John Maguire: More affirmative action, not less, needed in elite college admissions
From The New England Journal of Higher Education, a service of The New England Board of Higher Education (nebhe.org)
This essay is a sequel to “The Human Dimensions of Enrollment Management,” published in The New England Journal of Higher Education on June 30, 2020. In that article, my unusual focus (as a trained theoretical physicist) was on integrity, not science, as the single most important factor in enrollment- management success. Early in my supervision of enrollment management (from a faculty position in the physics department at Boston College), I encountered serious challenges to that fundamental principle of integrity:
• In my first year (1972) on the job as dean of admissions at BC, one day was disrupted by a loudmouth self-proclaimed wealthy Texan in an ostentatiously large cowboy hat. He barged into my office, opened a checkbook and guaranteed me, and/or anyone I designated, “any amount necessary” to secure his son’s admission to Boston College. I evicted him summarily from our office and denied his son the right to apply.
• An influential alum (“Triple Eagle”) and BC administrator’s daughter appealed her rejection on the margin from the highly selective BC School of Nursing. The director of admissions offered the young woman a “Summer Challenge” of passing three courses (with B-‘s or better). Tragically, she received two A-‘s and a C+ and was never enrolled in the School of Nursing. That candidate was my daughter.
• In the late ’70s , the chairman of the Boston College Board of Trustees insisted to the president that his daughter be provisionally admitted to BC, despite her questionable credentials. The president requested that I “make this one exception to avoid a major political risk.” I reluctantly agreed—and the chairman’s daughter flunked out after one semester. Both the chairman and the president agreed thereafter to make the Admissions Office the final arbiter in all cases, even at the risk of losing millions of contributed dollars for new buildings and endowment.
• For at least five years into my tenure as leader of BC Admissions, I tolerated (even countenanced) the admission of virtually all wealthy Phillips Andover Academy seniors, even those in the bottom tenth of their class—while rejecting all but a handful of applicants, many in the top tenth of their classes, in low-income places such as Chelsea, Mass.
In an attempt to advance the principle of “affirmative action,” we completely reversed our strategy, rejecting many wealthy Andover applicants in favor of needy Chelsea applicants, with great results: More top Andover students began applying and gritty Chelsea students succeeded well beyond what their SATs might have predicted. Careful science-based research at BC documented the weak relationship between our ideal redefinition of “quality” (courageous, never-give-up grit, achievement against odds, work ethic—not wealth, social status) and test scores.
I take obvious pride in these displays of integrity by our enrollment team, which have served Boston College—and later other Maguire Associates client institutions—very well over these past 40-plus years.
These examples stand in stark contrast to the much-publicized multiple scandals of “Varsity Blues,” in which status-seeking celebrities are too often willing to write hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks, risk prison and disgrace, and dishonor their most sacred duty to (in the words of Crosby, Stills, and Nash) “teach your children well” about integrity and honesty.
At the highest levels of American leadership, there are now documented examples of secret payments to stand-in SAT test-takers to gain undeserved university admissions and to assist with writing assignments to cover up laziness and corruption—and nonstop braggadocio about fraudulent academic achievements. And too often the names of wealthy criminals remain on buildings and academic departments!
More recently, to underscore the offenses of the entitled well-to-do people whom I confronted earlier in my career—and who continue to seek unfair advantage in Varsity Blues pursuits—expensive legal actions on behalf of disproportionately “entitled well-to-do’s” are accusing Harvard and now Yale of law-violating affirmative action in attempting to do what Boston College accomplished quietly with the Chelsea/Phillips Andover case study. (I sometimes wonder how BC might have fared if a court action had been taken on behalf of Andover rejects losing seats to applicants from Chelsea.)
The great irony in evaluating the honorable ethical defenses (specifically, of white and Asian-American admission percentages, already among the highest in New England) that both Harvard and Yale have put forth is that (in my opinion) a stronger case can be made that too little “affirmative action” is being sought among highly endowed ultra-wealthy Ivies and NESCAC (New England Small College Athletic Conference) institutions. (The Ivy League schools are Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown, Princeton, Cornell, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania.)
