[Senate Hearing 108-410]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-410
A YEAR-ROUND COLLEGE CALENDAR: ADVANTAGES AND IMPEDIMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING ADVANTAGES AND IMPEDIMENTS IN RELATION TO A YEAR ROUND
COLLEGE CALENDAR, FOCUSING ON THE COSTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, FINANCIAL
AID, PELL GRANTS, AND STAFFORD LOANS
__________
MARCH 9, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
92-569 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
BILL FRIST, Tennessee EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama PATTY MURRAY, Washington
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada JACK REED, Rhode Island
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Sharon R. Soderstrom, Staff Director
J. Michael Myers, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Children and Families
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama PATTY MURRAY, Washington
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada JACK REED, Rhode Island
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Marguerite Sallee, Staff Director
Grace A. Reef, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
Tuesday, March 9, 2004
Page
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee 1
Trachtenberg, Stephen Joel, President, The George Washington
University, Washington, DC; India McKinney, student, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, TN; Michael L. Lomax, President, Dillard
University, New Orleans, LA, on behalf of the United Negro
College Fund; Virginia S. Hazen, Director of Financial Aid,
Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH; and Margaret Heisel, Associate
to the Vice President and Executive Director, Admissions and
Outreach, University of California Office of the President..... 4
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg.................................... 22
India McKinney............................................... 24
Michael L. Lomax............................................. 25
Virginia S. Hazen............................................ 27
Margaret Heisel.............................................. 28
Thomas A. Babel.............................................. 34
(iii)
A YEAR-ROUND COLLEGE CALENDAR: ADVANTAGES AND IMPEDIMENTS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Children and Families,
of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Alexander,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Alexander.
Opening Statement of Senator Alexander
Senator Alexander. Good morning. This hearing of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, our
Subcommittee on Children and Families, will come to order.
I want to thank our witnesses for coming. I will introduce
our witnesses in a few moments. We have Dr. Trachtenberg, who
is president of the George Washington University; India
McKinney is a student at Vanderbilt University; Dr. Michael
Lomax is president of Dillard University in New Orleans;
Virginia Hazen, director of Financial Aid at Dartmouth; and
Margaret Heisel from the University of California system.
What I will do is make a brief opening statement, about 5
minutes long or so, and then if other Senators come in the
meantime, I will ask them if they have opening statements.
After that, what I will ask the witnesses to do is if you would
summarize your opening statement, taking 5 or 6 minutes, and
then that will leave us more time for questions and
conversation about this very interesting subject.
Last August, Dr. Stephen Trachtenberg, who is president of
the George Washington University, suggested in a Washington
Post article that colleges and universities need a year-round
calendar. He argued that year-round classes would reduce
competition for housing and classes, create more income for the
university, and perhaps even lower tuition for students. Dr.
Trachtenberg said, ``We could actually increase our enrollment
at George Washington University by at least a thousand
students, yet have fewer students on campus at any one time.''
Our purpose today is to hear from Dr. Trachtenberg and from
others about the year-round calendar and to explore what the
Federal Government should do, if anything, to encourage it or
at least not to impede it.
Specifically, we hope to explore, among other subjects:
one, whether students ought to be able to use their Pell grants
for 12 months of study instead of for 9; two, whether students
should be able to use their full allocation of student loans to
finish college in 3 years instead of 4; three, whether some
students who enter higher education for job training but not
necessarily for a degree should be able to use Pell grants or,
instead, some other Federal grant or loan--I think of the
worker who goes to a community college for a semester or two to
get a skill and then on to a newer and hopefully better job, or
a teacher in California who already has a degree but needs to
go back to the university to get skills necessary for a
teaching certification--four, what effect would year-round
calendars have on work-study programs; and, five, we want to
explore whether students should be allowed to use grants and
loans during a 5th or 6th year of college, or whether those
funds should be reserved for students moving through their
courses more rapidly.
Summer break for work, reflection, and fun has been as much
a part of the college and university tradition as the cap and
gown at graduation. Some of our 4-year universities such as
Dartmouth, from whom we will hear this morning, already have a
year-round calendar, but most do not. At the same time, the
fastest-growing segment of higher education, public community
colleges and for-profit institutions, often operate on what
they call a 24/7 calendar. In Senator Enzi's hearing on
workforce skills last week, witnesses agreed that even at many
4-year institutions, the concept of semester is disappearing.
Colleges are changing their tradition schedules because
their customers are increasingly not traditional. The average
age of the undergraduate student today is 26. Many have jobs.
Many are married. Many more are women. The cry often heard at
college commencement these days is, ``Way to go, Mom.''
Many enroll to learn skills but not necessarily to earn a
degree. Only 36 percent of students who begin their college
career at a 4-year institution receive their bachelor's degree
within 4 years.
There is much talk these days, both in the country and on
the floor of the U.S. Senate, about job loss. We may not know
or at least not be able to agree exactly on how to stop job
loss, but we do know exactly how to create good new jobs.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, half of
America's new jobs since World War II have been created by
science and technology, much of that at our great research
universities. Americans have the skills necessary to do those
jobs largely because we send more students on to higher
education than in any other country.
The surest plan for good new jobs in America, then, is
increased support for two programs we already have: first,
programs for scientific research; and, second, Federal grants
and loans that today follow about 60 percent of students to the
colleges or universities of their choice.
Higher education is America's secret weapon for job growth.
This hearing is to make sure we are using our secret weapon
most efficiently so that it operates with the highest possible
quality and with the greatest access for the largest possible
number of qualified students.
When we conclude this hearing, we will consider whether
additional action is warranted. Dr. Trachtenberg has suggested
a demonstration project to encourage and study the effect of
year-round college calendars. I want to consider a commission
that would gather accurate information about today's college
calendar among the more than 6,500 higher education
institutions in America, consider what the impact would be of a
year-round calendar, and then recommend to what extent and how
the Federal Government ought to encourage such a calendar.
A dozen years ago, as United States Education Secretary, I
helped to create a similar study of year-round schedules for
elementary and secondary schools, and that turned out to be
very useful.
Senator Alexander. President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg is
the 15th president of the George Washington University since
its founding in 1821. He has been at George Washington
University since 1988 as president all that time. That has to
be nearly a world record for the modern era of university
presidents.
Someone asked me once what is more difficult, being
Governor, being in the President's Cabinet, or being a
university president. And I said, ``Obviously, you have never
been a university president, or you would not ask a stupid
question like that.''
[Laughter.]
Dr. Trachtenberg is one of our most distinguished and
experienced major university presidents. During the Johnson
administration, he was Special Assistant to the U.S. Education
Commissioner. Before that, he was an attorney for the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission, and he worked in the United States
Congress.
Dr. Trachtenberg, I guess this proves that some people read
op-eds and some consequences result from making speeches. So we
appreciate your initiative and your original thinking and your
leading us to this idea, and we look forward to hearing from
you today and considering the idea of year-round colleges.
Thank you for coming.
Before we begin I have a statement from Senator Kennedy.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Kennedy
I commend Senator Alexander for convening this hearing as
our committee prepares to act on the many important issues we
face in reauthorizing the Higher Education Act--increasing
teacher quality, the two Federal loan programs, and access to
college. Today's testimony on year round college continues an
important discussion on innovative ways to improve graduation
rates for all students, and I look forward to the views of our
witnesses.
It has always been a priority for our committee to enable
all students to have the opportunity for college and the means
of support necessary to earn their degree.
Colleges and universities have operated on a semester
system since their creation, and although many institutions
have adjusted their schedule to meet the needs of their
students, it is still the most common form of higher education.
Many colleges keep their campuses open during the summer
months to give students the flexibility to take additional
courses to lighten their course load during the rest of the
school year, or to graduate sooner. Many colleges use the
summer to introduce high school students to college life
through the TRIO or Gear Up programs. In colleges in
Massachusetts, during the summer, hundreds of high school
students take their first college course or attend specialized
seminars with faculty. These experiences help students gain
access to college and help others to continue in college.
Today's discussion can help us understand how to give more
students the option of attending courses throughout the year.
Students who are dependent on need-based aid may not be able to
stretch that aid out for additional courses, unless we create
new types of aid for such purposes. Many of these students rely
on summer employment to help pay their tuition, so we need to
ensure that these innovative opportunities do not force needy
students into greater debt on student loans.
Higher education is a major and continuing Federal
investment--totaling $69 billion in student grants and loans in
2002. It is also a significant and continuing investment by
millions of students and their families, who struggle to make
college a reality for themselves and their children and then
sacrifice for years to pay back their loans. We need to do all
we can to see that our investment and their investment is
achieving the best return possible. Finding ways to help
students stay in college and complete their degree in as short
a time as possible should be part of our reauthorization
agenda, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do
so.
STATEMENTS OF STEPHEN JOEL TRACHTENBERG, PRESIDENT, THE GEORGE
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC; INDIA McKINNEY, STUDENT,
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, NASHVILLE, TN; MICHAEL L. LOMAX,
PRESIDENT, DILLARD UNIVERSITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA, ON BEHALF OF
THE UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND; VIRGINIA S. HAZEN, DIRECTOR OF
FINANCIAL AID, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, HANOVER, NH; AND MARGARET
HEISEL, ASSOCIATE TO THE VICE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ADMISSIONS AND OUTREACH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT
Mr. Trachtenberg. Senator, thank you for your kind words. I
am honored to be here. I have always been a great admirer of
your career and its many chapters. And I look forward to
following it for many years to come.
Last week, Mr. Chairman, you gave President Bush a bust of
his ancestor, James Weir, who fought in the battle of Kings
Mountain along with an ancestor of yours. And you right called
that battle one of the ``great stories of the American
Revolution.''
We honor our ancestors for their bravery and their courage.
But we would not engage today with the strategies of 1780.
In higher education, we are trying to help our Nation
compete globally and conduct business with the habits of
colonial times--indeed, with the habits of earlier times. And I
suggest we cannot do that any longer.
So I thank you for inviting me to testify. I have submitted
both a written statement for committee review and copies of an
important report that we completed last year at the George
Washington University focusing on this subject.
My message in these materials is simple: We need to change,
and in the next few minutes, let me brief describe what has
happened that makes change necessary, propose a specific change
that could help keep American universities competitive and more
cost-effective, and suggest some things that the Federal
Government might do to nudge such a change along.
First, what is different? Well, the numbers tell the story.
In 1952, about 7 percent of men over 25 and 5 percent of women
had a 4-year degree. Last year, it was about 27 percent of men
and 23 percent of women. Only 200,000 African Americans had
college degrees in 1959. Now it is 2.7 million. Graduate and
professional degrees are more and more the norm, not the
exception.
