[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 155 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    HONORING DR. J. RANDALL O'BRIEN

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 22, 2015

  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, Dr. J. Randall O'Brien is one 
of the most respected educators in the Nation.
  He took over the reins of Carson-Newman University at a real low 
point in the school's history.
  In fact, just a few years ago, the University had such difficult 
financial problems that some people thought it could go under.
  Under Dr. O'Brien's leadership, the University has undergone a major 
turnaround, increasing its enrollment, adding new programs, and 
becoming the most forward-looking smaller university in the Nation.
  Dr. O'Brien recently wrote a lead column for the Knoxville News 
Sentinel concerning the proposed new college scorecard put forth by the 
White House and Department of Education.
  Because this issue has ramifications for colleges and universities 
all across the Nation, I would like to call it to the attention of my 
colleagues and other readers.

     J. Randall O'Brien: Scorecard for Colleges Unfair and Damaging

       There are are so many fatal flaws in President Barack 
     Obama's recently unveiled New College Scorecard it is 
     difficult to know where to begin our nation's imperative 
     critique. For starters, how shocking it is to see that our 
     educational leaders housed within the U.S. Department of 
     Education could prove so inept in collecting, interpreting 
     and providing our president reliable data.
       College educators fully agree with current public opinion 
     that evaluation and reform of higher education is overdue. To 
     be sure, college accessibility, affordability and 
     accountability are critical issues that rightfully belong on 
     our nation's agenda. Assessment, however, formulated on the 
     basis of incomplete questioning and misleading data may prove 
     far more damaging than having no published assessment at all.
       The New College Scorecard notes the annual cost of 
     attending each college, the graduation rate of the school and 
     the average starting salary of its graduates. However, the 
     scorecard includes only data of federal student-loan 
     borrowers. All other students are excluded from the report.
       Moreover, the starting salary numbers fail to take into 
     consideration the geographical region hosting the 
     institution. A New York or California salary, for example, 
     would be expected to be significantly higher than an 
     Appalachian one. Should not per capita wealth and cost of 
     living in the institution's region be noted?
       In addition, no consideration is given to the correlation 
     of salary and field of study. Teachers, social workers and 
     ministers, for instance, do not expect to earn salaries 
     commensurate to business graduates in metropolitan areas.
       Do we wish to undermine and imperil the vitally important 
     work of our nation's service sector, and its college 
     providers, by placing value on salary alone? Do we really 
     wish to discourage the graduation of relatively low-income 
     teachers? Moreover, should not a premium be placed on a 
     broad-based liberal arts education, and the intellectual (and 
     holistic) transformation of the student, which prepares the 
     student remarkably well for any job, including corporate, 
     legal, political, church, community, scientific and 
     educational leadership? Dare we risk reducing the college 
     experience to little more than participation in an elite job 
     training program?
       Lastly, despite the White House's insistence on access to 
     higher education for all, the new scorecard fails to 
     acknowledge accessibility of lower socio-economic students to 
     each college. Research clearly shows the correlation in 
     retention and graduation rates to a student's socioeconomic 
     status, family finances and support, and proper academic 
     preparation and encouragement. Should we not value 
     accessibility and accurately factor in its consequences?
       I fear the Department of Education, with encouragement from 
     the White House, will seek to employ the New College 
     Scorecard in determining the amount of financial aid for 
     which a student would be eligible at each college. Students 
     attending one school may qualify for 100 percent of available 
     federal grants, while students attending another school may 
     qualify for only 75 percent. This, I fear, would have the 
     unintended consequence of closing hundreds of colleges, which 
     are vital to regional economic well-being and to the 
     attainment of our nation's educational needs and goals.
       I regret to say I find the New College Scorecard, however 
     well-intended, seriously flawed, patently unfair and 
     exceedingly disappointing. Can we please do better?
       J. Randall O'Brien is president of Carson-Newman 
     University.

                          ____________________