this link. . . . [C]hanges to faculty tenure -- and compensation -- are inevitable as law school tuition costs barrel ahead."

 

This assertion echoes similar claims that eliminating tenure would reduce the cost of higher education in general and at law schools in particular.  (See here and here.)

However, and as previously explained on this blog, those who claim that the institution of tenure increases labor costs and thus tuition seem to have things backwards. Both common sense and basic economic theory predict that, other things being equal, eliminating tenure will actually increase costs, as schools increase faculty salaries to retain high quality faculty and thus maintain the quality of the education they provide.  Moreover, schools that failed to increase salaries after eliminating tenure would see faculty quality suffer and thus reduce the quality of the education they provide, without an correlative reduction in tuition. 

 

Presumably universities pay whatever total compensation they deem necessary to attract and retain desireable faculty.  Such compensation generally includes a mix of salary and non-salary compensation, the latter of which can include such benefits as health insurance, paid vacation, free parking, or free day care, to name just a few.  Tenure, of course, is a form of non-salary compensation, economically indistinguishable from the benefits just described.    Actual or prospective employees will interpret the elimination of tenure in the same way they would interpret the elimination of health insurance or free parking, that is, as a reduction in compensation.  As a result, schools that eliminated tenure would thus effectively cut faculty compensation and thus attract and retain less qualified faculty, thereby reducing the quality of the education provided.  Students at such schools would thus pay the same tuition for a lower quality product, the economic equivalent of higher tuition for the same product.

 

Of course, schools that eliminated tenure could maintain faculty quality by increasing salaries, thereby offsetting the elimination of a non-salary benefit.  Such salary increases, however, would increase schools' overall costs, and schools would presumably pass such costs on to students.  In these circumstances, then, eliminating tenure would increase and not decrease tuition. 

 

Some may still contend that the elimination of tenure will empower schools to fire incumbent faculty, hired long ago, thereby reducing labor costs. (Though of course universities would have to hire new faculty to perform the varies duties once performed by fired faculty.)    However, this contention does not withstand close scrutiny.  To be sure, like any other firm, a university can reduce its nominal costs by breaching its long term contracts.   For instance, a university that has borrowed $100 million to construct a new building could reduce its costs by repudiating that debt and thus attempting to avoid its obligation to pay annual debt service.  While such a tactic might reduce costs in the short run, it will have the opposite effect in the medium and long run, as firms pay damages for breach of contract to disappointed creditors and find it more expensive to borrow in the future, as future creditors demand an interest premium as compensation for the risk that the firm will default again.  In the same way, a school that breaches its contracts by firing tenured faculty will find itself liable for contract damages.  Such a school will also tarnish its reputation for trustworthiness, thereby making it far more difficult for the school to make credible promises to prospective faculty, staff and administrators, who will demand higher salaries to offset the risk that the university will breach such promises.

No doubt pundits will continue to debate what accounts for the cost of higher education.  (See here for one important contribution.)  It should be clear, however, that tenure reduces that cost.



 

 

The Ouster of President Teresa Sullivan and the Distance Learning Fetish

Apparently Believed That Students and Professors Should Occupy the Same Classroom

Not So Sure

On Sunday Charlottesville was rocked by news that UVA's Board of Visitors had removed recently- appointed President Teresa Sullivan (pictured above) long before the expiration of her contract.  UVa's Rector, Helen Dragas (also pictured above), issued a statement to the University's Deans and Vice Presidents explaining the Board's decision.  Among other things, the statement included the following sentence:

"We also believe that higher education is on the brink of a transformation now that online delivery has been legitimized by some of the elite institutions."

Some, including Carter Eskew of the Washington Post, are claiming that the Board's decision to oust President Sullivan "has deeper implications for universities and colleges across the country."  In particular, Eskew notes that "information is almost universally accessible" and that schools like MIT are now offering courses online "for free."  He also opines that:

"[U]niversities are facing the same revolution that transformed the music and newspaper businesses— indeed, all the content businesses, of which they are a part." 

At the same time, Eskew notes that Google is no substitute for "the complex social and intellectual transactions that take place in college" and concludes without offering much a prediction, as follows: 

"This will take a while to all shake out, but in the meantime prepare for more shake-ups."

If Eskew is correct, then UVA's bipartisan Board is the latest to join the bipartisan chorus calling on colleges and universities to jettison traditional courses involving live instruction in favor of distance learning, all in the name of increasing academic productivity and increasing access to higher education.  (See this joint Op-ed by Jeb Bush and Jim Hunt).

This blogger, an educator for 17 years, believes that the case for more distance learning at  UVA, one of Virginia's two "Public Ivies," is weak at best.

To be sure, reliance on more digitally-driven "distance learning" could reduce the cost of providing a college education at UVA or anywhere else.  Instead of attending class and interacting with professors inside and outside the classroom, students in Virginia, Oregon or China could watch videos of professors delivering lectures.   Students with questions about the material could contact their professors by e-mail instead of asking such question during class or after class.  In this way, a school could spread the cost of a particular class, say, Introduction to Psychology, among numerous students and thus reduce the cost per student of offering that class.