And there is no mystery about what inspires that. The
latest Census figures show that people with only a high school
diploma make about $26,000 a year, people with a BA degree
about $50,000, and people with a graduate degree about $72,000.
Surely an inspiration for somebody who is thinking about their
future.
Meanwhile, universities have taken on roles they never had
before. We offer more courses because the nature and the shape
of knowledge have changed. We continue the basic and applied
research that keeps our Nation in the forefront of innovation
and assists job creation. We serve communities in new ways,
sometimes whether we want to or not, like the $14 million in
uncompensated medical care that George Washington University
Hospital provided to residents of the District of Columbia last
year.
This has made higher education expensive. We have
diligently cut costs. Faculty and staff salaries at many
institutions, for example, have either been frozen or increased
only modestly. But we have had to charge more.
At the University of Maryland, Senator Mikulski's alma
mater, tuition increased 18 percent last year. In Senator
Graham's State, Clemson's tuition went up 19 percent this year.
Nationally, independent institutions have increased tuition 5.3
percent a year over the last 5 years.
So we have to ask ourselves: Is there anything more we can
do to hold down costs? And the answer is that there are.
The academic calendar was created to suit an agrarian
world. It fit that world of 1780, when tending crops and
looking after livestock were more important than learning how
to read. To allow students to work on the family farm, schools
and colleges operated for slightly more than half the year,
generally two 14-week semesters.
At a time when fewer than 2 percent of Americans worked in
agriculture, such a system is hopefully out of date. Is there
any other business in America that would close facilities for 6
months while building new ones alongside them which would also
run half a year? I do not think so.
But right now, too many colleges are building new campuses
and buildings, underusing the ones already up. There is a bulge
in the college population presently that masks this waste of
resources. And when it disappears, the unfortunate result will
be all too apparent.
So I propose moving to a program of full utilization.
Imagine that instead of two 14-week semesters we had three
trimesters, with appropriate vacations. Students might be on
campus for only two of the trimesters. At GW, if we had such a
scheme, we could increase our enrollment by at least a thousand
students, and yet have fewer students on campus at any one
time.
Think of the advantages: less competition for housing; less
competition for classes; more income for the university; lower
tuition for students potentially; less students on the streets,
ensuring the gratitude of our neighbors and the municipal
zoning boards; less need for private or government money, which
could mean less taxes.
We might even be able to offer another change. A 4-year
degree should not be sacrosanct. We could offer some degrees in
3 years rather than 4, saving an enormous amount for students
and their moms and dads.
Finally, there is a benefit apparent only to people who see
what happens every spring as seniors prepare resumes.
Right now we flood the job market with newly minted
graduates during the summer when demand is the slackest, and we
starve it during the rest of the year. We need to spread that
wealth, and it would be good for the economy if we did so and
good for those students.
All of this is possible if we summon the will to change.
But would it be easy? Well, no, absolutely not. There is always
a constituency for the way things have always been. Indeed,
memory is the enemy of change. Still, I am convinced that there
are ways to achieve such change. To use our institutions more
fully, it is not necessary for students to attend each and
every summer. At GW, attending just one summer session in 4
years would improve our bottom line by $10 to $15 million.
The details for the moment concern me less than the
concept. What is the appropriate role for the Federal
Government in promoting such an idea?
For example, should students be allowed to use their Pell
grants and their Stafford loans for 12 months of study rather
than for just 9 months? That would accommodate demand for
higher education all year long.
I would suggest a small appropriation, possibly for a
commission and a FIPSE competition for demonstrate projects. I
am convinced that the results would spur many schools to act.
Let me sum up. We need a year-round calendar like the one
that everybody else I know uses. We need Federal Government
programs to accommodate to this change. We need it for the sake
of the universities and the Nation's economy. We need it for
the sake of our national preeminence in creating and
disseminating knowledge. We need it for the sake of the
communities we serve.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``If a nation expects to be
ignorant and free, in a State of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be.'' And that is still true.
We honor Jefferson's principles, the ones fought for by
those volunteers at Kings Mountain. But we best honor the
principles of their century by making those changes necessary
for our century. In this Information Age, when we all know
education is a full-time job, we cannot and should not and must
not give universities a half-time appointment.
And now I would be pleased to take any questions. Thank you
very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Dr. Trachtenberg.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trachtenberg may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Alexander. We will move next to Ms. India McKinney,
who is a senior political science and communications studies
major at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. India McKinney has
served in various leadership positions throughout Vanderbilt,
and she has been vice president of the marching band, various
duties with the Student Government Association and alumni class
officer. She is on the debate team. And we are delighted,
India, that you have taken time to be here today. This must be
your spring break. Is that right? And I saw a group of
Vanderbilt students a little earlier who are here in Washington
on an alternative spring break, living and working with
homeless people. We welcome your testimony.
Ms. McKinney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you
mentioned, I am a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences at
Vanderbilt University.
My family is originally from Alabama, and we moved to
Southern California in 1996, where I graduated from Palos
Verdes Peninsula High School. For mostly personal reasons, I
only considered and applied to small, private colleges in the
southeastern part of the United States. I cannot articulate
what it was about Vanderbilt that stood out, but I realized
before too much longer in my search for colleges that, though I
never set foot on campus, Vanderbilt was by far my top choice.
And so I applied to Vanderbilt as an early-decision candidate.
My acceptance letter to Vanderbilt came in Early March, and
in the same envelope with my acceptance letter was my financial
aid offer from Vanderbilt. I was absolutely thrilled to get
into my top choice, and I just read the first page, and I
handed the rest to my parents so they could help me out with
the financial aid part. My mother looked at the second page
where they offered the financial package, and she looked at
that and she looked at me, and she told me that she did not
think that if this was what Vanderbilt was offering, she did
not think that they would be able to afford to send me there.
So I called Vanderbilt. I called the financial aid office.
I asked them if I could get a merit scholarship, if there was
any way that I could get an increased loan, an increased grant,
anything like that. And the financial aid officer that I spoke
to suggested that I get a job on campus because this was their
final offer. And though I had applied to Vanderbilt early
decision, their acceptance letter was not the first one that I
had received, nor was theirs the best offer financially. So I
went to bed, and I went to school the next day determined that,
well, this just was not meant to be, I would be happy somewhere
else, it would be all right. And I came home from school, and I
was going to write the letter to Vanderbilt politely declining
their offer, and my mother met me at the door and she said that
my father had met with his credit union at work that day and
they had decided to take a second mortgage on the house because
they had decided that Vanderbilt was the best place for me to
be, and so they were willing to make that sacrifice to send me
to that college.
The loan package that I received from Vanderbilt was a
need-based grant from the College of Arts and Science, which is
not a Pell grant, as well as a subsidized Stafford loan. This
most recent year I also got an unsubsidized Stafford loan. I
have had a job on campus every semester so that I can pay for
all of my personal expenses, including food, and not ask my
parents for that. My freshman year I worked in the dining hall
so that I could get for free the dinner plan that all
Vanderbilt freshmen are required to buy. I have worked with the
alumni calling center, where I call Vanderbilt alumni and ask
for donations. I have worked for the marching band, where I
have been a member for 4 years and vice president for 2 years
and was very pleased to discover that they ended up paying me
to do things that I would have done for free. I currently work
in the Office of Housing and Residential Education where I
mostly file and sort papers.
I have spent every summer at home, where the rent is free,
earning money so that I could return to school in the fall and
not have to work as hard during the school year to meet my
credit card bills. My first summer, I worked full-time as a
hostess at TGI Friday's. The second summer, I interned with my
local Congresswoman, Jane Harman, and worked at Friday's as a
waitress on the weekends. Last summer, I worked as an intern in
Southern California Edison's Legislative and Local Governmental
Affairs group.
My concern with a year-round college system and year-round
financial aid is that rather than providing the opt to allow
some students to graduate early, year-round aid might result in
some colleges forcing students to take summer classes and
graduate early because it looks better statistically. And I
recognize that some students would welcome the change to
graduate early and to save that money or to get a head start in
their career. But, personally, I would not have preferred that
option. Creating the opportunity for some students to take
classes in the summer would be beneficial to many students, as
long as summer classes remain a choice and not an obligation.
Forcing students to take classes during the summer might deny
those students to get the opportunity to get summer jobs,
internships, or undergraduate research grants, which would hurt
the collegiate system in the long run. I think college is about
personal exploration as much as it is about learning solid
facts, and I believe that the space created in the summer is
invaluable.
I never took classes in the summer for two additional
reasons. First, I am a liberal arts major, and most of the
classes that Vanderbilt offers in the summer are designed for
science majors either retaking classes or fulfilling their arts
requirements. Second, and most importantly, I liked my summers
in the ``real world,'' where I got to use the theories that I
was learning in school in reality. And though I was often bored
at home away from my college friends and away from college
life, I always came back to Nashville in the fall excited to
start the new year and with a new perspective on what my
ultimate goals in college should be.
I would like to emphasize that if year-round college were
to become the norm, I believe it is both fair and essential for
the Federal Government to allow for student aid for the year-
round school system for the need-based students who either
choose or are required to take summer classes.
And though I never visited Vanderbilt or any other college,
I know that I made the right choice because I could not have
had a better 4 years. I will graduate in about 2 months, and I
know that I am going to have to start paying off all of my
student loans, but Vanderbilt was most definitely worth it.
I hope that my comments have helped, and I would be pleased
to answer any questions, and I thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify.
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you, Ms. McKinney. That was
eloquently stated, and based on my personal experience, you are
well on your way to being a United States Senator, because I
was at Vanderbilt, had three jobs, two scholarships, worked in
the summers, stayed at home rent-free, and played the
sousaphone in the marching band because I found you could get
into basketball games. Nobody would question you if you were
carrying a sousaphone. [Laughter.] So I am very impressed with
your background.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McKinney may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Alexander. Dr. Lomax is Dillard University's 7th
president, appointed in 1997. He has undertaken an ambitious
repositioning of Dillard as one of the premier small
undergraduate institutions in the South. Located in New
Orleans--as I was taught to say when I lived there working with
one of its board members, Judge Wisdom--Dillard is a private 4-
year undergraduate institution founded in 1935 with roots in
the mergers of two historically black colleges that date back
to the 1860s. Increasingly, Dillard graduates are seeking
advanced degrees at some of the country's finest institutions.
Dr. Lomax has a distinguished teaching career in Georgia
colleges and is well known in this country for his leadership
in higher education. We welcome Dr. Michael Lucius Lomax to the
hearing and look forward to his testimony.
Mr. Lomax. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning. I appear before you today on behalf of the United
Negro College Fund, representing 39 private, 4-year
historically black colleges and universities. As you may know,
I will assume the presidency of the United Negro College Fund
on June 1st.
