Dr. John Comerford on the Future of Education

OurBlook interview with Dr. John Comerford, vice-president for institutional advance, Westminster College

What is the function of a private college, and how does it differ from the function of a public college?

JC: If you don’t mind, here’s a quick history lesson. From colonial times until the late 1800s, there was little or no difference between public and private colleges. In fact, many “private” colleges were supported by state tax revenue. All colleges were relatively small and focused on a classical curriculum ... humanities, English, Greek, Latin, math, some basic science, etc.

The idea then (and today) is that this general liberal education prepares students to be leaders by teaching critical thinking, problem solving, and other skills beyond simple memorization. Everyone took more-or-less the same thing and there were few colleges that offered majors or other specialization. Only a very small percentage of Americans ever went to college.

The federal government saw a need for more training for specific professions and passed the first Morrill Land Grant Act in 1862. This gave states a revenue source to start up state colleges focused on agriculture and technical programs to meet the needs of a society in the midst of the industrial revolution. These “A&T” schools are often now the large state universities.

Private colleges continued to offer a more classical (what we might now call liberal arts) curriculum, while public colleges offered a more profession-specific program. This trend continued as most states created teachers' colleges in the beginning of the 20th century. Teachers' colleges eventually became regional comprehensive universities. You still see some of these differences today with privates still laying claim to general liberal arts programs (which still do a great job of creating the adaptable leaders society needs) and public universities often offering more majors and training programs.

But, privates have also gotten into more specific majors and programs while public universities have maintained a core curriculum that includes some liberal arts. So, while the history is important and relevant, I would say that this is not the main difference between the two types of institutions now.

Public universities and community colleges receive state subsidies. Why would the federal and state governments intervene in an otherwise private marketplace? There’s only one reason ... to promote greater access to higher education. As a society, we want more college-educated people and one way to encourage this is to have state institutions offer education at a great discount from actual costs. Private universities must pay their bills without these state subsidies, so are often more expensive and cannot provide the wide access that we want to offer our citizens.

That said, I’d offer that there are two major and expanding flaws in the system. First, state support for public institutions is declining rapidly. Public tuition rates are rising as a result, thus decreasing access to many potential students. Second (and more controversially), public institutions have pursued missions beyond that of providing an affordable access point to higher education. Many now spend a great deal of money on merit aid programs to attract the “best” students.

Merit aid is popular, but the more money that goes to the “best” students, the less need-based aid is left to help students who otherwise could not afford college. Scholarships go to students from more wealthy families with higher SAT/ACT scores (family income and ACT/SAT scores are highly correlated) and do not go to students who could be successful in college but who truly cannot afford it. The race for prestige among publics and privates is leaving more and more students out in the cold.

You worked at the University of Kansas and have a doctorate from there, so you've seen both sides. Do you think most private colleges do a better job of educating their students than do most public colleges?

JC: In fact, I’ve attended or worked for five public universities and hold degrees from three of them. I’m a true believer in public higher education. Westminster College is my first private school experience.

I’d say that it's largely impossible to say what institutional type is “best” for students. Students have different needs and institutions have different specialties, programs and cultures. Is a convertible “better” than an SUV? It depends on who’s asking. Students ought to find the right match for them ... large institutions may offer more program choices while smaller ones may offer a more supportive environment.

That said, research shows that undergraduate education is most impactful when students are highly engaged in their environment ... academically and socially connected to the institution and to each other. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that this engagement is more likely in small college environments. Even large research institutions are now working to create smaller sub-communities on their campuses to encourage student connection and engagement. Students at small, private institutions graduate in higher rates, in a shorter amount of time, and report higher satisfaction with their teachers and their engagement in active learning.

In my personal experience, I’ve found size to matter more than public vs. private. Smaller institutions tend to teach in smaller classrooms, where students actually get to know their professors. Smaller institutions tend to provide students with more friends, as students see each other more often. Smaller institutions are in a better position to customize programs and meet students’ individual needs. Students at a larger public institution can have a wonderful experience, but it may be more likely to occur at a small private institution.

