Institutional Research

Concern over rapidly rising tuition prices on the part of federal and state government and other external agencies has led to a number of developments in recent months that may affect strategic planning at BGSU. 

In September 2003 U.S. Representatives Boehner and McKeon released a report on " The College Cost Crisis” as part of the discussions related to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.  The report maintains that “America’s higher education system is in crisis due to exploding college costs,” that rising tuition levels are not the result of state budget cuts, and that “Americans believe that institutions of higher learning are not accountable enough to parents, students, and taxpayers.”  Representative McKeon followed the report with a bill, the "Affordability in Higher Education Act of 2003,"which would create a "College Affordability Index" and impose sanctions upon institutions whose tuition and fees exceed the index limit for three consecutive years. Such institutions could be removed from participation in certain Title IV HEA student financial assistance programs. While recent information suggests that the bill will probably not pass, many higher education organizations fear further federal intrusion into higher education in the next reauthorization effort for the Higher Education Act.

As the Higher Education Reauthorization Act remains under discussion, Bush administration proposals call for drastic funding cuts to financial aid and other programs and for increased attention to assessment activities, possibly including a higher education version of the No Child Left Behind Act, according to the March 2005 edition of the Society for College and University Planning’s SCUP Trends.

The U.S. Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education is charged with considering issues of access, accountability, accreditation, affordability, financial aid, and student learning.  The final report calls for improved K-12 partnerships; better student preparation for college; better information for prospective students and their families; better institutional cost containment; lowering barriers to transfer; significantly revamping the system of federal financial aid; changing approaches to curriculum and instruction to improve student learning; improving institutional transparency and accountability about cost, price, and student success; and greater investment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

As noted in the June 26, 2007 issue of Inside Higher Education, The American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, unveiled a draft template for their joint Voluntary System of Accountability.  The groups leaders anticipate that the voluntary reporting system, which contains data on such things as graduation and retention rates, financial aid, tuition and other costs and, most controversially, students performance on measures of learning outcomes, will be approved by the associations boards in November, and up and running soon thereafter.  Much of the information contained in the public colleges’ draft accountability system is already available in some form or another, but the voluntary system would require a major change in institutional practice to the extent that it would compel the colleges and universities that choose to participate to report their scores on measures of student engagement and to begin using one of three standardized measures of student learning ­ the Collegiate Learning Assessment, the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency, and the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress ­ and reporting their scores on those tests.

As work continues on both the re-authorization of the Higher Education Act and implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education within the U.S. Department of Education, the current system of voluntary institutional accreditation is coming under increased scrutiny, despite opposition from Congress, as noted in the June 18, 2007 and June 19, 2007 issues of Inside Higher Education. 

The Governor of Texas proposed in February 2007 one of the broadest testing requirements for graduating college students to date. Seniors would be required to take either licensure exams in their fields or Education Testing Service exams for various college majors. While students would not be required to pass the exams to graduate, colleges’ state funds would be linked to students’ scores. 

A report by The Futures Project notes that as state and federal support for public colleges and universities continues to weaken, many institutions have begun to consider the possibility of severing government ties and becoming independent.

Within Ohio, the Governor’s Commission on Higher Education and the Economy was formed in June 2003 and charged with answering the following three questions: 1. What should the state's goals and expectations be for higher education based on the needs of students, employers and the economy?, 2. How should Ohio's higher education institutions be structured, organized, governed and financed so as to best promote the state's goals and expectations?, and 3. How should the higher education system be held accountable for meeting the state's goals and expectations? The Commission issued its final report in April 2004. The CHEE Report recommendations that would likely have a substantial impact upon BGSU include:

• increasing enrollment in Ohio public higher education by 30%
• removing unnecessary barriers to the transfer of coursework between institutions
• transferring 15% of sate support for doctoral funding into programs that "attract preeminent researchers and build world class research capacity; create new products and services to be commercialized, leading to job creation and economic growth in Ohio and in the regions of the state; and compliment funding provided from programs included in Ohio's Third Frontier Project"
• improving learning productivity (maintaining or improving learning outcomes at reduced costs) through methods possibly including reducing learning redundancy, modifying academic calendars, employing technology-aided learning, and altering the faculty reward structure to promote quality teaching
• improving efficiency in administrative operations through activities such as sharing of resources for "back office" operations among nearby institutions
• completing an annual productivity report that documents cost savings, reallocations, program eliminations, etc.

In response to the Governor's Commission, legislative actions, and general concern about higher education in Ohio, The Higher Education Funding Study Council met during 2005-06 and has issued its report, the recommends of which include:

• a pilot program offering tuition certainty to students during the course of their enrollment
• funding for a Two-Year Campus Success Challenge
• funding for promoting degree completion in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine
• focusing developmental education to the extent possible at two-year campuses
• enhancing baccalaureate degree completion via distance learning
• developing applied baccalaureate degrees that are fully articulated with community college associate degrees
• having institutions provide students with itemized charges that detail the sources of cost
• creating a statewide capital plan
• formation of a group to study methods of relief from state reporting requirements, and
• making internship and cooperative education opportunities more widely available.

The Ohio legislature passed a Tax Expenditure Limit law in 2006 that limits total state spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth.  Given historic increases in expenses for health care and K-12 education, this suggests further low levels of support and perhaps deeper cuts in support for higher education.

The Ohio Board Of Regents has sponsored an effort to Student Success Plans for all institutions across the state in an effort to demonstrate accountability and productivity in state colleges and universities.  The success plans highlight institutional efforts to define, measure, and improve student learning in general education, undergraduate majors, and in special undergraduate learning experiences such as first-year experience programs, residential learning communities, undergraduate research, study abroad, internships and co-operative education, and service learning.

The governance system for Ohio higher education changed in the spring of 2007 as the newly-appointed Chancellor of the the Ohio Board of Regents became a member of the Governor's cabinet.  The Regents now serve in an advisory capacity to the Chancellor rather than rather him reporting to them.  In August 2007 the Governor announced that a University System of Ohio would be formed effective January 2008.  The Chancellor will create a new strategic plan for the system.  While the Governor has stated that institutions will retain their autonomy with their individual boards of trustees under the unified system, the Chancellor's plan will identify ?enters of excellence?among institutions. Some of the features that the Chancellor has announced he would like to include within the new University System include integrating university regional campuses into the two-year college system, transferring adult career centers and adult basic literacy programs into the University System, and mandating that all Associate degree programs fully transfer to four-year institutions.  Institutions are asked to submit a plan to identify their strengths and areas of distinctiveness to the Chancellor by December 31, 2007.  Additional details are available in the Chancellor's August 8, 2007 address to institutional presidents.

Increasingly large numbers of publications are publishing “best college values” guides, which often employ obscure and questionable methodologies that emphasize the reputation and resource approach to defining college quality, rather than focusing upon student learning.  A recent backlash against such among institutions among institutions, however, has been growing, as reported in the June 20, 2007 edition of Inside Higher Education.  Kevin Carey, of the Education Sector, published an alternative approach to higher education rankings in the 2006 report, College Rankings Reformed.

Regional and disciplinary accrediting agencies are continuing to increase their focus upon student outcomes assessment, sometimes with highly prescriptive approaches.

Regional and disciplinary accrediting agencies are continuing to increase their focus upon student outcomes assessment, sometimes with highly prescriptive approaches.

The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits BGSU, has recently changed its criteria to emphasize issues such as community engagement, diversity, assessment, planning, and continuous improvement to an even greater extent than is currently the case.