The College Fund remains steadfast in its commitment to
enroll, to nurture, and graduate students, some of whom do not
have the social and educational advantages of other college-
bound populations. Combined, we enroll over 59,000 students in
primarily liberal arts institutions, many of whom go on to earn
graduate and professional degrees at America's most prestigious
universities.
I am pleased to share with you today UNCF's viewpoints
about year-round college, and particularly how such an academic
calendar might benefit UNCF students and college students
nationwide. The statement that I have submitted for the record
details at length some of the characteristics about our
students. The major point to emphasize to the committee is that
students on UNCF campuses not only qualify in large numbers for
need-based aid, but also enter college less familiar with the
environment and with little or no help at home in successfully
navigating the challenging academic requirements.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, UNCF has recommended that
Congress establish a three-semester year-round academic
calendar supported by a three-semester Pell grant award. For
the record, UNCF wants to be clear that it is proposing a Pell
grant for a third full academic semester that is equal in
length to each semester in the traditional two-semester year.
Each eligible student would qualify for a Pell grant equal in
dollar amount to the Pell grant awarded for the other two
semesters.
In UNCF's opinion, there are clear advantages to year-round
college for students on UNCF campuses and at all institutions
of higher education. Two distinct categories of students would
be affected by providing a three-semester Pell grant: first,
academically gifted students who wished to accelerate their
studies and who realistically could complete a baccalaureate
degree in 3 years; and, second--and this is a very significant
group for us--students who enter college less well prepared and
who would benefit from a more intense period of time to pursue
their baccalaureate degree.
Students who are less prepared academically may arrive on
campus requiring developmental course work in addition to the
core college curriculum. In fact, a February 27, 2004, USA
Today article, entitled ``High Schools Skip Over Basics in Rush
to College Classes,'' noted that 53 percent of all students
entering college take at least one remedial course in order to
make up their academic deficits from high school.
The option of a lesser course load that the year-round
calendar represents is for them an opportunity to stay on plan
academically and still attain their baccalaureate degree within
5 years.
On the other hand, a year-round academic calendar would
allow more academically motivated students to accelerate their
studies and graduate earlier. Additionally, when you look at
those Pell recipients who are less academically prepared and
those who are more academically motivated, both likely are
forced to work to pay for college. As a consequence, these
students may have to forego extracurricular activities because
of their course of work demands. UNCF hopes that Congress
agrees that all students, regardless of income, should not have
to choose between sacrificing their academic plan and pursuing
extracurricular activities. A year-round college calendar
better ensures that they have both options.
Members of the committee, as I have stated previously, UNCF
students, as well as many other dependent and independent
students, must work to pay for college. No one who deals with
these students on a regular basis would be surprised then that
many come in and out of school as a consequence. A year-round
calendar, supported by grant aid, undoubtedly enhances
retention for these students.
UNCF recognize that not all institutions of higher
education would want to operate on a year-round calendar. For
that reason, we also recommend that a three-semester Pell be
optional. Campuses opting not to offer aid in this manner may
provide Title IV assistance under the current program
parameters. Additionally, UNCF understands that comparable
changes need to be made to the Federal student loan programs,
whether one offers a year-round calendar or not.
UNCF does not anticipate that all of its member
institutions, nor all colleges and universities as a whole,
would implement a year-round academic program taking advantage
of a three-semester Pell grant. However, institutions that
elected to provide year-round instruction would have several
benefits accrue that could provide economies of scale to
participating institutions.
The impact of what I have just shared with the committee is
significant when one considers the financial consequences not
only to students, colleges, and universities, but also to the
country. The longer it takes for students to complete college,
the longer they remain in the system. Even if, as under the
UNCF proposal, more students complete college in 5 years, this
still could represent considerable savings. At a time when
Congress is so focused on the tight budget facing the Nation,
we may want to consider how proposals such as the year-round
academic calendar supported by a three-semester Pell grant
award recommended by UNCF potentially may reduce some financial
pressures on an already oversubscribed financial program.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, UNCF member
institutions recognize that some of their proposals may be
controversial. Nonetheless, we believe that UNCF's
recommendations may add to our exploration of the merits of a
year-round college calendar. We applaud you for undertaking
this review and look forward to working with you as you attempt
to improve access to college for all students. And I would just
like to add a hearty ``Amen'' to Dr. Trachtenberg's points that
he has made. There are so many economies to the colleges
themselves to having greater flexibility and to maximize the
use of our underutilized campuses. At Dillard, with 2,300
students, introducing just two 6-week summer sessions has
afforded nearly half of our students the opportunity to come
back to the campus or to remain on the campus and to undertake
additional programs during the summer. Evening out the
opportunities for students to have internships and study-abroad
programs at other points in the academic calendar because they
are not losing the option of being in school for two semesters
I think would be a tremendous boon to the institutions and to
the students themselves. So thank you for allowing us to
present these options to you today.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Dr. Lomax.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lomax may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Alexander. Virginia S. Hazen is director of
Financial Aid at Dartmouth College. She has been there since
1988, so, Dr. Trachtenberg, you both should know what you are
talking about in this area. She is responsible for the
administration of all aspects of Dartmouth's $41 million
undergraduate financial aid program, including developing and
implementing policies to ensure equitable distribution of
financial aid funds. She is responsible for institution-wide
oversight of compliance with Federal financial aid regulations.
She is invited not just because of her experience but because
Dartmouth, I believe, since 1972 has had what we would call a
year-round calendar. When we were beginning these hearings, the
senior Senator from New Hampshire, who is chairman of our full
committee, Judd Gregg, and the very proud graduate of
Dartmouth, said he wanted to make sure that the Dartmouth story
was told as part of the hearing. So, Virginia Hazen, we welcome
you and look forward to hearing the Dartmouth story.
Ms. Hazen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here
today to discuss with you the advantages of year-round college
operation and the potential impediments to establishing such a
system.
Dartmouth College implemented a quarter-based year-round
calendar in 1972. The implementation of the Dartmouth plan, as
it is now known, allowed the college to expand its student body
by 10 percent without a corresponding increase in the size of
its facilities.
Under the Dartmouth plan, students are expected to attend
for 12 terms over 4 years. They are required to be enrolled
fall, winter, and spring of their freshman year, the summer
between their sophomore and junior year, and fall, winter, and
spring of their senior year. Beyond those requirements,
students are free to adjust their calendar to best suit their
needs. While students can graduate in 3 years, assuming they
have met the degree requirements and have secured special
permission, that was not the intent of the Dartmouth plan and
it seldom occurs. Most Dartmouth graduates take 12 terms to
complete their degree, or just under 12 terms.
In addition to the advantage of being able to expand the
size of the student body, the Dartmouth plan also has allowed
the college to fully utilize its residential halls and other
facilities during the summer quarter without having to rely
extensively on conferences and other outside programs. Also,
year-round operation has given the Dartmouth faculty more
flexibility and control in scheduling their research
activities.
For our students, the greatest advantage of year-round
operation is the autonomy it has given them to create their own
calendars to best meet their personal and professional and
academic needs. Without disrupting their education, a Dartmouth
student can participate in international study programs, unpaid
internships, job opportunities to explore career possibilities,
community service, and transfer terms at other institutions.
Since Dartmouth students frequently take their ``vacation''
term during the fall, winter, or spring term rather than the
summer, there are job opportunities and internships open to
them that are unavailable to students with traditional college
calendars.
While the Dartmouth plan has many attractive features, it
has some challenges. Since facilities are utilized year-round,
maintenance can be problematic. Base staffing levels are
required year-round, making many 9-month positions obsolete,
thereby increasing compensation costs. Down time for planning
is very limited, and, finally, and perhaps most importantly,
the funding and administration of financial aid can be
problematic.
At Dartmouth a full academic year is three quarters. When
financial aid recipients enroll for four quarters, they have no
Federal Pell grant eligibility during their final term. In
addition, their Federal loan eligibility is frequently
insufficient to meet their needs. For a plan of year-round
operation to succeed, these issues must be addressed. While
Dartmouth is able to replace the Federal Pell grant with
institutional grant in the final quarter and to supplement
Federal loans with institutional loans, not all colleges would
be able to do so. And Dartmouth's solution is not perfect. Our
loans carry higher interest rates than the Federal loans. They
cannot be consolidated with the Federal loans. And they do not
carry the same forgiveness features. In addition, if a student
borrows both from the Federal programs and from the college,
they are faced with multiple minimum monthly payments. In
addition to those problems, outside scholarships frequently are
unavailable during the summer term. Donors often cannot grasp
the fact that the summer term is a parity term rather than a
remedial summer session. And even when summer funding is
available, additional applications are usually required.
Administering financial aid within a year-round environment
would be facilitated if: one, the Federal Pell grant could be
awarded for every enrolled term; two, if the annual loan limits
on the Federal loans were lifted, perhaps keeping in place the
cumulative maximum loans, to address students' increased needs
during years they enroll for 12 months; three, if the Federal
Stafford loans could be distributed unevenly over terms to
address differing costs associated with various programs; and,
four, if there was an educational efforts beyond that offered
by individual institutions to help the public understand the
difference between a parity summer term and a remedial summer
session.
Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to
answer any additional questions you might have.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Ms. Hazen, for being here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hazen may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Alexander. Dr. Margaret Heisel is from the
University of California representing the Office of the
President of that institution. She has a variety of
responsibilities there dealing with student affairs and
educational outreach. The University of California is, if not
the best, clearly one of the best State universities in the
country and, therefore, the world, and it also has a reputation
for excellence as well as a tiered system of admission, and it
is very large. Dr. Heisel has earned her Ph.D. in Spanish
language and literature. She has taught at the University of
New Orleans, Middlebury College, University of the Pacific. She
has been assistant dean, and now she is with the Office of the
President of the University of California. Dr. Heisel, thank
you for joining us today, and we are interested in your
comments about the Federal Government year-round calendars and
the University of California.
Ms. Heisel. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander. I am
very pleased to be here. I appreciate the opportunity. I just
want to emphasize to begin that the University of California
really is the best of the large research universities.
[Laughter.]
The university has ten campuses, as you probably know, with
over 200,000 students, and nearly 50,000 of those students--
about a third of UC's undergraduates--receive Pell grants that
are valued at $138 million. So the Federal Government has quite
a large investment in the University of California.
UC supports year-round enrollment very strongly, primarily
because of the benefits to students and taxpayers that we have
found, and my testimony today, like that of my fellow
witnesses, will focus on ways to increase participation in
year-round enrollment, particularly for those students who
depend on Federal financial aid. While year-round enrollment
does not provide necessarily cost savings to the university, it
greatly benefits students and families.
