Money aside, a big stumbling block in higher education is its lack of consistent standards. Other than taking four years to accumulate 120 credits (or the equivalent) and then graduating with at least a 2.75 G.P.A. there really isn’t much commonality between higher education programs. Which is exactly why most college credit is not transferrable if you decide to switch schools before you graduate (a huge setback that needs to change, especially in today’s economy).

But what if we could establish higher education quality assurance standards similar to those we’ve put into place for K-12? And I’m not talking about something as loony as No Child Left Behind, but rather a set of academic values that ensure our college graduates can compete academically in the job market on a global level—something, possibly, along the lines of Europe’s Bologna Process for higher education.

The Bologna Process

Back in the late 1990s a proposal was made by a group of educators at The University of Bologna to establish standards for higher education across Europe. As a result, The Bologna Process was born in 1999. At the time twenty-nine European countries got together and founded the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) with the charter to create a set of academic degree standards for participating European colleges and universities. The idea being if European schools wanted their students to academically contend on a global level, then colleges and universities at home would have to raise the bar to compete. That’s not to say each school couldn’t establish its own curriculum, but rather that the curriculum had to adhere to a minimum set of quality assurances.

But here’s the best part. The EHEA is not (and was not) meant to be a government agency that dictates what higher education should do. But rather it’s a collective of major players in higher education, each getting the opportunity to weigh in on what changes should be made to improve higher education and how those changes would be implemented.

Of course, such an educational overhaul was a huge undertaking at the time, and thus its success depended on its architecture. Ultimately the three key structural details agreed upon by the EHEA included:

A) Collaborative Efforts: The governing board would be made up of a variety of higher education representatives, including government officials from each country’s Ministry of Education, college and university administrators, student leaders, representatives from international organizations, and even unions leaders.
B) A Reasonable Timeline: The process itself would be created and implemented over years.
C) Attainable and Measurable Goals: A finite amount of goals would be set annually, with clear and definable benchmarks that established the success or failure of each goal.

Did It Work?

It’s been over 10 years now since The Bologna Process was established and many aspects of it are quite successful (although it does have its critics.) The goal of being able to easily move between universities for study or work without losing credit or seniority was accomplished. Academic performance has increased, and thus participating schools have become more respected on a global level, which means they are more attractive to foreign students (which in turn creates more student diversity). As a result, noted professors have flocked to these schools to teach and do their research (and of course, this helps local economies).

But most importantly, people in these new programs are in fact graduating and getting jobs locally and in the global markets. A big reason is due to the fact that both the four-year baccalaureate and vocational degrees have been condensed down to three years (with the same amount of study packed in), making both the time and fiscal commitment of going to college less than it had been before. Suddenly higher education becomes an attractive (and more attainable) option.

Would It Work Here?

Unfortunately, having such a diverse group dictate higher education policy at a federal level does not seem very likely in today’s political climate. Our representatives can’t even agree on a health care plan or pass a complete budget, so coming to terms on who should even BE ON such a committee would be akin to moving cement. All 50 states would have to work together, and the federal government would have to pass legislation every year to move the overall multi-year plan forward.

It’s a nice thought, but one that seems destined to be put on the back burner until other issues can be resolved first, like will there ever be a family health insurance plan that doesn’t cost more than a house payment, and is there a way to use the money in my bank account for free?

So how do we reform higher education? Or does it even need reforming? Some claim it’s just fine the way it is. (This argument usually comes from the administration and staff of highly endowed schools.) Should the market dictate who can be educated beyond high school? Or do we need to do something to level the playing field? (Hmmm…I guess it’ll take some really big, college-educated thinkers to figure THAT one out.)

The increasing demands of the workplace have forced employers to hire employees who possess a broader set of skills and higher levels of learning than in the past. According to the study, only 1 in 4 employers believe college degrees are enough to prepare students for work in this global economy.

Employers admit that their expectations of employees have increased due to the challenging demands facing employees today. According to the study, approximately 88% agree that students need to be equipped with a higher level of learning and knowledge to succeed in their organizations. The challenges are more complex than they were years ago and key skills are needed to thrive.

According to the above data, 68% of employers feel that four-year colleges need to make improvements to prepare students for the workplace. The majority think that some improvements, rather than significant improvements are needed.

Real World Examples

Robert D. Atkinson, Ph.D., President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, wrote an article entitled, The Failure of American Higher Education for the Huffington Post. In it, he cites the shortcomings of new hires in the workplace. As the president of a DC-based think tank, he has been involved in the hiring process of many new college graduates. Due to the poor quality of education as witnessed on interviews, the company has decided to send a short quiz to promising applicants to weed out the low performers. Atkinson was surprised to find that most of the applicants could not perform simple tasks adequately. In a recent hiring process, out of twenty applicants, only one passed the test. Even more surprising—the nineteen applicants hailed from top-tier institutions.