However, "cost" is only part of the equation determining an institution's productivity and thus value to students and the rest of society.  One also has to examine the quality of the output produced.  Right now, the market seems to be telling us that UVA is providing its students with tremendous value at a reasonable price, thereby indicating that the current model is not broken.

UVA participates in a highly competitive market for potential students.  These potential students have access to a variety of sources of information about the price of various colleges and the type of education they offer.  If other schools offered the same value for a lower price, or a better product that justified a higher price, potential students would flock to those schools, to the detriment of UVA.  For instance, if students believed that MIT's free, not-for-credit online courses provided more value (net of cost) than the traditional courses provided by UVA, they would presumably take such courses from home, perhaps in their parents' basement, instead of applying to and attending traditional universities like UVA.  Or, students could take online courses at degree-granting universities such as the University of Phoenix.

There is, however, no indication that UVA is overpriced for the value it provides or that potential UVA students are forsaking UVA for other institutions with greater "online" content.  On the contrary, in-state tuition at UVA, ranked 25th in the United States by U.S. News and World Report, will be $12,006 in 2012-2013.  (Of course, students will also have to pay room and board, a cost they would have to incur whether or not they chose to attend college.)  Moreover, many attending UVA will pay far less than this sticker price because of generous financial aid.   Indeed, students from families earning $75,000 or less will pay nothing at all for tuition, fees and room and board, that is, will attend UVA for free.  Schools with similar rankings in US News and World report charge far more:  Wake Forest (tied for 25th), Tufts (29th), and Boston College (31st) all charge between $41,000 and $43,000 per year.  (Of course these schools also provide financial some, with the result that some students pay less than the sticker price.)

Indeed, this year, UVA received over 28,000 applications from around the nation and the world to enroll in its 2012 entering class of fewer than 3,500, an 18 percent increase in applications over the previous year.    As a result, the school enrolled what it calls its strongest entering class ever.  Thousands of Virginians are clamoring to attend UVA, and most are happy to pay the full in-state price to do so.  Thousands more Americans from other states apply each year as well, despite an out-of-state price tag about three times that paid by Virginians.   International students are jumping on the bandwagon as well; applications to UVA by such students rose by 23 percent this most recent year.  

The higher education market does not seem to be punishing schools, like the University of Virginia, that embrace the traditional model of delivering academic content.  On the contrary, marketplace consumers, including an increasing number of international consumers, appear to be embracing the product that UVA currently provides, at a price for most students that is well below that charged by many peer schools.  The choices made by international students seem particularly noteworthy.  As William Bennett explained in a recent essay on CNN.com, more and more Chinese students are "flocking to American universities," travelling over 10,000 miles and enduring separation from friends and family to obtain an American college education they could receive via "distance learning" provided by the elite institutions mentioned by Rector Dragas.      If in fact digital delivery of academic content would improve the overall value that UVA provides, then someone forgot to tell American (and Chinese) consumers.

President Obama's Upside Down Tuition Rhetoric

In his recent State of the Union Address, President Obama decried what he called "skyrocketing" tuition at American Universities and called on Congress to withdraw federal support from Colleges if such increases continue.  As the President put it:

"[L]et me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down." 

The Administration subsequently explained that it will ask Congress to cut the availability of student loans in those states where public universities raise tuition more than the Administration would like.  This is upside down.  To be sure, tuition has risen significantly over the past few years.   However, colleges that have raised tuition have had little choice.  Across the nation, states responded to the recent recession by reducing financial support for higher education.  (This article describes this phenomenon in North Carolina.).  Colleges and Universities in such states have responded by raising tuition in an effort to maintain the quality of the product they offer, and tuition at such universities is still significantly below the cost of the education provided.  Moreover, many such universities have set aside significant portions of the proceeds from such increaes to support need-based financial aid that ensures the very sort of access President Obama claims to support.  California, for instance, recently set aside 1/3 of the proceeds from a tuition increase to expand the pool of resources available for need-based financial aid. 

In sum, state budget cuts have caused colleges and universities to raise tuition to protect the quality of the product they offer and generate sufficient funds for financial aid.  Instead of deterring future tuition increases, cuts to the Federal Loan Program will punish the very students harmed by increased tuition and likely cause schools to raise tuition even more to generate the financial aid necessary to ensure sufficient access. 

Does Tenure Increase The Cost of Higher Education?

A recent essay in the New York Times entitled "The End of Tenure" reviews two books critical of modern higher education. The complaints summarized by the review are familiar, and they include:

1) Higher education costs too much, and tuition keeps rising faster than inflation.

2) Tenured faculty at some elite universities do not teach enough, leaving much of the teaching to be done by adjuncts and other faculty who are not on the tenure track.