The University of California currently enrolls a higher
percentage of low-income students in proportion to its overall
enrollment than any other flagship public university. As an
institution that is committed, deeply committed to expanding
access to qualified students, regardless of their ability to
pay, the university believes Congress can take a leadership
role in effecting changes that will promote year-round
enrollment and ensure that access is available to all, not just
to those students who can afford it.
Like the rest of the Nation, California is experiencing
record growth in postsecondary education enrollment. It is a
phenomenon that in California we call ``Tidal Wave II,'' the
largest increase in such a period we have ever experienced. Our
university is expecting an enrollment increase of 43 percent
between now and 2010, which will be an additional 60,000
undergraduate students above current levels, an unprecedented
period of growth for us.
UC is responding to this growth. We are opening up our
tenth campus in California's central valley at Merced next
year. But we are also continually looking for innovative and
cost-effective ways to address students needs, and one of those
responses is year-round instruction, we have found.
Let me stop and say for a second that most of the UC
campuses operate on a three-quarter basis, or have operated
that way, rather than a semester basis. The Berkeley campus is
on a semester basis, but all of the other campuses are on
quarter systems. So installing a summer quarter is a relatively
simple and straightforward enterprise.
Prior to 2001, summer instruction at all UC campuses was
self-supporting. That meant that students paid fees to cover
the entire cost of their courses with no additional subsidy
from the State. Enrollment was purely optional, and financial
aid was not generally available. But beginning in 2001, the
State began to provide the university with the same level of
subsidy for summer enrollment that it spends per student for
instruction in the regular academic year.
Year-round enrollment has proven very successful. Student
demand has been extremely high. In fact, we have nearly doubled
our summer enrollment since the year 2000, the last year in
which we had fully self-supported programs, those programs
without financial aid available. About a third of the students
at UC took courses in summer 2003, and our campuses are
beginning to collect data that demonstrate that students are
graduating more quickly as a result of their summer enrollment.
Year-round enrollment offers, we believe, students both
educational and economic advantages, and many have already been
mentioned by my fellow witnesses this morning, all of which I
enthusiastically support. But a couple of key benefits that I
want to mention in addition to accelerating studies so that
students can move into career employment rather than the kind
of part-time and temporary employment that they hold during
their student careers, we have also found savings for students
substantially, for example, in housing, where a student does
not need to sublet in the summer, does not need to pay for
unneeded housing in the summer but can simply remain, since
they have to sign leases generally for a year, they can take
courses that overbook because of high enrollment; they can take
those courses more easily in the summer than they can in the
academic year. And there are certain courses of study, such as
intensive summer language study, which operate much more easily
during a summer term. Also, I agree with Dr. Lomax, the idea of
preparing for difficult or preliminary course work is easier if
a student can begin in the summer, especially for transfer
students and some incoming freshmen.
The University of California also offers State and
institutional financial aid to eligible students during their
summer terms. The fact is, however, that truly needy students
cannot take advantage of this option without Federal financial
aid as well.
The University of California believes that Congress can
eliminate this barrier with two simple changes.
First, the university is seeking a year-round Pell grant,
as has already been mentioned by other witnesses. Currently,
very needy students who wish to accelerate their time to degree
by attending school for 12 months rather than 9 exhaust their
eligibility for Pell grant support during the traditional
academic year. But within a year-round Pell grant, these
students would receive an additional $1,350 in the maximum
Pell--that is assuming that we stay at the current level of
$4,050--for the remaining quarter of the year. This option
provides the same dollars per student over the student's entire
career in college. It just provides the funds sooner by
allowing them to receive their financial aid in summer
sessions. While some additional appropriations would be needed
initially, this change, we believe, is budget-neutral over a 5-
year budget outlook. Current law grants the Secretary of
Education discretion to provide year-round Pell grants under
certain conditions, but, unfortunately, the discretion has
never been used.
Second, a simple change can be made to the Stafford loan
programs to facilitate year-round enrollment for eligible
students. Right now, many student borrowers exhaust their
annual Federal Stafford loan maximums during the traditional 9-
month academic year. While students are currently eligible to
begin to use their subsequent year's Stafford loan eligibility
to attend the additional 3 months of each year, it is
exceptionally difficult for institutions to administer this
option, and as a result, it is not available at the University
of California, nor is it generally available at 4-year public
or private institutions.
There would be no cost involved in designating a higher
annual loan maximum for students engaged in 12-month study
rather than 9-month. No change in the aggregate or lifetime
borrowing limit would necessarily be involved, so the Federal
costs would not increase. This is a statutory change to provide
administrative relief to schools that operate on a year-round
schedule. I have submitted a chart for the record that
illustrates this option very clearly, I think.
I know that Congress is looking to improve access to higher
education in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act,
and my testimony offers two simple change: year-round Pell
grants and 12-month annual maximum limits for the Federal
Stafford loan programs. These recommendations will maximize the
productivity of our Nation's investment in higher education and
improve our economic future as well.
Thank you very much for your time and attention to these
suggestions for congressional action.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Heisel may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much, Dr. Heisel, for
your comments. Why don't we just start with your last comments
and talk about that a little bit. Several have suggested that
the two obvious changes that might be made would be the ones
you said, which would be to allow students who receive Pell
grants to spend the same amount of dollars but to allow them to
do it in a more compressed period of time.
Ms. Heisel. Exactly.
Senator Alexander. So it would be $4,050, I think is the
maximum, so today you could only spend that during three
quarters or two semesters for a 4-year degree, but you would
have the same amount of money four times that you were
eligible, but you could spend it in 3 years if you wished.
Ms. Heisel. Right. As they accelerated their academic
program, they could also accelerate their Pell grant in
parallel.
Senator Alexander. And with student loans, the cap for a
subsidized loan is $23,500, I believe. That is the amount over
a 4-year period of time. Is that about right?
Mr. Lomax. Lifetime maximum.
Senator Alexander. And if I am about to go to college, I
may be able to borrow up to $23,500 in that loan, but I could
not get it all at once. In fact, the smallest amount is in the
first year, I guess, to discourage wastefulness and because
students may drop out in the first year, and you can increase
that as you go along. So basically you are suggesting setting
up almost a line of credit or an account--I think you said line
of credit, Dr. Lomax, an account that would permit you to draw
up to $23,500 even if you were just there for 3 years. That is
the idea.
Well, let me ask each of you to comment on those two ideas,
and while you are thinking about that, let me throw another
something in at the other end. An increasing number of
students--maybe it is not increasing. A large number of
students do not graduate within 4 years. According to the
figures I have, students who start 4-year institutions who
receive their bachelor's degree in 4 years, overall it is 36
percent; at public 4-year schools, 26 percent; private, 54.
Students who start at 4-year institutions who receive their
bachelor's degree in 5 years, a total of 57 percent, it is up
to 57 percent; and 6 years, 63 percent.
So there are a large number of students who--most students
do not graduate in 4 years. There are a variety of reasons for
that. One you mentioned that is in big, growing universities
which are under financial pressure, classes might not be
available. Another reason might be that students enjoy five
football seasons more than four, and there are other good
reasons to stay at a university.
And so if we are thinking about making these more flexible
and focusing the largest amount of available money on students
who need the most help, should there be some limits at the
other end? I mean, how long should students have to get a Pell
grant or to use a student loans--5, 6, or 7 years? Should they
continue to do that? Or would it be wiser to focus more of that
on the front end?
So why don't we start with Dr. Trachtenberg and go right
down the line, any comments you would have on these two ideas
about restructuring the way we allow students to spend their
Pell grants and their subsidized student loans.
Mr. Trachtenberg. Well, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of my colleagues here today. I think the counsel you
have been provided is sound. As to your specific question,
there are, as you quite rightly point out, Senator, a variety
of reasons why people take more than the conventional 4 years.
I do not think most of them are doing it for social reasons,
that is to say, for that tantalizing 5th year of football. I
think a lot of it has to do, frankly, with financial challenges
which oblige them to work while they are in school and it slows
them down. I think there are also certain academic
disciplines--for example, engineering, we find at George
Washington University that obliges students to take a 5th year.
The academic challenge is simply so profound that it cannot be
achieved by a certain number of students in the 4 years. Given
a 5th year, they do fine and get their degrees and go on to
have perfectly satisfactory careers.
So I think we need to unpack the reasons that people take
more than 4 years, but you are quite right that some plausible
cap could be put on it. I do not think it has to be open-ended
and eternal.
Senator Alexander. There is also, I guess--Ms. McKinney
mentioned this in a way--the co-op program or work-study
program. There are traditionally companies and students--I
think of engineering especially--who have students who go to
school for a while and then get to know the company for a
while, and then the company helps pay, and they seem to think
that is a good idea.
Ms. McKinney, what are your thoughts now that you have
heard the different comments about the idea of more flexibility
in the grants and loans?
Ms. McKinney. I think that in a university and in a
situation where you could take summer classes, as long as it
remains an option and not a requirement, I think that would be
a good option for many students. But, again, especially--I am a
senior. I am about ready to graduate, and I have been preparing
my resume to send it out to various employers. And one of the
things that they emphasize the most is, yes, my degree will be
from Vanderbilt, which is a very good institution and that, I
hope, will help me get a job, but even more than that, they
look at the experience that I have had in the workplace and in
the workforce. And my concern with restructuring aid is that
there would need to be consideration not to hurt students and
universities that do not choose to go to a year-round
collegiate system, to leave the summer open the way that my
experience at Vanderbilt has been, as there is a limited
selection of courses offered over the summer, and so that in a
way forces students to find something else to do, whether that
be going abroad or finding a job or an internship. You can get
undergraduate research grants. You can get internships at law
firms, with your Congress people, with hospitals, with
potential employers and things like that. And I think that that
is a very valuable experience, and I think that is going to
help you out long-term.
In a university situation where you offer courses year-
round and you could take other semesters or other quarters off
to do something similar to that, I think that year-round
financial aid would be absolutely necessary. It is hard enough
to go to school and to have a job and to do something outside
of that extracurricularly, and to sometimes go to sleep, that
it is absolutely necessary to have the Federal financial aid.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Dr. Lomax?
Mr. Lomax. Let me just say a word about who our students
are. Sixty percent of UNCF students come from families that
earn $25,000 a year or less. Ninety-two percent of our students
require some form of Federal financial aid, and 40 percent are
the first in their families to attend college.
They do not have the flexibility to pursue their college
careers unless the Federal Government gives it to them. They
are so dependent upon Pell grants and loans.