Setting aside the question of money, what kind of student would find a private college most appropriate?

JC: At Westminster we say that we’re great at what we do, but we’re not for everyone. A smaller school just can’t be all things to all people. We want engaged students interested in active learning in an international environment. It’s less about ACT score than it is about match.

If a student has a specific career interest, they should attend a school with a corresponding academic program. If a student wants big-time athletic programs and can thrive without much personal attention from faculty, then a large public institution could be for them. If a student wants a more customized program and faculty that can individually challenge them, then a small private could be for them. One thing’s for sure ... learning at a small school cannot be a spectator sport.

Are there any aspects of education in which you think private colleges could improve?

JC: I think privates and publics are guilty of letting the pursuit of rankings and prestige distract them from doing what may be best for students and learning. Spending big money on bright rich kids may boost your U.S. News & World Report ranking temporarily, but is bad for society in the long run. I’m proud to say that Westminster College spends the majority of its financial aid budget on need-based aid. Unfortunately, we’re rare.

Does your college compete with the University of Missouri for top students and if so, what is your strategy?

JC: Our top two competitors (as measured by cross-applications) are the University of Missouri and Truman State University ... both strong public institutions. Of course, our frustration is that we’re competing against institutions with large public subsidies.

Missouri is fortunate to have a good number and diversity of private institutions. About 40 percent of Missouri’s students attend private colleges and these institutions grant about 50 percent of the bachelor’s degrees in the state. Private colleges do all this without direct state support.

If all the students at Missouri private colleges suddenly transferred to the public institutions, the state of Missouri would have to add $700 million to the public institutions’ operating budgets, not even counting the capital costs for new facilities. The more students who go to private institutions, the more the state saves in its budget.

Yet, we encounter the idea in the state capitol that state aid programs should incentivize attendance at public universities. We hear that “public money should be for public institutions.” If you let students take a state aid award proportionate to tuition costs, then private school students might get higher grants, but the state would be saved the $8,000-$12,000 per student subsidy it must pay the publics for each enrollee. The more students who can be funneled to the privates, the better it is for our state budget.

Our strategy comes down to the individual student. We talk about our international environment (16 percent international student enrollment and robust study abroad programs), small class sizes (16:1 student-to-faculty ratio), personal attention, our great alumni success rates, integrated student learning (inside and outside the formal classroom), and strong alumni network that is ready to help the next generation of Westminster grads.

Some of these things are not unique to us, but we back it up by showing how well our students do compared to national averages on retention rates, graduation rates, student engagement measures, and student learning assessments. We’re in the fortunate position of being very good at undergraduate education and being able to prove it.

What is your general view on the future of education in America at the college level ... will it get better or worse?

JC: I think we have the strongest higher education system in the world. You don’t have to look much further than the hundreds of thousands of international students flocking to our schools to see that. There are three major risks, though, that worry me.

First, problems in the K-12 system are causing issues in colleges. The majority of college students are now not fully prepared for college-level work. Colleges must spend more time and money providing remedial classes to cover what ought to have been learned during high school.

Second, we don’t have a uniform way to measure college effectiveness, quality or student learning. Everyone looks at input variables (average SAT/ACT score, average high school GPA, amount spent per student, etc.) to judge a college’s worth. But, there’s little mention of processes and outcomes. What do you do with students once you have them? What do they learn? Forbes Magazine has made attempts to rank colleges by some outcome measures, and Westminster and other small privates have looked especially good in them. Last year, Forbes’ top 50 colleges in the country included only one with an enrollment above 10,000.

Finally, the inability to judge institutional quality has led higher education consumers (students and their parents) to think of colleges being equivalent to one another. As I said before, they’re not. A big state university is different from a small private is different from an online university. Too often, choices are made based on cost, convenience, athletics or other factors that really don’t impact student learning or success. We need to do a better job of equipping consumers with useful information so they can find their best institutional match.

(John is vice-president for institutional advance at Westminster in Fulton, Mo. He has a doctorate from the University of Kansas and has worked there, Missouri Western State College, Ball State University and Central Missouri State University.)