Senator David Curtis (R-Lincoln) has emerged as one of North Carolina’s leading voices for higher education reform. On July 28, he wrote a letter titled “UNC System Policy Change Suggestions” to the UNC system’s Board of Governors. His proposals, if implemented, would vastly improve key areas of UNC governance in great need of reform.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Gainful Employment (GE) regulation judges degree programs on the debt and earnings of their graduates within just one area of higher education—the for-profit sector. While the GE Rule may result in the closure of many poor-performing programs, this complex regulation will also harm many reputable ones by penalizing those that actually produce excellent outcomes for their students and imposing sanctions for poor performance without offering an opportunity to improve.
John Fennebresque’s friends and coworkers call him “Czar.” That appears to be a fitting nickname, for his imperious exercise of authority was his downfall as chairman of the University of North Carolina system’s Board of Governors. Additionally, his yearlong control of a supposedly democratic governing body exposed serious flaws in the way the UNC board conducts its business.
The Department of Education has had, so far as I can see, no positive impact on higher education and has either caused or ignored numerous negative effects. Thus it is a tragedy that the skeptics about creating it did not prevail back in 1979.
The search for the next University of North Carolina system president has finally concluded. Margaret Spellings, secretary of the U.S. Education Department during George W. Bush’s second presidential term, was unanimously elected by the system’s Board of Governors on October 23. Spellings, who will take the helm in March 2016, is a moderate Republican, but one who shows some promise of developing into a reform-minded university leader—a very welcome possibility. She opposes what she calls universities’ “send us the money and leave us alone” approach, and some of her views on higher education challenge those of the academic establishment.
Without tenure, higher education would become even more of a progressive echo chamber.
How much “privatization” have we actually had in higher education? In one sense, none, because no state-owned college or university has been sold off to private investors. But on the other hand, there has been quite a bit, since to a considerable extent, governmental funding for higher education has been replaced by private funding. In Privatization and the Public Good, Matthew Lambert, vice president for university advancement at William & Mary, gives us an approved “establishment” view of the privatization phenomenon in which it is perceived as a great threat.
Heightened skepticism regarding the value of the humanities and liberal arts is not just the result of external factors that are outside of higher education’s control, such as economic malaise or policymakers’ job-centricity. Internal problems related to debased curricula and hyper-politicization, for instance, may be more harmful to the future of the humanities. Unfortunately, at a recent event sponsored by UNC-Chapel Hill’s Program in the Humanities and Human Values of the College of Arts and Sciences, university leaders failed to acknowledge those problems, much less take ownership of them.
At issue, of course, is the fact that the purpose of the traditional music education
State authorization policies govern the approval of new schools and degree programs; many of the affected institutions are for-profit, vocational, and online schools. North Carolina is one of several states called out in a recent American Enterprise Institute report for having cumbersome, ineffective authorization policies. The report offers several solid proposals that, if implemented, would reduce for-profit schools’ regulatory burden and open the door for new innovators seeking to expand in the Tar Heel State.