And I might add that the college experience is a relatively
new one for them, and they do not necessarily come from
families that have had tremendous experience in negotiating the
financial and social and academic challenges of an
undergraduate college experience.
I think that giving these young people who are high-
performing but low-income students the opportunity to front-end
more of their college financial support so that they can spend
more time on the campus learning academically and socially how
to negotiate that, spending three semesters their first year,
spending three semesters their second year, getting those tough
courses that are often the gatekeepers that will--if they do
not pass them, they are not going to be able to stay in school,
getting those programs out of the way, performing well, and
then in their junior and senior year when they are eligible for
more competitive scholarships, when they are eligible for
internships then that can help support them financially, they
can take a semester off, whether it is--and I think if they are
not all doing it in the summer and there is more opportunity to
do it in the spring and the fall, then they can take advantage
of those other opportunities and enhance their resumes, as Ms.
McKinney notes they need to do if they are going to not only
apply for employment but to apply for graduate and professional
school, which are increasingly looking at what you have done
beyond the college campus.
So I think that the proposal for year-round, for the Pell,
for the changes that Dr. Heisel has suggested with regard to
the loans, the watch word there is ``flexibility.'' Give us the
opportunity to make the choices that fit the student rather
than making the student fit the choices that are available to
her.
Senator Alexander. Ms. Hazen?
Ms. Hazen. I agree with Dr. Lomax. Let me just explain a
little bit about who the students are at Dartmouth that
actually come for more than 4 years. They are not coming for
more than 12 terms. They are coming for--they are spreading
their education out over more than 4 years. And these are
students where--I first should say all aid at Dartmouth is
based on need. So once we have reached what the Federal
Government says that the parents must pay, there is little more
that we can do in order to meet that family's need.
These students that are coming for the 5 years are the ones
where their parents are having real difficulty making the
parental contribution for one reason or another. If the program
were to be such that they were unable to obtain Federal grants
and loans during their 5th year--and usually it is only one
term, or maybe two terms in their 5th year--it would be
defeating the very reason that they basically opted for a 5th
year, which was to take time off to earn money to help their
parents meet those extra costs that they had associated with
college.
Senator Alexander. But if it were limited to a number of
terms, if it were limited to 12 terms----
Ms. Hazen. That would work perfectly.
Senator Alexander. --would that solve that problem?
Ms. Hazen. Yes, it would.
Senator Alexander. So it might be over any number of years.
Ms. Hazen. Agreed.
Senator Alexander. Dr. Heisel?
Ms. Heisel. I would very much agree with what has been said
by my fellow witnesses up to now. I would emphasize that we
have not had a problem with either--the University of
California does not really have a problem with either
persistence or time to degree. If you look at the field,
roughly 75 percent of all of our entering undergraduates
complete 4-year degrees within 4 years. And if you go out to 5
years, that number rises up to 80 and above.
We have been very diligent about ensuring that students are
making academic progress. I think that is one of the reasons
that those rates are as high as they are. And I think balancing
this flexibility with holding institutions responsible for
monitoring academic progress is a way of ensuring that there is
no abuse of the system.
Students also taking 5 years are engaged in very productive
work. The university has a program here in Washington. Many of
our students go abroad. They study in different parts of the
U.S. They study in Washington and in Sacramento. They take
advantage of double-major opportunities. There is a great deal
more flexibility now in undergraduate programs than I think we
have seen in previous generations. And so some of that 5-year
pattern that you see is attributable to that, to very
productive academic work.
But on the whole, I think ensuring that there is good
academic progress is a safeguard against any kind of abuse or
problem that might arise.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
This has been very helpful. I would like to bring it to a
conclusion now with an invitation to each of you. As you
reflect on this, if you would like to send us a letter with any
additional comments as we work on the Higher Education
reauthorization bill, we would like to have them.
I want to see if I can summarize and make sure I have not
overlooked something here. And I would make this comment, too.
We have a general picture, it seems to me, where we have this--
you call it a tidal wave--new tidal wave of students who are
applying to higher education. That should be--that is pretty
easy to understand, I think, given the way the world is today.
It is increasingly--as Dr. Lomax said and several of you said,
Dr. Trachtenberg said, a higher education degree provides the
skills one needs for the jobs that are available. We have a
shortage of skilled workers in the United States. And even
though we have some people who do not have jobs, we have a
shortage of skilled workers. So that is one phenomenon that we
have.
Also, as we look to a period of time when we are
increasingly challenged in world competition to keep good-
paying jobs in the United States, our best way to do that is to
continue to have skilled men and women who can perform those
jobs here. So that is going to create an even longer line at
our colleges and universities.
We have at the same time State Governments which are having
a hard time providing the funding for public institutions that
they have traditionally provided. I know that in Tennessee,
when I left the Governor's office in 1987, we were spending 50
cents of every dollar on education; today it is 40 cents. And
the reason is because spending for social services and health
has gone from 15 cents to 31 cents of every dollar. And I am
convinced that the higher education system in the State has
carried the brunt of that shortfall of funding.
Now, the Federal Government has been trying to be as
generous as it could with Pell grants and with loans to help
make up the difference. But it will not be able to make up the
whole difference of what the States have not been able to do.
So while we always want to be as generous as we can with the
amount of money available for Pell grants and for student
loans, I think looking for any way that would make the dollars
we have go further, both the Federal dollars we have and, as
several of you have said, the family dollars go further, if it
is cheaper for Dr. Lomax's students to graduate Dillard in 3
years than in 4 years because it costs less to live, then that
option might be available.
It is still worth remembering that 70 percent of full-time
undergraduates attend colleges with a sticker price of less
than $8,000. And when you add a year, you are adding a lot of
cost.
So you have given some very good suggestions here, so just
enumerating your suggestions--and if I overlook them, I hope
you will add to them. One is we can look at the Pell grant and
whether that could be able to be spent all year rather than
during part of the year, maybe limiting it to the same amount
of money, and maybe a certain number of terms, although we
would not want to just put an arbitrary year on it because that
might defeat the purpose for which we have given the Pell grant
in the first place. The same idea with the subsidized loans,
even if we have to keep the loans at the same total amount,
$23,500, we might allow students to spend that money earlier or
on a more flexible schedule to meet their needs.
It has been suggested that we might--Dr. Trachtenberg
suggested that we might have a demonstration program through
FIPSE that would encourage a few more universities to involve
the year-round calendar, and at the same time we could gather
information about what is already going on, study it, and let
universities change their culture on their own. One of the
great strengths of American higher education is the autonomy of
its campuses, and I am very reluctant to see any sort of
Federal legislation that would interfere with that, in this or
any other area.
I also think back to 12 years ago when I was Education
Secretary and we were having more discussion about year-round
schools, elementary and secondary schools. We had a commission
on time and learning that reported after we left and the
Clinton administration was here, but I thought it was a very
useful commission. And so perhaps we could consider that,
primarily for the purpose of identifying what is already going
on, seeing what we can learn from that.
Now, that is four things that I gleaned from this. Is there
any other specific thing that the Federal Government could do
or stop doing or should consider doing or stop doing that might
affect year-round calendars that I have overlooked in my
summary?
[No response.]
Senator Alexander. OK. Well, this has been very helpful,
very timely. I thank you for interrupting your schedules to be
here, and you can be sure that our full committee will pay
close attention to your testimony.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Prepared Statement of Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Mr. Chairman, I see that last week you gave President Bush a bust
of his ancestor, James Weir, who fought in the battle of Kings
Mountain--along with an ancestor of yours. You rightly called that
Tennessee battle one of the ``great stories of the American
Revolution.''
We honor our ancestors for their bravery and courage. But we
wouldn't fight wars today with the strategies of 1780.
I'm here today, to tell you that in higher education, we are trying
to compete globally and conduct our business with the habits of
colonial times--and earlier. We can't do that any longer.
So, Senator Alexander, and Senator Kennedy, thank you for inviting
me to testify. I've submitted both a written statement for your review,
and copies of a study on the year around university that we completed
last year at The George Washington University.
My message in these materials is simple. We need to change. In the
next few minutes let me briefly: describe what's happened that makes
change necessary; propose a specific change that could help keep
American Universities; competitive and cost effective; and suggest some
things the federal government might do to nudge such a change along.
First, what's changed?
Numbers tell that story. For in the last half-century, there has
been a quiet revolution in the number--and diversity--of Americans who
want a college degree.
In 1952, when I started college, about 7% of men over 25--and 5% of
women--had a four year degree. Last year it was about 27% of men and
23% of women. Only 200,000 African Americans had college degrees in
1950. Now it's 2.7 million.
There's no mystery about why. The latest Census figures show that
people with only a high school diploma make about $26,000. With a B.A.,
about $50,000. With a graduate degree: $72,000.
Meanwhile, universities have taken on roles they never had before.
We must offer courses in more and more disciplines. We are asked to
continue the basic and applied research that keeps our nation in the
forefront of innovation and assistjob creation. We're asked to serve
communities in new ways--like the fourteen million dollars in
uncompensated medical care GW provided to citizens of the District of
Columbia last year.
Thus has higher education become more expensive. Our costs go up
not because we're greedy, but because what we do outpaces the so-called
cost of living index. For example, new security precautions and
additional personnel added after the September 11 attacks drove up our
expenses and our tuition.
Independent universities have relatively few sources of revenue.
All universities compete with other worthy causes for scarce
philanthropic dollars. Public institutions compete for the tax dollars
allocated by State legislatures who are also trying to improve health
care, build roads, and enhance homeland security. Universities raise
tuition reluctantly because we want to offer educational opportunities
to everyone who can benefit from them, not only the wealthy. Most
universities and colleges have endowments insufficient to sustain
excellence.
We have diligently cut costs. Faculty and staff salaries at many
institutions have either been frozen or increased well below the cost
of living. We've joined consortia to use our combined buying power to
hold down the cost of commodities. We've outsourced services in order
to obtain the best value for every dollar.
But producing a first rate college education stubbornly remains a
labor-intensive process. We've had to charge more. At the University of
Maryland, Senator Mikulski's alma mater, tuition increased 18% last
year. In Senator Edwards' state, Clemson's tuition went up 19% this
year. Nationally, tuition has increased about 5% a year over the last
decade.
Is there anything more we can do to hold down costs?
There is.
The academic calendar on which we operate was created to suit an
agrarian world. It fit the world of 1780, when tending crops and
looking after livestock were more important than learning to read. To
allow students to work on the family farm universities operated for
slightly more than half the year--generally, two 14 week semesters.
At a time when fewer than 2 percent of Americans work in
agriculture--when agricultural production is so internationalized that
we casually buy strawberries in November and corn on the cob in
February--such a system is hopelessly out of date.
We need to be careful comparing universities to corporations. But
when it comes to efficiency, such a comparison is apt.