3) Student debt is rising by leaps and bounds and is unsustainable.

4) Faculty conduct research that is of little practical relevance, a claim that, if true, implies that the social cost of additional teaching by such faculty members is relatively low.

No doubt at least some of these claims are exaggerated. For instance, recent data also published in the Times suggests that horror stories about students graduating with, say, $100,000 in debt are few and far between. Indeed, these data show that 90 percent of students who borrowed to obtain their bachelor's degree graduated with less than $40,000 in debt. Moreover, some of those individuals who emerged with more than $40,000 in debt presumably chose to attend private universities instead of less expensive public institutions, thus undermining somewhat any complaint about resulting debt burdens. (A North Carolina resident who could have attended UNC Chapel Hill but matriculates at Wake Forest or Duke instead should not be heard to complain about his or her resulting debt burden.) Also, the tuition announced by a college or university is merely a sticker price and does not reflect financial aid that schools provide in the form of discounts for students who demonstrate financial need and/or academic merit.

What though about the claim, implied by the very title of the essay, that the institution of academic tenure is partly responsible for these woes? This is not a new claim --- earlier this year a legal academic argued that proponents of academic tenure for law school faculty were insufficiently sensitive to the fact that the institution of tenure increases the cost of law school. Does the institution of academic tenure make college more expensive, reduce access to higher education and pump up student debt?

Certainly not. After all, eliminating tenure and the job security that tenure brings would make academic positions less attractive than before, with the result that schools would have to raise salaries to attract high quality faculty. Moreover, if eliminating tenure led to greater faculty turnover, schools would presumably incur additional costs searching for and replacing departing faculty. In short, other things being equal, eliminating tenure would increase college tuition, reduce access to college and further add to student indebtedness.

While the institution of academic tenure might have some shortcomings, any propensity to raise the cost of higher education is not one of them.

Privatization Momentum Builds !!

On Friday the William and Mary Flat Hat published an Op-ed by student Alex Ely, calling for privatization of William and Mary. As Ely points out, the College cannot achieve "Greatness" so long as it remains owned and controlled by the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am flattered that Ely reproduces a quote of me from an earlier Flat Hat article on the subject, where I point out that our public status results in an artificial ceiling on the tuition and fees we can charge in state students. Here is that previous article. http://flathatnews.com/content/69306/case-laid-out-college-go-private Ely also refers to previous Op-eds in the Flat Hat, written by yours truly, laying out the case for privatization. Here are links to those Op-Eds: "Private Greatness" http://flathat.wm.edu/2005-09-09/story.php?type=2&aid=3 and "Privatization: A Winning Choice" http://flathat.wm.edu/2006-03-17/story.php?type=2&aid=5. He also notes that privatization would eliminate political interference in the College's internal affairs and that, by raising tuition, the College could generate revenue to fund the ever-more expensive [my characterization] Gateway Program and create a graduate school to train public servants (presumably in addition to the College's Thomas Jefferson program in Public Policy).

Mr. Ely's Op-Ed coincides with one by Mr. Jeff Dailey over at the Virginia Informer, also calling for privatization. Mr. Dailey notes that the Commonwealth has repeatedly cut the College's budget since 2002, leaving the College without the resources necessary to meet its objectives and that, absent a massive infusion of public cash, privatization is the only option. Dailey also points out that the amount of influence the Commonwealth exercises over the College far exceeds its diminishing financial support for William and Mary.

http://media.www.vainformer.com/media/storage/paper1335/news/2009/02/18/SignedEditorials/Privatization.Is.The.Best.Option.For.The.College-3636143.shtml

By posting Mr. Ely's excellent article, I do not mean to endorse all of it. In particular, as some of you know, I am no fan of the Gateway Program. See my Op-Ed on the issue: http://flathat.wm.edu/story.php?issue=2005-09-23&type=2&aid=3While Ely says the program is necessary to ensure access to the College, I don't think that's right. When the College announced the Gateway Program, it reported that there were 300 students of modest means already attending the College; presumably these students were relying upon low interest loans or had served their country in the military and were drawing on the GI Bill. In short, absent Gateway, there are various means of access to William and Mary. By analogy, most of us borrow money to purchase a home or buy a car. No one would say that individuals who must borrow to make such purchases lack "access" to cars or homes. Moreover, unlike Ely, I don't think the College ought to concern itself with training public servants. Indeed, my sense is that the College already graduates an inordinate number of public servants.

These are debatable points, however. Ely's main point still stands. If the College wants to be great, however, defined, it should go private. And, I will add that going private will make it easier to raise money for various programs, e.g., merit scholarships or need-based programs like Gateway, since W&M's President will not have to spend countless hours lobbying Richmond not to cur our budget, change the in-state out of state mix of students, etc. (The President of Duke raised more than $200 million to support its version of Gateway BEFORE implementing the program.) With such free time, the President of a private William and Mary could make contact with more alumni and foundations and raise the sort of endowment the College needs.