Higher
Education Opportunity Act
Public Meeting
Chancellor Victor J. Boschini, Jr.
September 19, 2008
[watch
opening remarks video]
(continued)
Nor should we revisit the last six years
of debate on matters that are already settled.
Second, less is more. It is no secret that colleges,
in general, believe that this bill is going to add enormously to
our costs. The burden of the new reporting requirements alone
is mind-boggling. However, the final bill did take a number of
steps to ease this burden. These include using existing IPEDS
definitions; converting several provisions from mandates into institutional
reporting requirements; and using such new tools as postings on
campus Web sites instead of reports to the Department of Education.
I encourage everyone to approach the rulemaking process with the
recognition that often the simplest option is the best – particularly
if such an option is more useful to consumers and is less expensive
as well.
Third, select negotiators who
are legitimate representatives of the affected parties.
At several points during the past decade, negotiators with a
narrow perspective have been chosen to represent broad sectors
of American higher education. This has been a disservice to
the negotiators, who are often torn between allegiance to the
employers who nominated them and allegiance to those they have
been assigned to represent. Admittedly, there is value in having
a variety of campus perspectives represented, as well as views
from beyond Washington. However, there also are many experts in
Washington who are immersed in the details of this legislation
and knowledgeable of both our needs and the intent of Congress.
Please include our legitimate representatives.
|
|
Now there are several areas that I want
to highlight on BEHALF OF PRIVATE COLLEGES.
First, student loan sunshine. Some of the most
complex areas of this legislation are the sections addressing
conflict of interest between colleges and lenders. We welcome
these new guidelines. However, the legislative language is still
a bit murky. Some sections are in Title IV, which is subject
to negotiated rulemaking, while other provisions are in Title
I, which is not. To help restore public confidence in our student
lending practices, these issues must be clarified.
Transfer of credit. This was
one of the most contentious areas throughout the reauthorization
process. Every college must publish its transfer-of-credit policies
and articulation agreements on its Web site. Traditional non-profit
colleges would have preferred no mention of transfer of credit
in law, while for-profit colleges would have preferred federal
mandates on institutional policies. Neither of us got what we
truly wanted, but this is a clear example of Congress having
spoken.
Despite its difficult political history, this provision
should not be difficult to implement. Post-secondary institutions
should be required to post the obligatory information on their
Web site in a manner appropriate to them. College Navigator
should simply link to the section of each institution’s Web site
where this information appears.
New reporting/disclosure requirements.
The new law includes numerous new reports and disclosures in
areas such as fire safety, campus emergency response and file
sharing. Over the years in which reauthorization proposals were
debated, these provisions have been refined in response to concerns
about the costs and complexity they would impose.
1 | 2 | 3 |