The following graph (prepared by me using firsthand data) presented at our 2017 Maguire Associates Tokyo Keynote (“The History and Future of Enrollment Management”) to a national group of Japanese universities is most revealing:
Under 20 percent, and in some cases under 10 percent, of family incomes at elite colleges and universities, are below the national median. And even more telling, of the 80 percent to 90 percent above the national median income, many are triple and more above that median. These institutions, with well under 5 percent of the total national college and university enrollment, control over two thirds of all endowment funds! (Note: Billion Dollar Club refers to the Ivies; the Selective Liberal Arts Colleges are generally NESCAC schools.)
Let me reintroduce the single most relevant and controversial commentary I have produced on this singularly important subject. The 2008 editorial, published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, entitled “‘Have Not’ Colleges Need New Ways to Compete With Rich Ones” needs to be revisited in light of the Harvard/Yale challenges from those accusing them of “too much” affirmative action. We wrote over 10 years ago:
“What we now have is a kind of caste system in American higher education: Brahmin institutions (among which the Ivies are among those at the top) —by virtue of their implicit endowment-supported, non-need-based discount—are able to have their pick of the best candidates in every category of students, including minority students. Hidden from view, expanding year by year, that implicit discount is constantly widening the gap between the haves and have-nots.”
“Roughly 50 institutions now control more than half of college and university endowment money while educating fewer than 2 percent of the nation’s students—a 2 percent that is disproportionately drawn from wealthy families.”
“To put it bluntly, the massive endowments of elite universities confer on them an unassailable competitive advantage in the form of a hidden discount that forces the less well-endowed institutions to deploy merit aid in a scramble for a diminished pool of the best and most-diverse students.”
“The wealthiest institutions would argue, of course, that because they are blessed with the luxury of more aid dollars they are already doing their share. And, in fairness, some of them are reexamining their policies to try to attract more low-income students.”
“Let’s face it, serving the have-not students has become, by default, the disproportionate responsibility of the have-not private institutions and the public four-year and community colleges.”
“We need to be open to new ideas, however unworkable they may, at first glance, appear.”
My point in describing the work we conducted at a now-elite university (Boston College) and in the quoted commentary above is that a stronger case can be made that America’s most elite institutions could and should be doing more—not less—in supporting affirmative action. In the Chronicle article, we advocated “offering donors bigger tax breaks for gifts to private institutions with smaller endowments.” Perhaps the ultimate “pipe dream” (our words in 2008!) that we proposed in the Chronicle piece was our “call for universities with huge endowments to share the wealth by partnering with less well-endowed institutions to extend the benefits of a high-quality education to a broader array of students.”
While I served as a trustee at two separate low-endowment institutions, their outstanding leaders actually did approach (regrettably, unsuccessfully thus far) institutions with multibillion-dollar endowments in pursuit of innovative partnerships that could become win/wins.
I proudly congratulate my own alma mater, Boston College, for investing tens of millions of dollars in creating the Pine Manor Institute for Student Success to dramatically enhance BC’s already above-average diversity—while creating the most possible positive outcome for its financially challenged neighbor, Pine Manor College. More such partnership initiatives should be pursued by the most elite institutions. It may be past time to revisit those “pipe dream” partnerships.
A wonderful example: Brown University has gifted $10 million to the public school system in its home city of Providence. This is perhaps a challenge to, say, Harvard and Yale to invest (even more?) in boosting education in their home cities of Cambridge and New Haven. Let us all continue to brainstorm on other innovative strategies for increasing educational equality.
John Maguire is founder and chairman of Concord, Mass.-based Maguire Associates, a higher-education consulting firm.