Atkinson offers more evidence to corroborate his opinions. According to national tests, among recent four-year college graduates, less than 40% were proficient in prose, document and quantitative literacy.

The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education notes, “There are … disturbing signs that many students who do earn degrees have not actually mastered the reading, writing, and thinking skills we expect of college graduates. Over the past decade, literacy among college graduates has actually declined.”

Why are colleges failing to instruct students on basic skills?

It seems as if basic tasks such as grammar and math are sideswiped by other subjects. Some would suggest that colleges need to focus more on conventional teaching. Or maybe the Internet has distracted today’s students.

According to Atkinson, colleges primarily center their instruction on teaching content, rather than basic skills. Most college faculty are more interested in teaching academia and the subjects on which they are passionate, rather than the basic skills of research, logic, writing or debate. For most jobs in this current economy, these skills are more important than basic content, unless the position is more science and engineering based. What matters is that students acquire these basic skills so they can properly contribute to the success of an employer.

To add insult to injury, many college graduates feel they are shortchanged. According to a study performed by Roper Organization, half of recent graduates do not feel they got their money’s worth with their education. Why? The American Council of Trustees and Alumni rate schools by how many core subjects they offer. Upon review of 1,000 colleges and universities, 29% require two or fewer core subjects to graduate, while only 5% require a basic economics course. These same statistics hold true for U.S. government or history courses.

Atkinson believes a solution is imminent. “In K-12, we have learned the hard way what happens when we act too slowly to shake up how we teach our kids. Let’s act more quickly when it comes to higher education and preserve and strengthen this pillar of our economic strength and source of future prosperity. We owe it to the young people often paying over $50,000 a year and we owe it to ourselves as a nation.” (Atkinson, 2010)

Sources:

Huffington Post. (2010). The Failure of American Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-d-atkinson-phd/the-failure-of-american-h_b_626289.html

The News Tribune. (2011). U.S. Higher Education Failing to Focus on Basic Skills. Retrieved from http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/10/04/1850686/us-higher-education-failing-to.html

However, most colleges required that students take (in addition to the SAT I) the SAT subject tests in writing and math, because they wanted to see how much academic knowledge (beyond the minimum standards) a student actually possessed. And if you wanted to get into a specialized college program then you had to sign up for even more SAT subject exams to increase your chances of getting accepted. For example, if you were applying to a pre-med or pre-law program, then most likely you took the SAT subject test in biology (for pre-med) or the U.S. history SAT subject test (for pre-law), whether the schools required those tests or not.

But in 2005 all that changed, making it a little harder now to decide if you actually need to take any additional SAT subject tests when you take the SAT I. That’s because as of Fall 2006 the SAT I test rolled in the old SAT II subject tests for writing and (for most of) math. And to make matters even more confusing, they continued to offer the SAT II writing and math tests. So the question comes up, do you still need to take those extra writing and math SAT subject tests in order to boost your chances of getting into the college of your choice? In fact, of all the SAT subject tests offered, which ones should you take?

Finally, An Answer!

First and foremost, find out what the colleges (and degree programs) to which you are applying require. Some of them come right out and tell you which tests you need to take to even be considered for their schools. However, don’t stop there. If you are really good at one or more subjects for which there are SAT subject tests, then by all means take them! Doing well on these tests (even if they aren’t required) will only make your college application look better. For example, if you’re fluent in French, then take the SAT French subject test. Or if you’re a whiz at physics, sign up for the SAT subject test in physics. However, DON’T sign up for these extra subject tests unless you think you’ll do well in them. You don’t want your overall SAT score to go down because you tanked on one of the subject tests.

But what if the college you’re applying to requires only the SAT I? Do you still sign up to take the SAT subject tests in writing and math? Again, ONLY if you think you’ll do well on them. Now that the SAT I test includes much of the old SAT II writing and math questions, many colleges don’t require the additional writing and math subject tests anymore. BUT if you sailed through math in high school, exhausting all the math courses they had to offer (and got As) then by all means, take the SAT subject test in math. A good score can only help your chances of getting accepted to the school of your choice.

The Downside

There is an extra cost to taking SAT subject tests, in addition to the $49 it costs to take the SAT I test. So if you don’t need the subject tests (and you don’t think you’ll do well enough on them to increase your overall score) you may want to forgo the extra subject tests altogether—UNLESS the college to which you’re applying requires you take them.

Also, there’s the time issue. The subject tests each take about an hour, and in most cases can be taken on the same day you take the SAT I test, however, that’s not always the case. So either make sure that you have enough time on your SAT I test day to take the additional SAT subject tests, or schedule them on another day (which means you have to go back to the test center at a later date).

There’s no doubt that today’s SAT I test is harder than the SAT I test your parents took way back when. However, the flip side of that is you don’t have to take a bunch of add-on tests, unless you think they can help you get in. Hey, we’ll take simplifying the college application process anywhere we can get it!

Have you taken one or more of the SAT subject tests? If so, share your experiences and if you thought it helped you get into the college of your choice.