Is there a business in America that would close facilities for six
months while building new ones alongside them that would also run half
a year?
I don't think so. But that is what states are pressed to do. They
are building new campuses and buildings--and underusing the ones
they've got.
Right now, such inefficiency is less evident. There is a population
bulge keeping dormitories full. In ten years, that bulge will
disappear. And the folly of this trend will be clear on the quads and
classrooms of almost every campus.
I suggest moving instead to a program of full utilization.
Imagine that instead of two 14-week semesters we had three
trimesters--with appropriate vacations. Students might be on campus for
only two of the trimesters. At GW, we could increase our enrollment by
at least a thousand students, yet have fewer students on campus at any
one time.
Think of the advantages. Less competition for housing or classes.
More income for the university. Lower tuition for students. Fewer
students on the streets--ensuring the gratitude of neighbors and zoning
boards.
There are other advantages. We would reduce the need to raise
either private or federal or state money for as many new facilities.
That would reduce the tax burden and the tuition burden. A year around
calendar would enable us to increase the size of our entering classes
without building new facilities--thus accommodating the growing number
of students who will seek higher education and preparing for the
downturn in that number in the subsequent generation.
Can it be done? Of course. In Chairman Gregg's state, Dartmouth has
done it for a long time. But Dartmouth is the exception; it should be
the rule.
Another benefit can be quantified. Compared to fifty years ago, we
offer enormous numbers of graduate and professional degrees in the
United States. Just in science and engineering--which directly affect
our national security and prosperity--we awarded only about 13,500
degrees; by 1996 we awarded 95,000. In the early 50s, we awarded about
6,500 doctoral degrees; by 1997 it was nearly 43,000.
If we operated all year, we might even be able to offer some
bachelors degrees in three years rather than four, saving an enormous
amount for students and families. If a graduate or professional degree
is now the currency valued by students and rewarded by the economy,
perhaps the nature of the bachelor's degree can be rethought with a
view toward awarding a meaningful degree in less time.
Finally, there are some benefits apparent only to people who see
what happens every spring, as graduating students prepare resumes.
We flood the market during the summer, and starve it during the
rest of the year. We're out of synch with the greatest demand for help
in the retail sector. We overwhelm research laboratories, congressional
offices, law firms, lobbying organizations, and friends of our families
with qualified employees during the season when they're slackest
because they, too, are on vacation.
All this could change--if we can summon the will to change.
Would this be easy?
Absolutely not. There is always a constituency for the way things
have always been.
Still, I am convinced there are ways to achieve such change. To
utilize our institutions more fully, its not necessary for students to
attend each summer; attending just one mandatory summer session in four
years creates new income for our institutions, opportunities to
increase enrollment without building facilities, and opens up an
opportunity for universities to generate new and exciting programs
throughout the year.
The details, for the moment, concern me less than the idea.
The Federal Government has an important role in promoting year
around education.
For example, if students could use their Pell grants and guaranteed
loans for twelve months of study rather than for just nine months, we'd
accomodate demand for higher education all year.
Stafford loans should have the same rules. Let's say students use
their limit during the regular nine month academic year--but plan to
attend the third trimester? Why not give them a loan equal to the fall
disbursement right away?
I also suggest a modest appropriation, say $5 million, for a
commission and a FIPSE competition for demonstration projects. I'm
certain the results would stimulate many schools to act.
If we operated on a year around calendar, some students might
choose to finish school more quickly rather than take off a semester.
But most will chose to either work or vacation during a winter or
spring term. For those who want to study or earn credit, universities
can create vibrant internships, study abroad programs, and other
educational programs during the fall or spring semester students might
not be in residence. If they chose to work, they'll find less
competition for employment.
Let me sum up.
We need a year-round university calendar like the one most
enterprises operate on.
We need federal government programs to accomodate that probability.
We need it for the sake of the nation's economy.
We need it for the sake of our national preeminence in creating and
disseminating knowledge.
We need it for the sake of the communities we serve.
Members of the Committee, universities cannot be separate from
their societies. They belong to them. They help define them. In this
Information Age, when we all know education is a full time job, we
cannot give universities a half-time appointment.
``If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of
civilization,'' Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``it expects what never was and
never will be.''
That's still true.
We honor Jefferson's principles--the ones fought for by those
volunteers at Kings Mountain. But we honor the principles of their
century best--by making those changes necessary for ours.
And now, I'm happy to take your questions.
Prepared Statement of India McKinney
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
India McKinney, and I am a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences
at Vanderbilt University, double majoring in Political Science and
Communication Studies.
My family is originally from Alabama, though we have lived in
several states. In 1996, my family moved to Southern California where I
attended and graduated from a Palos Verdes Peninsula High School. For
mostly personal reasons, I only considered and applied to small,
private colleges in the southeastern part of the United States. I
cannot articulate what it was about Vanderbilt that stood out, but I
realized before too much longer that Vanderbilt was my top choice for
college, though I had never set foot on campus. I applied to Vanderbilt
as an ``Early Decision'' candidate and crossed my fingers.
My acceptance letter came in early March, in the same envelope as
my financial aid package. I was absolutely thrilled and after reading
the first page and glancing at the rest, I handed my mother the
envelope so that she could help me with the financial aid part. As my
mother looked at the second page, her eyes widened and she told me
quietly that if that was the only financial aid Vanderbilt was
offering, she didn't see how they could afford to send me there.
Devastated, I called the Vanderbilt Financial Aid office and asked
about more money, or possible merit scholarships. The woman I talked to
suggested that I get a job on campus, but told me that the letter I was
holding was Vanderbilt's final aid offer.
Though I had applied Early Decision to Vanderbilt, their acceptance
letter was not the first one that I had received, nor was theirs the
best offer, financially. So I went to bed that night determined to
believe that if I could not attend Vanderbilt, then it must not have
been meant to be and that I could be quite happy at another university.
So I came home from school the next day resigned to writing a letter
politely declining Vanderbilt's offer, but my mother met me at the
door. With tears in her eyes, she told me that my father had met with
his company's Credit Union and that they had decided to get a second
mortgage on our house so that they could send me to Vanderbilt. She
told me they agreed that Vanderbilt was the best place for me to be,
and they had decided that it was worth spending the money to get the
best education and the best college experience possible.
The loan package that I received from Vanderbilt was a Need-Based
Grant from the College of Arts and Science (not a Pell Grant), as well
as a subsidized Stafford Loan. This most recent school year, I have
also taken an unsubsidized Stafford loan. I have also had a job on
campus every semester, so that I can pay for all of my personal
expenses, including food, without asking my parents to spend more money
to send me to college. My freshman year, I worked in the dining hall so
that I could get for free the dinner plan that all Vanderbilt Freshmen
are required to buy. I have worked for the alumni calling center, where
I called Vanderbilt alumni to ask for donations; I worked for the
marching band, where I was a member and vice president, and was pleased
to discover that they ended up paying me to do some things I would have
done for free. I currently work in the Office of Housing and
Residential Education, where my main task is file and sort papers and
to run errands on campus.
I have spent every summer at home, where the rent is free, earning
money so that I didn't have to work as hard during the rest of the
school year when time is more constrained. My first summer, I worked
full time as a hostess at TGI Friday's. The second summer, I interned
with my local Congresswoman, Jane Harman, and worked at Friday's as a
waitress on the weekends. Last summer, I worked as an intern in
Southern California Edison's Legislative and Local Governmental Affairs
group.
My concern with year round financial aid is that rather than
provide the opportunity to allow some students to graduate early, year
round aid might result in some colleges forcing students to take summer
classes and graduate early because it looks better statistically. I
recognize that some students would welcome the chance to graduate
early, either to save money or to get a head start in a career, but
personally, I would not have preferred that option. Creating the
opportunity for some students to take classes in the summer would be
beneficial to many students, as long as summer classes remain a choice
and not an obligation. Forcing students to take classes during the
summer might deny those students the opportunity to get summer jobs,
internships, or undergraduate research grants, which would hurt the
collegiate system in the long run. I think that college is about
personal exploration as much as it is about learning solid facts, and I
believe that the space created in the summer is invaluable.
I never took summer classes for two additional reasons. First, I am
a liberal arts major, and most of the classes Vanderbilt offers in the
summer are designed for science majors either retaking classes or
fulfilling their arts requirements. Secondly, I liked my summers in the
``real world,'' where I got to use the theories I was learning at
school in ``real'' life. Though I was often bored at home away from my
college friends, I always came back to Nashville in the fall rested,
excited to start a new year, and with a new perspective on what my
ultimate goal in college should be.
Let me emphasize though: if year round college were to become the
norm, I believe it would be both fair and essential that Federal
Student Aid be available throughout the year for need based students
who either choose or are required to take summer classes.
Though I never visited Vanderbilt or any other college, I know I
made the right choice because I could not have had a better four years.
I will graduate in about two months, and I know that I will have to
start paying off my loans, but Vanderbilt was definitely worth it. I
hope that my comments have helped and, I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have. I thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Prepared Statement of Michael L. Lomax
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I
appear before you today on behalf of the United Negro College
Fund (UNCF). UNCF is America's oldest and most successful black
higher education assistance organization, representing 39,
private, four-year historically black colleges and universities
(HBCUs). UNCF has been committed to increasing and improving
access to college for African Americans since 1944. The
organization remains steadfast in its commitment to enroll,
nurture, and graduate students, some of whom do not have the
social and educational advantages of other college bound
populations. Combined, we enroll over 59,000 students in
primarily liberal arts institutions, many of whom go on to earn
graduate and professional degrees at America's most prestigious
universities.
I am pleased to share with you today UNCF's viewpoints
about year-round college, and particularly how such an academic
calendar might benefit UNCF students. It is important, as we
begin this discussion, for you to understand something about
our students. UNCF students come from a variety of family and
economic backgrounds. However, more than 60 percent of all UNCF
students come from families with incomes below $25,000
(compared with 16 percent of students attending four-year
colleges nationwide), while 84 percent are from families with
incomes below $50,000 (compared to 26 percent of students
attending four-year colleges nationwide). Approximately 92
percent of UNCF students receive some form of federal financial
assistance. Forty percent are also the first in their families
to attend college. UNCF students, then, are not only
disproportionately represented among aid recipients, but they
also enter college less familiar with the environment and with
little or no help (at home) in successfully navigating the
challenging academic requirements.
Mr. Chairman, to better serve the needs of its students,
UNCF has recommended, as part of its Higher Education Act (HEA)
proposals submitted to Congress last year, that Congress
establish a three semester, year-round academic calendar
supported by a three semester Pell Grant award. For the record,
UNCF wants to be clear that it is proposing a Pell Grant for a
third, full academic semester that is equal in length to each
semester in the traditional two semester year. Each eligible
student would qualify for a Pell Grant equal in dollar amount
to the Pell Grant awarded for the other two semesters.