Cynthia E. McGrath: Squeezed N.E. colleges seek ways to save on employee health benefits
On Wentworth Institute of Technology’s quad, in Boston
Via The New England Journal of Higher Education, a service of The New England Board of Higher Education (nebhe.org)
BOSTON
The COVID-19 pandemic is top of mind for everyone. There’s no aspect of our lives that’s been untouched. For colleges and universities, the novel coronavirus crisis has caused a major educational shift. Campuses are closed to students. Courses have moved online. And many graduation ceremonies will be canceled or postponed. How long the new norm continues is unknown, but there is bound to be an effect on higher education budgets.
Before COVID-19 entered our lives, colleges and universities were already facing enormous pressures on their bottom lines. Sixty percent of higher education institutions (HEIs) missed their fall 2019 enrollment goals, according to a recent Chronicle of Higher Education story. Changing demographics and drops in international enrollments are primary reasons. Moreover, the Great Recession of 2008-2013 caused a significant drop in the U.S. birthrate, leading to projected enrollment declines for the foreseeable future.
To close the budget gap, many HEIs are developing student recruitment pipelines. However, colleges and universities should also look for cost-curbing strategies. Compensation and benefits comprise as much as two-thirds of an HEI’s budget, and taking a hard look at health insurance costs for faculty, staff and family members is a winning tactic. “Demographic changes and travel restrictions are affecting the revenue side of a school’s ledger, so it’s important for colleges and universities to not only find solutions that maximize revenues, but also look at containing expenses,” said William Hall, vice president for administration and chief financial officer at Salve Regina University, in Newport, R.I.
“The number of 18-year-old students is going down, and colleges and universities need to look at all of their expenses to offset lower revenues, if applicable,” said Margaret Card, Wentworth Institute of Technology’s (in Boston) human-resources director. “Frequently there are economies-of-scale opportunities, such as for training, temporary agencies, joint contracts and healthcare purchasing that are worth pursuing so that the savings can be invested in scholarships and other priorities.”
In late 2006, the Boston Consortium, which brings together Boston-area colleges and universities to develop and implement cost-saving and quality-improvement ideas, gathered a group of chief financial and chief HR officers to find out how to slow health insurance cost increases. Fast forward to 2013, and the results of those efforts, in collaboration with other college and university groups, was the formation of edHEALTH, a healthcare purchasing consortium of HEIs.
“The rising costs of our employee healthcare benefits were putting a strain on the operating budget of Boston College. We were determined to find a solution to the healthcare cost conundrum,” said John Burke, financial vice president and treasurer at the college. “Our objectives were to preserve our plan design, which varies by educational institution, and realize cost savings in our healthcare benefit budget. The ultimate solution we landed on with edHEALTH achieved both objectives.”
How the funding works
The self-insurance arrangement of edHEALTH means member HEIs aren’t paying profits on top of claims. If a college’s healthcare utilization is lower than budgeted, the excess funds remain in the individual school’s account instead of staying with the carrier. However, going from an insured to a self-insured arrangement can be daunting, particularly for small institutions.
“Most colleges and universities that are considering edHEALTH have an employee population of at least 200,” said edHEALTH President A. Tracy Hassett. “A self-insured arrangement can be risky for a small school that doesn’t have the resources to weather a high-claims cost year.” Under the edHEALTH captive arrangement, member schools pick their own self-insured retention level based on their risk tolerance, philosophy, financial status and experience. They can further protect their risk by purchasing aggregate stop-loss coverage in addition to the coverage they automatically receive.
“Our school already had a self-insured arrangement when we joined edHEALTH, so that wasn’t a barrier,” said Wentworth’s Card. “By working together with other schools, we could leverage the group buying power to decrease our administrative and re-insurance costs, which was a win-win.”
edHEALTH recently entered into a prescription drug carve-out arrangement with a larger consortium of colleges and universities that has led to additional savings. All member HEIs now receive 100% of the pharmacy rebates. In the first year, every member HEI saved 18% of its pharmacy expenses because of this initiative. “We’re always looking for innovative ways to provide high-quality benefits while reducing costs,” said Hassett.
edHEALTH can help with attracting and retaining talent
Many HEIs that have joined edHEALTH have passed along some of the savings to their employees, which has helped with hiring and retaining employees. Olin College of Engineering, for example, offered its employees a month of free healthcare premiums in December 2016. Wentworth and Salve Regina have each offered a month of free premiums twice. Wentworth also reduced the percentage of premium that employees pay.
