Vol. 24., No. 10	November 20, 1998

Critical Issues in Higher Education Are Discussed by University Presidents and Members of the Press

By Amy Callahan

It was not your average dinner conversation.

The presidents of eight American colleges and universities and more than 20 journalists from some of the nation's leading news organizations discussed critical issues in higher education today: the growing conflict between merit-based and need-based financial aid, the controversy over affirmative action policies in admissions standards, the frustrating government demands that come with federal research funds and whether "distance learning" via the Web could replace the college campus.

President George Rupp hosted and moderated the annual media dinner, held Nov. 11 in the Low Faculty Room.

Even for the university leaders-for whom the issues are all in a day's work-there were no easy answers.

Diversity vs. Merit-Based Aid

"Affirmative action is the big issue today," said William Honan, a reporter for The New York Times, citing the successful anti-affirmative action initiatives in California and Washington. "I think everyone in this room is in favor of affirmative action, but the nation is marching the other way. I challenge you to organize and throw your weight around." But Howard University President Patrick Swygert said threats to affirmative action-and diversity on America's campuses-are not rooted simply in politics.

"In spite of our best efforts, diversity may be an unintentional victim of universities making the decision to expand their applicant pool," he said, meaning that schools are under pressure to attract students with high test scores and demonstrated talent, and not only to assemble diverse student populations.

"Presidents have to pay attention to market share," Swygert continued. "And the SAT scores are a reality."

This pressure to attract top students, and hence increase a school's ratings, has also had an impact on financial aid.

Georgetown President Leo O'Donovan said: "There is a growing tendency in our country to offer aid to students who don't need aid." This phenomenon, he said, could deny education to working class children who otherwise "might grow up to be a senator for New York or chancellor of the Chicago school system."

At one point, a reporter referred to the annual rankings "that colleges claim to hate." To which O'Donovan quickly replied: if the news magazines would agree not to create the rankings, the schools would agree to end merit-based aid.

University of Maryland at Baltimore President Freeman Hrabowski argued that attacks on affirmative action policies ignored other preference categories in admissions decisions. "Imagine how this country would respond if we didn't consider athletic ability," he said. "That would pull at the purse strings of the economy."

But New York Times reporter Ethan Bronner argued that drawing a "parallel to athletic ability is faulty because [athletic preference] is based on talent. No one has a problem with rewarding the talented."

Barnard President Judith R. Shapiro said the recent outcry over affirmative action-and the perception that qualified white students are passed over for unqualified students of color-misses the point: "Admission is not a reward for past good behavior, but a bet on the future."

Rupp agreed, offering this example of a recent study: In the most selective institutions, black and white students alike with SAT scores in the 1,100-range, rather than the 1,300 to 1,400-range or higher, in fact outperformed their classmates in their subsequent lives. Which does not mean, Rupp said, that all 1,100-range students will perform better, but rather that the potential of these particular students was spotted by perceptive admissions staffs.

"Those bets paid off," Rupp said. "To suggest that this is now all going to be settled by eliminating that discretion and doing it by numbers is really a massive mistake."

Distance Learning

"Can you learn as much from a computer as from a professor?" asked Gabe Pressman, a reporter for WNBC-TV in New York.

"Of course you can," Maryland's Hrabowski said. "If it's done well, students can learn a great deal."

But Oberlin President Nancy Dye was less enthusiastic. "This rush to go online will be short-lived." She said a virtual campus cannot begin to offer all that an actual campus can.

Also, Dye said she feared that distance learning will introduce two tiers to college education: one for those who can afford the traditional experience, and another on the Internet for those who cannot.

Rupp said he feared a third tier as well: No college education at all "for those who are not plugged in."

The Problem with Federal Funds

When asked about the relationship between research universities and the federal government, most leaders expressed frustration.

"One of the great successes since World War II is the growth of the research university," said Dartmouth President James Wright, who jokingly added that because he was an historian, he felt compelled to start with a history lesson. "And that's due mainly to government support. Medical and scientific research has largely been sustained by federal money. We're more or less dependent on these programs."

But Wright criticized the increasing government control-often politically motivated-that gets in the way of good research and effective administration of the funds.

"Federal auditors took over our internal audit office for a period of several months," he said. During that time, Wright said, auditors seized upon trivial budget items, such as expenses for "limousines" which he said were simply car service expenses to and from the airport.

Georgetown's O'Donovan agreed that government intervention into university research was counter-productive because the government puts pressure on universities to create marketable products: "The topic is very, very urgent for academic health centers. The larger issue for the nation as a whole is the conflict in looking to provide the best possible research into disease and providing the best patient care, while being told you need to be market-conscious. To say that the remedy for the expansion of American academic medicine is simply the market is, I think, a disastrous response. It deserves a lot of attention from the press."

The annual media dinner, which was also attended by journalists from CNN, USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer, Christian Science Monitor, NPR, The Boston Globe, Black Issues in Higher Education, Chronicle of Higher Education and the Today Show, was organized by the Office of Public Affairs.