In UNCF's opinion, there are clear advantages to year-round
college for students on UNCF campuses and at all institutions
of higher education. Two distinct categories of students would
be affected by providing a three semester Pell Grant: First,
academically gifted students who wish to accelerate their
studies and who realistically could complete a baccalaureate
degree in three years; and Second, students who enter college
less well-prepared and who would benefit from a more intense
period of time to pursue their baccalaureate degree.
Year-round college allows students, especially Pell-
eligible students, to pursue their baccalaureate degree in a
more intense and focused manner. Guaranteed year-round grant
aid allows students to really commit to their studies, without
working so many hours and without assuming an overwhelming loan
debt burden. Many of these same students are less prepared
academically. Upon arriving on campus, they may be required to
take developmental coursework in addition to the core college
curricula. In fact, a February 27, 2004, USA Today article,
entitled High Schools Skip Over Basics in Rush to College
Classes, noted that 53 percent of all students entering college
take at least one remedial course in order to make up their
academic deficits from high school.
Countless numbers of these students initially would benefit
from a reduced course load, which an extended academic year
could provide. The option of a lesser course load that the
year-round calendar represents is, for them, an opportunity to
stay on plan academically and still attain their baccalaureate
degree within 5 years. On the other hand, a year-round academic
calendar would allow more academically motivated students to
accelerate their studies and graduate earlier.
Additionally, when you look at those Pell recipients who
are less academically prepared and those who are more
academically motivated, both likely are forced to work to pay
for college. As a consequence, these students may have to
forego extra curricular activities because of their course and
work demands. In contrast, many financially privileged students
have the opportunity to participate in whatever pursuits
outside of the classroom they desire while in college,
sustained with the knowledge that they have the fiscal
resources to take classes in the summer and still stay on plan.
UNCF hopes that Congress agrees that we should want to do all
we can to ensure that all students, regardless of income, are
able to enjoy some of these same extra curricular college
experiences.
Members of the Committee, as I have stated previously, UNCF
students, as well as many other dependent and independent
students, must work to pay for college. Working more hours, or
for that matter taking on increased loan debt, creates an
almost insurmountable barrier to successfully completing
college. No one who deals with these students on a regular
basis would be surprised that many come in and out of school as
a consequence. A year-round calendar, supported by grant aid,
undoubtedly enhances retention for these students.
UNCF recognizes that not all institutions of higher
education would want to operate on a year-round calendar. For
that reason, we also recommend that a three semester Pell be
optional. Campuses opting not to offer aid in this manner may
provide Title IV assistance under the current program
parameters. Additionally, UNCF understands that comparable
changes need to be made to the Federal student loan programs,
whether one offers a year-round calendar or not.
UNCF does not anticipate that all of its member
institutions, nor colleges and universities as a whole, would
implement a year-round academic program taking advantage of a
three semester Pell Grant. However, institutions that elected
to provide year-round instruction would have several benefits
accrue to them--including a steady flow of revenue and a
seamless registration process--that could provide economies of
scale to participating institutions. Since campus facilities
generally are available for operational purposes during the
traditional summer recess, a year-round academic calendar would
need to make allowances for necessary repairs and maintenance.
Finally, some accommodation may have to be made with existing
faculty and staff employment contracts.
Mr. Chairman, the impact of what I have just shared with
the Committee is significant when one considers the financial
consequences not only to students, colleges and universities,
but also to this country. The longer it takes for students to
complete college, the longer they remain in the system. The
most recent data from the Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics indicates that, at the end of
four years, 35.8 percent of all students who entered college in
the fall of 1995 took four (4) years to complete a
baccalaureate degree. At the end of five years, for the same
cohort, 57.1 percent of all who entered in the fall of 1995 had
earned their BA degree. At the end of six years, the percentage
was 62.7. Furthermore, an additional 14.2 percent of students
still were enrolled after year six (6) without a degree. Even
if, as under the UNCF proposal, more students complete college
in five (5) years, this still could represent considerable
savings. At a time when Congress is so focused on the tight
budget facing the nation, we may want to consider how
proposals--such as the year-round academic calendar supported
by a three semester Pell Grant award--recommended by UNCF
potentially may reduce some financial pressures on an already
oversubscribed financial aid program.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, UNCF member
institutions recognize that some of their proposals may be
controversial. Nonetheless, we believe that UNCF's
recommendations may add to our exploration of the merits of a
year-round college calendar. We applaud you for undertaking
this review and look forward to working with you as you attempt
to improve access to college for all students.
Prepared Statement of Virginia S. Hazen
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to be here
today to discuss with you the advantages of year round college
operation and the potential impediments to establishing such a system.
Dartmouth College implemented a quarter-based year round calendar
in the fall of 1972. The implementation of year round operation allowed
the College to expand its student body by ten percent without
significantly expanding its facilities. Over the years the plan has
evolved to address changes in the curriculum and the lack of continuity
students felt they had in their relationships.
Today students are expected to enroll for twelve terms over four
years and are required to be in residence during the fall, winter and
spring quarters of their freshman and senior years and the summer
between their sophomore and junior years. Beyond those requirements,
students have the flexibility to arrange their attendance to best meet
their needs. While students can graduate in three years if they have
met the academic degree requirements and have secured special
permission, this was not the intent of the year round plan and seldom
occurs. The average Dartmouth student graduates in slightly fewer than
twelve terms.
As mentioned above, one advantage to the College of Dartmouth's
plan of year round operation is that it has allowed the College to
increase the size of its student body without a corresponding expansion
in facilities. It has also allowed the College to fully utilize its
residence halls and other facilities during the summer without having
to rely extensively on conferences and other outside programs. Finally,
year round operation has given the Dartmouth faculty more flexibility
and control in scheduling their research activities.
For our students, the greatest advantage of year round operation is
the autonomy it gives them to create their own calendars to fit their
academic, personal and professional needs. Without disrupting their
education, Dartmouth students are able to participate in international
study programs (60 percent of Dartmouth students study overseas, an
important component of a liberal arts education in our ever changing
world), unpaid internships, job opportunities to explore career
possibilities, community service, and transfer terms at other
institutions. Since Dartmouth students frequently take their
``vacation'' term during the fall, winter or spring rather than during
the summer, there are job and internship opportunities open to them
that are unavailable to students with traditional college calendars.
Another advantage of the Dartmouth Plan is that it forces students out
of their social comfort zones. As friends begin exploring different
activities, their calendars rarely mesh, leading them to develop
different relationships.
While Dartmouth's year round operation plan has many attractive
features, it has some challenges. Since facilities are fully utilized
year round, maintenance can be problematic. Base staffing levels are
required year round, making most nine-month positions obsolete and
increasing compensation costs. Down time for planning is limited, and
activities that do not normally overlap at other institutions
frequently do under year round operation introducing a layer of
complexity that would not otherwise exist. Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, financial aid funding and administration can be
problematic.
At Dartmouth a full academic year is three quarters. When financial
aid recipients opt to enroll for four quarters, they have no Federal
Pell Grant eligibility during their final term. In addition, their
Federal loan eligibility is frequently insufficient to meet their
needs. For a plan of year round operation to succeed, these issues must
be addressed. While Dartmouth is able to replace the Federal Pell
Grants in the final quarter with institutional grants and to supplement
Federal loans with institutional loans, not all colleges are. However,
Dartmouth's solution is not perfect. Dartmouth loans carry higher
interest rates than Federal loans; they cannot be consolidated with
Federal loans; and they do not have the same forgiveness features.
Students borrowing from both the Federal programs and the College have
multiple minimum monthly payments. In addition to these problems,
outside scholarships are frequently unavailable during the summer term.
Donors often cannot grasp that the summer term is a parity term versus
a remedial term. Even when summer funding is available, an additional
application is frequently required.
Administering financial aid within a year round environment would
be facilitated if: 1) the Federal Pell Grant could be awarded for all
enrolled terms; 2) annual loan maximums were lifted (perhaps keeping
the cumulative maximums in place) to address students' increased needs
during years they were enrolled for twelve months; 3) Federal Stafford
loans could be distributed unevenly over terms to address differing
costs associated with various programs; and 4) there was an educational
effort beyond that offered by individual institutions to help the
public understand the difference between a remedial summer session and
a parity summer term.
I have appreciated the opportunity to speak to you and hope my
remarks will be helpful as you consider issues of capacity and access.
Prepared Statement of Margaret Heisel
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Good morning. My name is
Margaret Heisel and I am the Associate to the Vice President and
Executive Director of Admissions and Outreach for the University of
California Office of the President (UCOP). The University of California
includes 10 campuses, with over 201,000 students and more than 155,000
faculty and staff. During the 2002-2003 academic year, 48,432
undergraduate students, or nearly a third of the UC's 150,000
undergraduates, received Pell Grants valued at $138 million dollars.
I have been asked to testify on the advantages and impediments of
year-round enrollment, from the perspective of the University of
California, the nation's largest public research institution of higher
education. The University of California supports year-round enrollment,
primarily because of the benefits to students and taxpayers. While
year-round enrollment does not provide cost savings to the University,
it offers clear overall advantages in terms of increased capacity,
cost-effectiveness, academic continuity, retention and persistence
rates, and the like. Year-round enrollment truly benefits students and
their families.
My testimony today will also focus on the impediments to full and
equitable participation in year-round enrollment, particularly for
students who depend on federal financial aid. The University of
California currently enrolls a higher percentage of low-income students
(measured in terms of Pell Grant recipients), in proportion to its
overall enrollment, than any other flagship public university. As an
institution that is committed to expanding access to qualified students
regardless of their ability to pay, the University believes Congress
can take a leadership role in effecting changes that will promote year-
round enrollment and ensure that access is available to all, not just
those who can afford it.
I will explain these recommendations in more detail, but briefly we
believe Congress can direct the Secretary of Education to implement
existing statutory authority, as described in 34 CFR, Title IV, Part A,
Subpart 1, Sec. 401(b)(6) to allow Pell Grants to be awarded to
qualified low-income students for yearround study.
In addition, the University believes Congress should enact
statutory changes to the Stafford Loan Program to ease current
administrative burdens that make it extremely difficult for schools to
offer loans on a year-round schedule. This would effectively raise the
annual maximum loan limits for year-round students, but would not
increase the cost to the taxpayers.