Dean College, which recently joined edHEALTH, was looking for a competitive edge when it decided to improve its employee health benefits and join edHEALTH. The move halved employees’ out-of-pocket deductible. “Offering robust healthcare benefits enables us to attract and retain quality employees,” said Daniel Modelane, vice president of financial services and treasurer at Dean. “The previous deductible was a lot of exposure for our employees, and we were able to cut it in half, which is a helpful recruiting tool.”
Collaboration is an added bonus
Saving money isn’t the only reason HEIs join edHEALTH. Collaboration and transparency with peers combined with data insights are integral benefits.
Member owners share and learn from one another. Representatives from each member institution (typically benefits administrators) meet monthly to determine plan year design options. The Plan Design Committee’s collaboration with the third-party administrators (TPAs) and consultants helps to ensure the optimal suite of choices. “Moving to edHEALTH is a long-term healthcare strategy,” said Sean Carney, partner at 360 Corporate Benefit Advisors, Dean College’s benefits consultant. “This group of edHEALTH schools provides a sense of community and camaraderie for the betterment of the higher education industry.”
Getting a college or university’s finance and HR departments to work together to find healthcare solutions is sometimes a challenge. At Salve Regina, HR resides under the administration and finance umbrella, so this has not been an issue. However, that’s not always the organizational structure. “HR and finance have to partner together because finance looks at the money and HR looks at the quality of care,” said Card of Wentworth. “If both points of view are represented, you can make a better decision.”
In 2019, edHEALTH entered into an agreement with a national administrator so it could offer access throughout the country. Sarah Lawrence College became the first New York school to join. The recently expanded edHEALTH website and the launch of other communication vehicles improve member and business partner engagement. New population health initiatives help improve care coordination and reduce costs for high-risk, high-cost employees and family members. And data mining tools help members realign strategies to drive behavior.
“Higher education is competing for students, faculty and staff,” said edHEALTH’s Hassett. “edHEALTH has consistently beat the rising healthcare cost curve with an average 3.5% premium increase over the last five years compared with the industry average of 8.1%. That’s money that schools can invest in their core business of educating students.”
“Sixty percent of our budget is compensation and benefits, and the edHEALTH solution has improved our cash flow, given us access to affordable stop-loss coverage, reduced administrative plan costs and enabled us to offer our employees premium holidays (no payroll deduction) on two occasions,” said Hall of Salve Regina. “Since joining in 2016, our budget savings have exceeded $2.5 million on an annual healthcare budget of $4.3 million.”
Cynthia E. McGrath is a senior healthcare and HR marketing communications consultant. Email: cemcgrath@educatorshealth.org.
Mary-Pat Cormier: Avoiding the perils of off-campus housing
Liability of higher-education institutions (HEIs) for off-campus housing risks is tricky, focusing on the institution’s role in off-campus-housing arrangements.
If an HEI “assumes a duty” to its students who rely on that duty, it must fulfill the duty with due care. This general rule applies to off-campus safety: For example, if the college offered a limited shuttle bus service to or from off-campus events where it was aware of drinking, it can be liable for injuries to its student struck off campus by a car driven by an intoxicated student returning from an off-campus party. By offering the shuttle service, the HEI assumed duties to students for safety while traveling between the campus and the parties.
In the off-campus housing context, the “assumed duty” theory was determinative in a 2006 Delaware Supreme Court case. A student was assaulted by the boyfriend of another student in the parking lot of off-campus housing. The housing was “offered” by the defendant university to the plaintiff who did not get into a residence. The case went forward on negligence and detrimental reliance claims, because the university “assumed” the duty to exercise reasonable care when it undertook to provide off-campus housing.
