American higher education stands as a notable success, primarily benefiting those employed within its system. Faculty members and administrators enjoy relatively well-paying and secure positions, supported by pleasant working conditions and attractive perks. However, the core mission of colleges and universities—to educate students—has been increasingly compromised over the last fifty years. The cost of obtaining a degree has soared while the value of the education received by many students has declined, contrary to trends in most other markets where consumer interests drive competition and improvement.
Paul LeBlanc, president of Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), addresses this troubling dynamic in his book, Students First: Equity, Access, and Opportunity in Higher Education. LeBlanc argues that our higher-education system fails to prioritize students, proposing instead an educational “ecosystem” that better aligns with contemporary needs. His critique carries weight not only because of his leadership role at SNHU but also due to his advisory position to Under Secretary of Education Ted Mitchell during the Obama administration and his membership in the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI).
LeBlanc’s primary contention is that higher education is currently structured around time rather than learning. Traditional college classes and degrees rely on credit hours and semesters, which pose significant obstacles for many students with complex, busy lives. LeBlanc advocates for asynchronous learning opportunities, freeing students from the rigid constraints of credit hours and allowing them to learn at their own pace. This flexibility, he argues, would better serve students’ educational needs, but requires a relaxation of current federal rules on student aid, which are firmly grounded in the credit hour system.
Evidence suggests that students perform better and complete their courses more effectively when they can progress at their own pace. However, the conventional structure of educational institutions—demanding fixed schedules and standardized testing periods—serves the convenience of faculty and staff rather than the students. LeBlanc points out that the grading system is another significant flaw. Faculty members, who often seek favorable student evaluations, may inflate grades, leading to a disconnect between students’ perceived and actual capabilities. To address this, LeBlanc suggests separating teaching and evaluation, as exemplified by Western Governors University.
Furthermore, LeBlanc critiques the accreditation system, describing it as “faith-based.” Accreditation is often granted based on inputs like faculty credentials, library volumes, and mission statements, rather than actual educational outcomes. This system inhibits innovation and the adoption of new teaching approaches, stifling potential improvements in education quality.
LeBlanc envisions a shift towards teaching and assessing competencies, where students are evaluated on what they can do rather than how long it took them to learn it. This approach would allow for greater flexibility and alignment with real-world skills and knowledge. For example, in a competency-based system, students could earn credentials by demonstrating their mastery of required knowledge and skills, irrespective of where or how they learned them. This model could enhance the employability of graduates by providing employers with clear evidence of students’ abilities.
However, implementing such a transformation requires significant changes to the current system. LeBlanc calls for the government to liberalize financial aid rules to allow for more experimental and flexible educational programs. He points to SNHU’s experience with fully online degree programs as an example of how regulatory flexibility can facilitate innovation.
Despite the potential benefits, LeBlanc’s vision faces substantial challenges from the entrenched interests within the higher education system. Bureaucratic inertia and the vested interests of existing institutions make significant reforms difficult. Moreover, the heavy involvement of the federal government in financing and regulating higher education poses additional obstacles to creating a more student-centric system.
One potential solution is a broader liberalization of the higher-education system, reducing government intervention to allow for more innovation and competition. This could involve the use of Income Share Agreements (ISAs), where funders invest in students’ education in exchange for a percentage of their future income. ISAs could provide a more market-driven approach to financing education, aligning incentives for both students and educators to focus on developing practical, marketable skills.
The fundamental issue, according to LeBlanc, is that federal policies since 1965 have subsidized traditional institutions and degree programs, discouraging innovation. A more student-friendly system, emphasizing practical training and competency, could have emerged long ago without these regulatory barriers. By clearing the way for new educational models, the government could foster a more dynamic and responsive higher education system that truly puts students first.
Students First is a compelling call for reform, advocating for a shift towards a more flexible, competency-based approach to education. While LeBlanc’s proposals are ambitious, they highlight the need for a fundamental rethinking of how higher education serves its students. By addressing the systemic issues that prioritize institutional convenience over student learning, LeBlanc’s vision offers a potential pathway to a more effective and equitable educational system.
In conclusion, the transformation of higher education to prioritize student needs and competencies is a necessary evolution. While challenges remain, particularly regarding entrenched interests and regulatory frameworks, the potential benefits of such a shift are significant. LeBlanc’s book provides a well-argued case for change, emphasizing the importance of aligning educational practices with the needs and realities of today’s students. As the debate over the future of higher education continues, Students First serves as an important contribution, advocating for reforms that could enhance the value and accessibility of education for all students.