RECORD ENROLLMENTS
Like the rest of the nation, California is experiencing record
growth in postsecondary education enrollment, in a phenomenon referred
to in our state as ``Tidal Wave II.'' In order to accommodate the large
increase in the number of young people who will be college-aged over
the next several years, California has made changes in its higher
education policies. The University of California has made changes, too,
to address this student surge, which will lead to an expected increase
of 43 percent during the decade from 2000 to 2010, which is an
additional 60,000 undergraduate students above current levels.
YEAR-ROUND ENROLLMENT BENEFITS THE TAXPAYER
The tenth campus of the University of California, at Merced, is
scheduled to open to undergraduates in fall 2005 and the California
State University has opened three new campuses in the last decade in an
attempt to meet the demands of California's residents. However, states
cannot continually build additional campuses and the independent
college sector cannot meet the enrollment demand, so year-round
instruction has been adopted to maximize public investment in
postsecondary education.
Prior to 2001, summer instruction at all UC campuses was self-
supporting, as it is at most public universities, meaning that students
paid fees to cover the entire cost of their courses with no additional
funding from the state. Enrollment was optional and financial aid was
not generally available. In response to its enrollment challenges,
California has identified an efficiency, which could reduce facility
costs and move students through their programs more quickly, thus
making room for more students. Beginning in 2001, the state provided
the University with the same level of subsidy for summer enrollment
that it spends per student for instruction in the regular academic
year.
Year-round enrollment has proven very successful and student demand
for summer instruction has been high. In fact, enrollment has nearly
doubled since the summer of 2000, the last year of fully self-supported
programs. About a third of the students at UC took courses in summer
2003, and one of our campuses UCLA-has collected data demonstrating
that students are graduating more quickly as a result of their summer
enrollment.
Year-round enrollment benefits the student:
Year-round enrollment offers students both educational and economic
advantages, including:
Accelerating study and graduating sooner so they can seek career
employment or proceed to graduate or professional school sooner
Maintaining housing near campus rather than needlessly paying
summer rent or finding new housing each fall term
Completing academic requirements during summer, and allowing more
flexible course options during the traditional academic terms
Taking courses that are overbooked in the regular academic year due
to rising enrollments
Concentrating on certain courses that require intensive study, such
as languages
Preparing for difficult or preliminary coursework (particularly
incoming freshmen and transfer students)
Enrolling more easily in study-abroad or internship courses
Combining work and study more easily than in the regular academic
year.
Barriers to year-round enrollment:
The University of California has taken steps to expand access for
year-round enrollment to all students who wish to pursue it. This
includes continuing state and institutional aid to eligible students
during their summer terms. The fact is, however, that truly needy
students cannot take advantage of this option without federal financial
aid as well. Without a Pell Grant, low-income students will not be able
to participate as will their wealthier counterparts. In addition, many
other students are denied this option because it is more difficult to
obtain student loans for the summer terms.
The University of California believes that Congress can and should
eliminate these two barriers, and Congress can do so without additional
cost to the taxpayer. I will outline two possible ways. Attached to my
statement, and submitted for the record, are illustrations of the
effects of these changes.
PELL GRANT
The University of California is seeking a year-round Pell Grant.
Currently, very needy students who wish to accelerate their time-to-
degree by attending school for 12 months rather than 9, have exhausted
their eligibility for Pell grant support during the traditional
academic year. With a year-round Pell Grant, these students would
receive an additional $1350 in the maximum Pell (assuming the current
level of $4,050) for the remaining quarter of the year. This option
provides the same dollars per student over the student's career in
college, it just provides the funds sooner by allowing them to receive
their financial aid in the summer session. While some additional
appropriations would be needed initially, this change is budget neutral
over a 5-year budget outlook.
Current law grants the Secretary of Education discretion to provide
two Pell Grants within one calendar year under certain conditions.
Unfortunately, this discretion has never been used. A report of the
projected cost patterns and administrative feasibility of a year-round
Pell Grant program was written, but it made inaccurate assumptions
about how the program would have to be implemented and therefore, it
incorrectly estimated that any such undertaking would be prohibitively
expensive. The University of California proposes that in the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Congress require the
Secretary to implement a limited pilot program, which we believe could
be cost-neutral, if viewed on a five-year federal budget window.
STAFFORD LOANS
The University of California supports increased borrowing limits
for undergraduate and graduate students, along with other changes we
would like to see in reauthorization, to update the student loan
programs and better meet students' needs. However, aside from that, a
simple change can be made to the Stafford loan programs to facilitate
year-round enrollment for eligible students.
Right now, many student borrowers exhaust their annual Federal
Stafford loan maximums during the traditional nine-month academic year.
While students are currently eligible to begin to use their subsequent
year's Stafford Loan eligibility to attend the additional three months
of each year, it is exceptionally difficult for institutions to
administer this option and as a result, it is not available at the
University of California, nor generally at most four-year, public or
private institutions.
There would be no cost involved in designating a higher ANNUAL loan
maximum for students engaged in 12-month, rather than 9-month academic
schedule. No change to the aggregate, or lifetime, limit would be
involved, so the federal costs will not increase. This is a statutory
change to provide administrative relief to schools that operate on a
year round schedule. Attached is a chart that illustrates this option.
CONCLUSION
Congress is looking to improve access to higher education, in the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and this testimony offers
two simple changes: year-round Pell Grants and 12-month annual maximum
limits for the Federal Stafford Loan programs. These recommendations
will enhance our nation's investment in higher education and improve
our economic future as well.
Thank you very much for your time and attention to these
suggestions for Congressional action.
Prepared Statement of Thomas A. Babel
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee: My name is Thomas Babel
and I am vice president of Student Finance for DeVry University, which
operates over 65 locations in 20 States, and Canada. It is my pleasure
to present testimony to you regarding the year-round academic calendar.
I speak to you today on behalf of our more than 52,000 students who are
enrolled in programs at the associate, bachelors, and masters degree
level. DeVry's mission is to provide high-quality, career-oriented
undergraduate and graduate programs in technology, business and
management. A DeVry education is designed to provide economic
opportunity for its graduates by providing them with the knowledge to
navigate careers at the intersection of business, technology and the
growing health care field.
The United States is at a critical juncture, as jobs in the 21st
century require education beyond a high school diploma. As a Nation, we
must provide a greater opportunity for future generations to educate
themselves so that they are competitive in the knowledge economy. This
testimony is limited to a statement of our firmly held belief that
every citizen should have equal access to funds that support the
postsecondary education that best meets his or her educational
objectives. We believe that Pell Grants should be available throughout
the year to meet the varying needs of today's college students.
In recent years the number of non-traditional students entering or
re-entering higher education has exploded. Non-traditional students now
make up 73 percent of students attending higher education. The baby
boom echo now entering college is stressing institutional capacity and
financial assistance resources. In addition, the increase in first
generation college students, who are increasingly members of minority
groups, creates additional strain on the Federal student aid programs.
The need for a more efficient use of Pell Grants is needed to ensure
that needy students have an opportunity to achieve their educational
goals.
THE ACADEMIC CALENDAR AT DEVRY
Unlike most academic institutions, DeVry University operates on a
year-round, three-academic semester basis providing students attending
full-time the ability to complete their bachelor's degree in 3 years or
less. For example our 2003-2004 academic year began with a summer
semester on July 7, 2003 that ended on October 6, 2003. Our fall
semester began on October 27, 2003 and ended on February 29, 2004. The
spring semester began on March 1, 2004 and will conclude on June 20,
2004. While the academic calendar at DeVry is more intense and requires
a level of commitment that some may regard as atypical, we believe it
serves the best interests of the highly motivated student attending at
an accelerated pace and students who benefit from the rigor of
uninterrupted study as well as students who may proceed at the more
traditional pace.
DeVry University and other institutions of higher education are
presently constrained in their efforts to provide Federal Pell Grants
to eligible students by two factors. First, the failure of the
Secretary of Education to exercise his discretionary authority under
Section 401(b)(6)(A) to allow ``a student to receive 2 Pell Grants
during a single award year, . . .'' Second, insufficient Federal
funding from the Congress to support two Pell awards in a single
academic year.
YEAR ROUND STUDY BENEFITS THE STUDENT
Because of DeVry's year-round class schedule, DeVry students can
earn their bachelor's degree more quickly and, therefore, enter the
workforce sooner. This means that they start earning a salary more
quickly than those students enrolled at traditional institutions. See
Table 1 for example.
The Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at the University
of Southern California recently wrote, ``Even when factoring in the
tuition costs, which tend to be above the tuition prices of comparable
public institutions, jobs students find after graduation tend to pay
reasonably well. Thus the return on investment for the average student
in a for-profit program in higher education is greater than a similar
return for the average bachelor's degree graduate from a traditional
institution--about 28 percent versus 17 percent.''
YEAR ROUND STUDY IMPROVES RETENTION AND GRADUATION
The DeVry University experience indicates that persistence and
graduation is enhanced through year round attendance for non-
traditional students. A non-traditional student at DeVry is older, has
family responsibilities and may work full-time. Our 2002 Fall
Graduation Rate survey of the 1995 first-time full-time student cohort
shows that year round enrollment increases the likelihood that non-
traditional students progress to degree when they can do so without
interruption, including summers. The lack of year round Pell funding
acts as a barrier for non-traditional students who are heavily reliant
on student financial assistance. These students graduate with a higher
debt burden because they have been saddled with a disproportionate
amount of student loans.
Providing Pell Grants throughout the year would benefit all
students, including those gifted students attending traditional
colleges, non-traditional students who are trying to complete their
education while working full time, and low and middle income students
at traditional institutions, who experience financial and pre-college
preparation barriers to academic persistence and success. With a year
round Pell Grant, gifted students could continue their studies and
graduate in 3 years, while more academically average students could
complete their degree in 4 years, thus reducing the cost of student
loan subsidies and grants to the Federal Government.
The longer students are in school, the more costly it is for
students and taxpayers. Currently, the Pell Grant program provides
grant awards twice a year--on the typical two-semester schedule. This
results in a needy student who is motivated to attend classes year
round to take on additional loan debt to meet their financial
obligations.
OUR RECOMMENDATION
DeVry fully understands the budgetary consequences of adding a
second Pell Grant award during a single academic year. A maximum award
recipient currently would qualify for an award of $4050 in fiscal year
2005. If a third semester Pell award were implemented, this amount
would increase to $6075. During the current Higher Education Act
reauthorization, DeVry recommends that Congress authorize a three-
semester Pell Grant demonstration program--including 20 to 25
baccalaureate institutions of higher education representing a diverse
cross section of all such institutions.
Table 1
Tuition shown as a debt and salary as income. Based on the average
salary for a DeVry graduate in Business Administration for 2002, and
assumes there is no raise for year 2 in the job.
[Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]