Likewise, in 2014, a New Jersey case involved a student injured by a broken window in off-campus housing that the defendant college “arranged.” The plaintiff relied on the duty of care owed by the HEI with respect to the off-campus housing it “arranged.” Therefore, it had a duty to warn the student of the defective window in the off-campus housing unit.
Where a court may “extend” a duty
Courts seem willing to “extend” duties to an HEI, related to off-campus housing, even where the institution has not “assumed” a duty.
In Massachusetts, a landlord near Boston College complained of slander and tortious interference by BC arising from alleged statements by BC to students. The court observed BC could have a duty regarding safety to a student living off campus, because it acted like it had a duty: 1) the college had an off-campus housing office (OCHO); 2) it had a Community Assistance Patrol between students and surrounding communities; 3) BC police responded to off-campus housing disturbances involving BC students; 4) the BC student handbook referred to students’ “responsible citizenship ... in local neighborhoods.”
A 2014 New Jersey case involved the liability of a private school for the violation of fire codes in off-campus housing. The school spun-off its dorms into a separate entity that the court concluded was little more than a legal fiction, and it found the school liable for the violations. The court suggested that a school may be responsible for statutory violations in off-campus housing, where there is a “mandate to liberally construe an Act to achieve the goal of fire safety.” A school may be liable for fire code violations off campus: 1) where there is some affiliation or relationship between the landlord and the school and 2) due to the nature of violated laws—i.e. fire/safety violations.
Risk management concerns
These cases demonstrate a continuum or spectrum of liability exposures for off-campus housing (Fig. 1). Risk management strategies for the liability spectrum, include:
- Language where the student waives any legal claims that they may have against the HEI arising out of off-campus housing issues, assumption of risk or limitation of liability to gross negligence in written information provided to students by an OCHO.
- Remove properties on OCHO list after written complaints—with or without investigation of complaints by the OCHO or other office of the HEI to determine whether the complaints are valid;
- Allow students to rate off-campus housing and landlords in OCHO database.
- Where a college is “arranging” or “offering” off-campus housing pursuant to a written agreement with a landlord, include indemnification, limitation of liability to gross negligence language in the contract, and “Additional Insured” status on landlord’s liability policies.
- Educate/empower students on basic landlord-tenant rights and code violations, including fire safety.
Regarding insurance, if a college or university has potential liability for off-campus housing (“assumed duty,” “offered” or “arranged”):
- Liability policies should contemplate losses taking place at those locations.
- Liability policies should respond to negligence claims, subject to exclusions, terms and conditions whereas a breach of contract claim or a claim arising out of fire-code, housing-code, or building-code violation would likely not be covered by a liability insurance policy.
- If a school has reason to know of pre-existing hazardous conditions in off-campus housing, coverage could be barred.
- If the claim is related to a prior claim or act, there may be no coverage at all, depending on whether the insured knew of the prior matter or provided notice to the insurer.
For an HEI that owns or manages off-campus housing, these same concerns apply to liability policies. Plus, those properties are susceptible to “increase in hazard” theories, which could limit property coverage. (Generally, “increase in hazard” means that where there is an increase in hazard to insured property in the knowledge or control of the insured, insurance coverage will be suspended. If a loss occurs while that coverage is suspended, an insurance claim may be denied.
If the hazard is cured, a loss after the reinstatement is covered. An increase in hazard will generally not be found if there has been merely a casual or temporary change in character of the premises.
An insured’s negligence is not an increase in the hazard, unless it results in a change to the property, use, or occupancy.) Where there is an increase in hazard to insured property, which effects the safety of property–like increase in occupancy in the knowledge or control of the insured, coverage will be jeopardized.
Understanding where an HEI falls on the spectrum of liability exposures is essential to a risk-management strategy.
Mary-Pat Cormier is a partner in the Massachusetts law firm Bowditch & Dewey. This piece originated on the Web site of the New England Board of Higher Education (nebhe.org), on whose editorial board Robert Whitcomb, the overseer of New England Diary, used to sit.
